Science, as we define, is well-rounded information of a subject that can stand as fact to independent observers. We will expand our definition of science to include empirical data that has not been, or cannot be, proven by the scientific method. However, scientific evidence is significant in that it can transcend cultural boundaries of interpretation disregarding bias, though the importance of such evidence relies on the cultural values of a society. The media is able to portray scientific data in ways that might not accurately reveal the true meaning of the data in order to reflect a specific agenda. Furthermore, popular culture influences what science explores whether this is in terms of studies, topics or hypothesis. Science as a whole is revered as fact, but it sometimes plays a limited role in influencing popular discourse. Everyday the average person is bombarded with news, advertisements and opinions. According to a Consumer Reports study, the average American is exposed to 247 commercials every day. We define media as this very flood of information through text, image and sound, which can be expressed through various forms including television, radio, print and Internet. In the present day of global and instant media, popular discourses are created and are completely dependent upon various forms of media. While some forms and institutions of media are able to provide legitimate facts to the public, oftentimes these facts are biased by agendas to influence and create a popular discourse that agrees with a specific message. This specific message often reflects economic profit or influence.According to Better Brains for Babies, a website that outlines neurological development in children, in the first four years of life, one’s brain reaches 80% of its adult weight. During these early years, constantly influenced by parents, peers, and teachers, the human brain forms the connections that will determine its long-term development. Because of this, media influence on young children is extremely effective because it creates an imprint on their early psyche. This, in turn, affects the opinions they will have and the actions they will take later in life. Media bombardment at early ages limits children’s ability to distinguish between facts and a propagated message. We feel that it has become commonplace in our society to depend upon science in order to form our own opinions about topics within popular culture, however this, oftentimes, can be difficult. This scientific information is communicated through the mass of media that continually confronts society. Various forms of media are able to eschew and distort facts in order to create a popular discourse that is not necessarily dependent upon science or unbiased information. Because the magnitude and value to which science is appraised by popular culture is dependent on social and cultural factors, the media, which also relies on biased culture, is integral in its portrayal of science. Popular culture encompasses a huge and varied expanse of topics and information. It is a fluid entity that is evolving and constantly changing as fads fade in and out. The media, specifically through the Internet, has allowed popular culture to expand globally. This can be seen through Facebook, YouTube and a milieu of news articles, blogs and images. These are prime examples of an expanding culture, by the millions of views and connections available within such networks. Within popular culture we have chosen to focus on four specific topics: global warming, Norwegian black metal, fast food and smoking. Each of these topics covers a different realm within public discourse and will be analyzed to reveal conflicts between science and popular discourse.
The question then arises: why don’t media outlets provide pure fact in their representations of events and issues?
Through our specific studies we will attempt to find an answer as to why media chooses to present information in a manner that threatens objectivity. This objectivity – or rather – claim to objectivity is something that most media organizations cling to in order to give their work credit. Media walks a fine line between fact and opinion and this tension plays out every day in various aspects of society. The various forms of media that society is constantly confronted with every day shape each individual’s opinion, and they attempt to base their opinions on as many facts as possible. However, because many people treat media information as fact, there is a divide between actual fact and what is reported.
Because society is dependent on the media for almost all sources of information, there is a potential for media bias infiltrating every day life and society. This media bias is a result of a lack of direct accountability that the giant corporations have towards individual people, like a local newspaper would. The question then arises, what is the obligation of a media source in conveying news to society? Are they obligated to accurately represent the true facts, or are the individual members of society responsible for individually verifying what the true facts are? The problem with our society is that we are dependent upon these media outlets for most sources of information, and there is no regulation of fact or fiction by any independent entity. Should CNN or Fox News preface every news broadcast with a blurb about how the views and opinions reported on their station do not necessarily represent fact? Our papers will attempt to analyze the role that these media outlets and various marketing strategies play in distorting science and facts to put forth a certain agenda.
Global Warming: Reality or a Distortion of Scientific Data
Is global warming really an important issue that requires all of us to immediately take action to avoid an environmental catastrophe for future generations? Or is all of this global warming hoopla just the manifestation of the natural course of climate change that has occurred over the millennia of the earth’s evolution? Today, scientists and the popular press present arguments on both sides of this issue, but opinion increasingly appears to be shifting in favor of the notion, rightly or wrongly, that the earth is progressively moving toward higher average temperatures and that the impact of these increases could seriously and adversely affect how we live today and the near-term future. In part, this shift in attitude could be attributed to the fact that much of the media seems to be increasingly lopsided in favor of the view that global warming is bad. Why is that? Do the media have a better understanding of what is really happening? Or is the media just doing what it is primarily motivated to do, i.e., make more money by sensationalizing whatever the topic of the day is? Through the use of specific media reports, articles, books by climatologists and court hearings regarding global warming, I plan to show how the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is an example of how the media and popular press can be manipulated into presenting what appears to be factual to influence and persuade the general public’s views on global warming.
Patrick Michaels, a former Research Professor and State Climatologist in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, has shared his insights on the subject of global warming in his book, Climate of Extremes. He says the greenhouse-effect that is causing the earth to warm occurs because different molecules, including carbon dioxide and water, have a unique molecular shape that “allows them to absorb, and then release, radiation emanating from the earth’s surface” (13). The concern is that with the global economy’s emergence from the Industrial Revolution and our increasingly heavy dependence on hydrocarbon fuels, we began emitting much more carbon dioxide than ever before. The increase in these carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels to power our industrial complex, it is argued, is potentially the root cause of the observed incremental increases in average global temperatures.[1]
In order to counteract this crisis caused by carbon emissions, a number of influential groups, like Greenpeace, with its 2.8 million supporters[2], have taken on the goal of reducing society’s carbon footprint and are proselytizing the benefits of reducing our consumption of energy and carbon-based fuels in particular. The populist view picked up by the media in some ways has been stoked by other academics like Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA). He argues that climate change is as much an idea as it is a physical phenomenon. In his view, society can more easily comprehend the scientific facts associated with global warming because individuals each day are confronted with the “observable realities of climate change” (Preface xxv, Hulme). Hulme realizes that since there is daily human observation of the effects of climate change, global warming has become an idea that is discussed by more than just scientists.
This shift from science to the public domain has also caused there to be shift in the definition of climate change, allowing Hulme to claim it is not a “fact waiting to be discovered, proved, or disproved” and neither is it a “problem waiting for a solution” (Preface xxviii). He believes that a sense of urgency must be created to address the potential causes today, so that future generations will not be saddled with cataclysmic consequences. Given the potential significance of these longer-term effects, it is no wonder that the popular press and other media have also taken notice, and used the sensationalism of such prospects to draw the attention of both the general public and politicians as well. While the causes and the issues surrounding global climate change and its effects are extremely complex, the mere mention of global warming now conjures up significant reactions in all types of political and social gatherings.
To illustrate the effect of the media’s influence on the public, we can look at the popularity of hybrid-electric cars, especially the Toyota Prius. Even in the most recent Great Recession, with overall automobile sales in America down by 21% from 2008 to 2009, sales of the Toyota Prius continued to rise by a massive 49.8%. Similarly, sales of a number of other less carbon polluting car models also increased during the economic downturn.7 Some of these increases can be explained by the U.S. government’s incentive programs implemented in 2009 to stimulate the economy. These programs, like Cash-For-Clunkers, offered tax incentives of up to $3,400 for purchases of hybrids and other more fuel efficient cars in exchange for less fuel efficient vehicles that were then taken off of the roads. Even larger incentives were provided for purchases of fully electric cars.[3] But, many people also purchased these types of cars because they realized that the improved technology associated with hybrid and electric cars are necessary to preserve our environment.[4] While buying and driving a more energy efficient and less polluting car will certainly contribute to reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide, are such efforts really likely to make a big difference in stemming the deleterious effects on climate change of burning hydrocarbon fuels? While the media continues to tell us that green technology will work, taking a closer look at the real science behind the sensationalist headlines could reveal that global warming may not be as serious as we might think.
According to an article titled “The Market for News”, the media representation of any issue contains a heavy bias, which can “come from the supply side, and reflect the preferences of journalists, editors, or owners”, or “it can come from the demand side, and reflect the news providers’ profit-maximizing choice to cater to the preferences of the consumers” (Mullainathan and Shleifer, 1031). In other words, the media’s portrayal of information is inherently biased, either because it reflects the personal biases of the reporters, or the information is presented in such a way that it will be more appealing to a broader audience to sell more information, i.e., the profit motive. “Audiences want their sources not only to inform but also to explain, interpret, persuade, and entertain” (1031). In order to persuade viewers to continue to buy or watch their offerings, purveyors of information must “entertain” as well as inform, even if the truth may be “stretched” in the process.
Perhaps the most influential political persona to take up the cause against global warming is Al Gore, who helped produce An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy award in 2007 for Best Documentary. As a young man, Gore worked as a reporter both in Tennessee, where he grew up, and in the army during the Vietnam War. Following his father into politics, he then was elected to serve in the Tennessee legislature, and then served as Senator in the U.S. Congress. Mr. Gore was selected as Mr. Clinton’s running mate in the 1992 Presidential Election and served as Vice President with the Clinton Administration for two terms. It was in that capacity where he began to express his concerns for the environment.[5] After losing the Presidential election to George W. Bush in 2000, Gore turned his attention and communications savvy into promulgating the potential effects of global warming to persuade many viewers around the world to become more green.
Rarely do documentary films become major box office hits, but The Inconvenient Truth is an example of the exception. As a marketing ploy to grab the public’s attention, the posters advertising the documentary use red type-face for the word “inconvenient” in the title. Above this title is an image of a power plant, belching smoke that swirls up into a twisting black cloud in the air (see Appendix A). The implication is that the byproduct of carbon-based fuels not only fuels our economy but also causes bad weather and of course global warming. Almost everyone around the globe knows about massive hurricanes and other disasters that have recently occurred, like Hurricane Katrina and the volcanic eruption in Iceland. Such images often generate negative feelings and worries that such disasters might happen to them. Causality between a twisting cloud of smoke and a hurricane may in reality not exist, but the image creates the impression that it may.
The text used on his documentary poster states that his film will be “by far the most terrifying film you will ever see”. Here, he is projecting his opinion that finding out about this “inconvenient truth” will be horrifying to the viewer of the film. However, the film is not really a horror movie at all. Gore also plays a bit with his own words; a global warning sparks the thought that the movie is also a “warning” to the world, that climate change could adversely affect our lives and society. In addition, the color choice of text used on the poster supports Gore’s goal of illustrating the urgency and seriousness of the topic. By highlighting “inconvenient” in bold red text, he emphasizes the imperative to combat global warming. The word “truth”, by comparison is in white type-face, which indicates the purity of his arguments. However, such rhetorical techniques do not always tell the real truth.
By using the narrative, documentary format, Gore develops his storyline to imply that various past and future natural disasters are due to anthropogenic climate change, all within the context of what appears to be scientific evidence. The technique of using a documentary film style to communicate can be a very effective way to convey complex issues and influence opinions across a broad spectrum of people with different backgrounds and inherent biases. Attracting a large audience to see the film has also been aided by his notoriety and the fact that most people around the world worry about the potential effects a natural disaster on their own lives. These fears have been enhanced the perception that occurrences of natural disasters appear to be on the rise. According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, some of these disasters have been attributed to global warming. Their World Disasters Report 2005 admits that the “media coverage of the world’s crises [is] selective and stereotyped”, suggesting that many other natural events often take place that are not even reported (World Disasters Report 2005). With technology allowing us to better document natural disasters and the media’s “selective” coverage, it’s hard to say whether or not there has been a significant increase in natural disasters since the Industrial Revolution. This raises an important question: What is the real truth behind An Inconvenient Truth?
According to many critics and scientists around the world, Gore’s documentary is a prime example of how much the truth can be stretched; both the movie and his book on the topic that was published soon after the movie’s release are very short on science and very long on exaggerations and logical arguments that are not factually-based.[6] Some critics have suggested that Gore’s documentary was primarily an attempt to raise public awareness that would translate into action by the U.S. Congress to pass a law to help fight global warming. It is interesting that despite the popularity of the movie and the resulting media coverage, no such legislation has yet been passed. Nonetheless, Gore’s message and opinions have still gained wide popularity around the world. Why is this the case?
Some of the movie’s popularity is due in part to the techniques Gore uses to evoke emotion and empathy from the audience. For example, he intersperses into the documentary various scenes about his own live, including one about how his son was hit by a car, in order to show the pain he has personally gone through over the years. While basically irrelevant to the message of global warming and its impacts, this technique can be very effective in creating a mood that allows the audience to be more easily persuaded by his arguments. He also makes a strong point that global warming “is really not a political issue so much as [it is] a moral issue. If we allow [CO2 emissions to increase],” he states “it is deeply unethical” (Guggenheim 24:20). By transforming his truths into a moral issue, Gore’s movie has successfully persuaded many viewers, readers, and listeners around the world to embrace his views and believe that they are on the side of right and truth.
In the film Gore also takes on the controversy about what is true regarding whether or not global warming is really happening, stating that it “has been deliberately created by a relatively small group of people” (Guggenheim 1:12:45). He cites a study that compiled scientific, peer-reviewed articles over the past ten years to see how many disagreed with the consensus that humans are causing global warming. He makes the point that he reviewed “a big sample of ten percent of all the published articles” (Guggenheim 1:12:25). Even if the ten percent were a random sample, the number is still not a very good statistical representation. Who’s to say the ten percent they chose were picked because they all agreed with Gore’s arguments? He goes on to say that the group of people who created this controversy drafted a memorandum at the beginning of their effort, which stated their objective is to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” (1:12:55). Sure, global warming is a theory, because it is just a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural. Many scientists disagree about the causes and potential outcomes. Gore, however, attempts to twist the word “theory” in such a way that the audience will believe that these scientists consider global warming to be only a theory and not a real phenomenon. This leads us to believe that Gore could quite possibly be ridiculing this “small group of [scientists]”, who never stated they did not believe in global warming, in order to cover the fact that his arguments are not based on concrete evidence.
Unfortunately, sometimes the rhetoric associated with political advocacy for change can take on a more violent tone, even when it is supported by the majority. According to a recent article in the New York Times, called the “The Climate-Change Defense”, members of the Greenpeace organization vandalized a power plant in England. Their actions resulted in closing down the plant for a full day, in an effort to reduce the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions. The protesters claimed they “averted more than $1.5 million worth of damage to human health and wealth around the globe” (Mingle). In their defense before the court, the protesters claimed that this one power plant caused significant detrimental impacts on humans every day it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The jury ultimately accepted their common-sense defense as a “lawful excuse” (property damage in order to prevent catastrophe). Not surprisingly, such a verdict was welcome news to and heartily embraced by all political activists involved in the green revolution. Similar to An Inconvenient Truth, this event represents a potential shift in public opinion that positions the providers of our needed power supplies as the bad guys. These protesters are akin to the so-called saboteurs, who, during the Industrial Revolution in France, threw their shoes into the manufacturing machines in order to call attention to the poor working conditions and a need for improved worker rights.[7]
In the movie, Gore states that his son’s death inspired him to pursue the crusade against global warming. In order to develop his quest, he traveled to Antarctica, the South Pole, the North Pole, and the Amazon, all on his private jet! It is a bit ironic that in his pursuit to gather the truth about global warming and reducing carbon emissions, he in fact added significantly to his own carbon footprint. In addition, he and his wife own a ten thousand square-foot, twenty room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, TN, and a four thousand square-foot home in Arlington, VA, as well as a third property in Tennessee (Schweizer). Does a two person family really need such large energy-consuming houses? This all seems just a bit contradictory, when he is advocating at the same time that the world’s population should become greener.
Another inconsistency in Gore’s narrative involves his description of his childhood experience working on his family’s tobacco farm. It is somewhat surprising to learn that he continued to grow tobacco on his own farm even after the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health conclusively showed the correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. Today, Gore claims that he wishes he had stopped raising tobacco earlier, but he and his father knew that the side effects of smoking tobacco were bad and for economic reasons continued to grow it anyways. While on the one hand Gore advocates that others should take a stand against global warming and change how they live, on the other he appears to be unwilling to make substantial changes in his own life in support of his beliefs. It seems as though Gore is at the very least, hypocritical.
To conclude his film, Gore begins recollecting on past accomplishments that have happened in the U.S., as a tactic to show how much could be at stake if viewers do not take action. He cites various achievements, such as landing on the moon as an example of how when the U.S. sets a goal, its people will accomplish that goal. He states “we have to use our political processes in our democracy and then decide to act together to solve” the issue of global warming (Guggenheim, 1:26:28). Here, at last, is his call to action. He asks the audience to come together to fight for global warming by lobbying our government. At the end of the film, with a soothing piano piece playing in the background, he shows an image of a small pale-blue dot that encompasses the earth from four billion miles away. He says “it’s our only home and that is what is at stake: our ability to live on planet earth” (1:27:30). Here, Gore attempts to sensationalize our planet into a small dot to show how we could easily be swept away and the universe would go on about its “life” without us. This message is easily portrayed while the music soothes the audience into a comfortable state in which Gore sounds more like an informative friend than a lecturer. His rhetoric skills and logic help him to play a significant influential role even if his scientific evidence is twisted and skewed.
Therefore, we must take a closer look at what separates science from public opinion. Mike Hulme also argues that “scientific knowledge is conditional, contains inescapable elements of subjectivity, and can change as beliefs change” (91). He defines science as an ideology that is somewhat similar to public opinion. In his view, science today has shifted from a process of controlled experimentation that either proves or disproves a hypothesis to defining a hypothesis and subjecting it to a very specific set of conditional ideas. This latter process, he argues, can result in revealing a preconceived conclusion that may not be scientifically accurate.
As an example, Hulme analyzes the uncertainties scientists encounter and how they react to those uncertainties. He states, “it is legitimate for [scientists] to reveal their degree of belief that a prediction will turn out to be correct” (85, Hulme). But often, reports of their results by the media are sensationalized and circulated without providing background or highlighting the possible errors in such predictions. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses sophisticated statistical models to help predict changes to our climate, that test the direct correlation between observed global temperatures and the model’s predictions.
Based on this research, Mr. Rohrabacher, a senior member of the Science Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, has testified that the “oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture have no relationship to the observed state … in any of the IPCC models” (United States, Kyoto). He goes on to argue that because of this lack of a proven statistical relationship, “there is not a scientific certainty.” Rohrabacher points out that there is, in fact, no correlation between certain tested moistures, which relate to temperatures, and the model’s predictions. This allows him, as well as Hulme, to argue that there is no certainty or “truth” to any of the science behind global warming. Hulme continues by saying, “if it is not certain whether an event will occur or not, something has to substitute for this lack of certainty” (85). Through use of available observations, physical theory and modeling, scientists create informed guesses about future outcomes. These models are “only as smart as the scientists who build them”, because they rely on data observed in the past and on computers to run them, which are not necessarily fast enough or sophisticated enough to accurately model reality (Fahrenthold). Despite these observations, Gore still used the results of these predictive models as the basis for many of the claims he makes in his documentary.
According to Hulme and other scientists of the “old school”, what is really true can never be revealed by any one experiment. A single experiment cannot account for errors that may likely occur by performing a series of the same experiment. As a result, Gore’s attempt to enlighten the public about his “inconvenient truth” may not be supported by a preponderance of supporting scientific evidence and may actually foreshadow the real “truth” that has now been “inconvenienced” by the multitude of reviews and scientists who have rejected his claims. It is interesting to consider that Gore’s original intentions were to inconvenience oil manufacturers, but in fact his lack of evidence may now inconvenience his own arguments.
There is no question that government incentives for embracing green technology and the media’s increased attention to the negative impacts of global warming have influenced public opinion and action to demand more efficient and hybrid cars. While it is hard to say whether or not anthropogenic global warming will increase as time goes on, it is apparent that people like Al Gore have definitely succeeded in influencing the public toward their views regarding this issue. It is also certainly important to note that scientific data can also be suspect in terms of explaining the “truth” and should always be treated with caution and potentially subjective and conditional. Regardless, it is evident that the media and public opinion play a larger role than science when it comes to dealing with and reacting to the notion of global warming. Given all of these uncertainties, we are still left with the question of what is truth, and who should we trust to communicate that truth.
Works Cited
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. Documentary, 2006. Film.
Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. Print.
Michaels, Patrick J. and Robert C. Balling Jr. Climate Of Extremes. Cato Institute: Washington, D.C., 2009. Print.
Mingle, Jonathan. “The Climate-Change Defense.” New York Times MM50 14 Dec. 2008. Print.
Mullainathan, Sendhil and Andrei Shleifer. "The Market for News." The American Economic Review, Vol. 95, No. 4 (Sep., 2005), pp. 1031-1053. Print.
Schweizer, Peter. “Gore isn’t quite as green as he’s led the world to believe.” USA Today. 7 Dec. 2006. Print <>
United States. Cong. House of Representatives. Committee On Foreign Affairs. The Kyoto Protocol: An Update. Hearing. 11 Jul. 2007. 110th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2008.
World Disasters Report 2005 - Chapter 6: “Humanitarian media coverage in the digital age.” International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Appendix A
[1] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
[2] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/faq/questions-about-greenpeace-in
[3] http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml
[4] http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/bill-faq
[5] http://www.studentske.sk/anglictina/Al_Gore;_biography.htm
[6] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301071,00.html
[7] It appears that “sabot” means wooden shoe or clog in French, which is the derivation of the word sabotage because these workers threw their clogs into the machines when they were displeased.
Smoking Tobacco: A Product of Popular Discourses and Scientific Evidence:
Tobacco, first introduced early in the 9th century in Central America, was quickly popularized in Europe and then the Western world by means of trade, influence, and interaction. Currently a multibillion dollar industry, cigarettes has found their niche in just about every culture around the world. However, the instance of cigarettes in the contemporary United States is largely a 20th century phenomenon. The target of different popular discourses, the image of tobacco is primarily the result of dominant discursive formations. Within the scope of the youth culture of the United States, public perceptions of smoking cigarettes are created and filtered through the lens of advertisements and campaigns from tobacco industries and health organizations. In this specific case, I will examine the interplay between these discursive forces and how that can affect the individual’s position on smoking tobacco.
In order to conduct a thorough close reading of this specific case, it is important to note that these discursive forces are derived from a history that is equally as complex. Tobacco, with increasing social stigma, has been one of the main consternations of the nation. Due to increases in medical technology and health movements, the adverse health effects of smoking tobacco are more widely known to the public. However, tobacco has been present in the United States since the time of its creation. Furthermore, with its capacity to be taxed, tobacco sales generate important revenue for the state. Especially now in difficult economic standing, these discourses created from tobacco industries, to protect their shareholders and private interests, easily surface with the opposing discourses generated by health organizations. These resulting discourses then filter the scientific evidence in ways that they find appropriate, thereby having some effect on the individual’s mind.
Popular discourse, in its most predominant form in US culture, is the proliferation of media and advertisements that have access to the public. With this complex historical relationship between these two discourses, I will investigate each individual force, and after assessing their function in the role of smoking cigarettes, I will utilize them and establish their effectiveness in my close reading of United States culture. Also noting that the discourses created from tobacco industries and health organizations are necessarily on the extreme opposites on the spectrum, I realize there are many important areas in between these poles and will also account for their significance. Lastly, I will employ my findings into a specific object – youth culture in the United States.
Firstly, I will investigate the implications of the discourses created by the tobacco industry. To set the tone for current events, Congress banned the advertisement of tobacco on radio and television in 1986. According to the International Development Research Center (IDRC), “Tobacco companies know they are under siege, thus, the basic strategy is to hold off the inevitable. (3)” The inevitable, of course, is a time in which smoking is banned or they start making less and less profit off of cigarettes. This type of thought ultimately governs the discourse that they release to the public. As mentioned before, the social stigma of cigarettes is largely a 20th century phenomena due to increased medical research and health movements. So the discourse that they release must filter scientific evidence in such a way that does not befall their private interests. Furthermore, according to the IDRC, “[this survival strategy] can be mainly seen with the 9 D’s: denying the consequences of smoking, deceiving potential customers, damaging the credibility of their opponents, delaying legislation, etc…” In relation with this, advertisements from tobacco industries in the United States gloss over these types of facts (See Appendix A). As a response to these advertisement bans and social stigma, tobacco industries no longer produce billboards, relying mainly on subtle influences, like promotional matches and lighters.
According to the authors of “Medical Costs of Smoking in the US,” the tobacco industry has agreed to pay the states twenty-five million dollars “in an attempt to avoid further litigation, fearing these expenditure-based suits. (Warner 290)” In this sense, the discourses from the tobacco industry are purely profit driven. So how does this relate to scientific evidence? Simply put, with the proliferation of anti-smoking movements, tobacco industries know their stakes are at great risk. In the United States, with the huge impact of medical technology and the media, discourses are now created with this constituency in mind. These discourses can be seen to filter scientific evidence in this specific way – not including them, or ignoring them outright. According to the IDRC, “truth is not a priority of this industry. (3)” The legality of the previous statement can be seen in terms of the evidence that they provide – advertisements from tobacco industries do not acknowledge these adverse health effects, and the subtle promotional items do not give light to these consequences. Discourses created by the tobacco industry promote thoughts in which these health effects are undermined. Scientific evidence does not seem to play a role in the popular discourse generated by tobacco industries.
On the other hand, I will analyze the discourses created by health organizations. Conversely, the motive behind these health organizations is health driven, whereas the tobacco industries were primarily profit driven. Furthermore, the relationship between popular discourse and scientific evidence will change accordingly; scientific role plays the primary role when it is filtered through popular discourse. Expanding upon the popularized adverse health effects like lung cancer, discourses created by these health organizations employ creative art to communicate these ideas more effectively (See Appendix C). Also looking at popular anti-smoking organizations such as “Above the Influence” and “The Truth,” I will assess their functionality in terms of a popular discourse to further discuss my close reading. Although discourses that arise from these health movements follow a general formula, I will investigate a specific object. These created discourses often depict graphic, provocative images that are specifically aimed at the individual. However, health movements are free to roam about radio as well as television to approach their audience. While pro-smoking advertisements on television is banned, health organizations are free to employ any discourse they choose without the competition of tobacco industries. According to the American Heart Association, “The tobacco industry has long targeted young people with its cigarette advertising and promotional campaigns,” and likewise, both the popular organizations of “Above the Influence” and “The Truth” constantly create commercials depicting the effect of smoking while catering to young adults.
Simply put, discourses that arise from tobacco industries are profit driven. These popular discourses do not use scientific evidence as a constituent when they are delivered to the public. Primarily due to the proliferation of health issues and social stigma, tobacco industries are unable to incorporate health effects because that would ultimately undermine their profits. On the contrary, discourses that are fabricated by health organizations and movements are completely dependent upon scientific evidence as the fundamental base for their appeal. In this sense, health-driven popular discourses attempt to elaborate and communicate effectively to their audience. With regards to both of these extreme cases, discourses created from each factor are on the same spectrum, only at different ends. However, one thing is overlooked. To assume that the issue of smoking in the United States is bilateral is to generalize and gloss over the intermediates, which is very unbefitting of a close reading. With the positionality of both these discourses established, I will now turn to a case where the boundaries of these two discourses are loosely defined and open to interpretation.
Also a form of media, movies have been crucial in their influence to the public. Engrossing viewers in their whole sphere of discourse, movies may leave more lasting impressions to the public more effectively than just short transient advertisements. I will analyze a movie titled, I’m Not There, a creative interpretation of the documentary of American songwriter Bob Dylan. This theme is very much appropriate because my close reading of smoking is limited to the United States, and this movie incorporates both discourses generated from tobacco industries and health organizations, while being in an American setting. With the fundamental parts of this argument established, I now arrive to the crux of my previous proposition – how does each discourse function together to form a public perception on smoking? Using this movie as an example, I will shed some light into the complex interplay between these two discourses, and any other intermediates that result from their interaction.
In I’m Not There, Bob Dylan is portrayed by numerous characters that are said to be inspired by his life. Although the race, color, and gender of each character may be different, together they collaboratively form the director’s interpretation of Bob Dylan. One thing that is pervasive throughout the movie is cigarettes. Robbie Clark, an actor portraying Bob Dylan, is rarely seen without his tobacco fix. While Robbie Clark is seen as successful in the story, a discourse created around success and cigarettes may be developed by the audience. As he huffs casually on his cigarette while doing his daily routine, theatrical and romantic success seems to come easily and naturally. However, later on the story, his relationship begins to go downhill as well as his career. Meanwhile, he still smokes cigarettes like he did before. In the end, his wife leaves along with custody of his children, leaving him alone by himself. Within this character, cigarettes are his constant companion through success and failures. Relating them to popular discourse, combining the two previous thoughts to this character results in a discursive formation in which the public perception of smoking is received. Although smoking is seen as hip and urban through Robbie Clark, he ultimately loses many things that he has gained. Possibly offering a confluence from popular discourse and scientific evidence, the character of Robbie Clark seems to portray this type of connection – he is the center of attention, especially when he was acting, showing the social connections and attractiveness of smoking. However, he later loses everything that he worked for, and ultimately is alone at the end, representing the adverse health effects of smoking. In my close reading of the movie, I relate Robbie Clark and his accompanying cigarettes to be same figure. As Robbie skyrockets to success, the discourses of the tobacco companies are shown. During his downfall, as he starts to decline, the discourses of health organizations surfaces. Within the scope of this movie, Robbie Clark and the image of cigarettes are one.
Analyzing another interesting figure in the movie, Jude Quinn, can also give significant insight on the perceptions of cigarettes. Being immensely popular, the character of Jude Quinn is similar to Robbie Clark. Analogous to Robbie Clark, Jude Quinn is also seen constantly smoking cigarettes. At the height of his success, especially in the party scene, he is shown to have romantic and personal problems. In the end of the scene he is seen throwing up and needing to be escorted out. Despite his musical success, he is seen largely as an introverted insomniac, staying up late to write his reflections on medication and cigarettes. With his conversation to Mr. Jones, a popular BBC reporter, he states that it is impossible to define him solely in terms of black and white, only shades of grey. He says this while smoking cigarettes, and in my close reading, I will also connect these two objects together. In fact, resulting popular perceptions about smoking is not largely bilateral – each discourse affects an individual arbitrarily, so the result is largely much like Quinn’s discussion of these shades of grey.
The Hood Center, a research program of Dartmouth University, assessed movie smoking exposure of teen sports players in the United States… “and the more movie smoking that is [seen]… the greater likelihood that they will be smokers. (5)” The media’s portrayal of these smokers does in fact have a profound affect on the audience, especially youth culture. These shades of grey can further explain why this relationship between popular discourse and scientific evidence is so complicated. An individual is subjected to a multitude of different discourses, and their resulting perception may be just as complex. As wrong as it is to generalize that popular discourses contain only the extremes of tobacco industries and health movements, it follows that an equally inappropriate generalization to discuss public perceptions in these extremes as well.
Because I have explored both discourses and their interplay, I can ask an important question – can public perceptions be formed without this relationship between popular discourse and scientific evidence? I would like to examine another specific case within United States culture. Nichter, in her article “Smoking as a Weight-Control Strategy among Adolescent Girls and Young Women,” examines this particular issue. A brief overview of this case would suggest that that this case is beyond popular discourse and scientific evidence. The first introspective look implies that these young women choose to smoke for a personal reason. However, Nichter goes on to explain how “tobacco use among adolescent girls is on the rise in part because of the industry’s portrayal of smoking as a way to be slim, fashionable, and feminine. (Nichter 306)” Although, she explains, the causes of this choice are indeed very personal, the individual in question is not free of the influence of popular discourses. Due in parts to the tobacco’s industry’s discourses, young women are more pressured to feel like they must also smoke. Nichter furthers this discussion with some evidence, stating that “several studies have found that girls who diet or who express more concern with their weight initiate smoking at higher rates than non-dieters. (Nichter 306)” Clearly, there is a connection between popular discourse and individual discretions.
So far I have analyzed many of the factors that contribute to US youth culture initiating to smoke. I have found through my research that this individual perception about smoking is indeed heavily influenced by popular discourses. Popular discourses, are in major part from the tobacco companies and health organizations, but also may incorporate these “shades of grey,” when they are combined. With the specific case of adolescent girls in the United States, it is seen that a personal decision is not always so simple. Being exposed to social pressures like peers, advertising, and the media, it is impossible or an individual to escape the realm of social discourses. And thus, in my object, individual decisions are heavily dependent on these discourses. However, there is another important question that arises from this discussion. I have seen that the initiation to smoke by US youth culture is indeed linked to these discourses, but what about the attempt to quit smoking? And to quit smoking, do these popular discourses and scientific evidence play the same role?
I will now begin to explore these questions. According to the website of Phillip Morris (www.pmusa.com), the largest tobacco company in the United States, they seemingly support attempts to quit smoking. Articles located on the main page point to a wide variety of adverse health effects and even link to professional counseling. In their mission statement, they employ their “deep understanding of adult tobacco consumer needs.” With a whole section devoted to prevention in adolescent culture, it is clear that the social stigma that comes allow with cigarettes plays a huge role when it comes to quitting. Popular discourse, ironically, when it comes to quitting, transmits scientific evidence faithfully, and does not undermine it as in initiation advertisements. Furthermore, Phillip Morris asserts their ecological standing by stating that they support green movements. Popular discourse, at least, in the sense of quitting, portrays tobacco industries as benevolent organizations that are concerned with the individual health and the environment. Ironically, scientific evidence plays the major role in this discourse.
However, this is contradictory to the discourses released by tobacco countries in trying to get people to smoke. Why is it that tobacco companies will resort to subtle subliminal advertising if they are unable to release blatant visible discourses? Furthermore, concerning people that are trying to quit, why is it logical that tobacco companies support them quitting after working so hard to get them to start? Put simply, the answer to question lies in the social stigma and profit visions of their market itself. In order to lessen this social stigma of cigarettes, tobacco companies must allow people to quit. Additionally, they not only allow people to quit, they help them quit, providing them with counseling and expert help. However, to protect their market and their private interests, they must still have people that smoke their brand of cigarettes. In this way, they release two different kinds of discourses – one aimed at the individual, initiating them to smoke. The other discourse is for the sole purpose of portraying themselves in a benevolent light to lessen their social stigma. In an ironic statement released by Phillip Morris in their mission statement, they “wish to expand their market share… but do not wish for adults to start smoking. Nor do [they] wish for kids to start smoking.” This mission statement encompasses the complexities of the discourses that they release. Paradoxically, they must release discourses in an attempt to mitigate the effects of social stigma while upholding their market shares.
I will now reflect upon the advertisements created by health organizations. Being continuous, these discourses depict scientific evidence faithfully from start to finish. The main reason for this is that the discourses created from tobacco industries are largely profit driven. The actions of Phillip Morris is aiding people to quit is to portray themselves in a positive light. Whereas these tobacco industry discourses target the market, the discourses from health organizations target individual health. It would follow that their aim does not change from the beginning. At the start, discourses from health organizations aim for people to quit smoking, or to never start, explaining their continuity. While the goals of tobacco companies change in order to protect their industry, discourses released from health organizations do not, because individual health is their sole interest. Without the influences of protecting market shares or private interests, the discourses of health organizations can be static. In terms of kicking the habit, I will analyze the interplay between these two discourses. Contrary to the ones released in the initiation of smoking, the discourses released for the act of quitting no longer impose each other, but rather deliver the same message, help, and counsel for people seeking it. In this sense, they are complimentary to each other and both help people to quit.
So how do these discourses affect individuals who try to quit smoking? According to the study conducted between the programs of the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Tobacco Institute, the main factors that were most successful were: parents as good role models, health consequences of smoking, and positive peer pressure (Debon 20). Not surprisingly, these are the same factors that can initiate smoking. According to an article “Psychosocial factors related to Adolescent Smoking,” the authors assert that some of the most dominant factors are: parental smoking and attitudes, peer pressure, and norms (Tyas 410). The same factors that can initiate an individual to smoke can also help them quit and both discourses from tobacco companies and health movements take advantage of that, placing a huge emphasis on these factors.
A close reading of US youth culture, employing the findings from a close analysis of the different factors of smoking tobacco, reveals that youths are heavily influenced by these popular discourses. Whether it is a discourse generated from a tobacco industry or health organizations, the discourse created simply from the individual’s family must not be overlooked. Peers and family, according to the authors of “Psychosocial Factors related to Adolescent Smoking” further demonstrate this with specific evidence. Youths that come from an environment where one or both parents smoke are more likely to pick up the habit. Conversely, youths that come from a household where there is a social stigma of cigarettes usually do not develop into smokers.
Summing up these findings, the individual’s feelings toward smoking can be largely generated from two main factors, discourses from tobacco industries and discourses from health industries. In the initiation phase of smoking, these two discourses are seen to contradict each other. While tobacco industries must somehow protect their private interests, they release discourses, whether directly or subtly, portray smoking to be attractive and fun, ignoring the adverse health effects and discourses generated from health organizations. In the quitting phase of smoking, tobacco industries must protect their image and mitigate the effects of social stigma that tobacco carries to sustain their business. On the other hand, discourses released from health organizations are fluid throughout both phases, because they are health oriented and do not have to worry about underlying interests. As a result, tobacco must be analyzed as a discursive formation, and individual feelings are formed with the scission, cooperation, or conflict between these two.
Work Cited:
1.) DeBon, Margaret, and Robert C. Klesges. "Adolescents' Perceptions about Smoking Prevention Strategies: A Comparison of the Programmes of the American Lung Association and the Tobacco Institute." Tobacco Control 5.1 (1996): 19-25. JStor. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.
2.) Haynes, Todd dir. I’m Not There. Perfs. Cate Blanchett, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, Ben Whishaw, Marcus Franklin. Killer Films, 2007.
3.) Masters of Manipulation: Tobacco-industry Tactics: International Development Research Centre. International Development Research Centre. Web. 10 May 2010. .
4.) Nichter, Mimi. "Smoking as a Weight-Control Strategy among Adolescent Girls and Young Women: A Reconsideration." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 18.3 (2004): 305-24. AnthroSource. Web. 8 May 2010.
5.) "Team Sports and Smoking." The Hood Center for Children and Families. Web. 6 May 2010. .
6.) Tyas, Suzanne L., and Linda L. Pederson. "Review Article: Psychosocial Factors Related to Adolescent Smoking: A Critical Review of the Literature." Tobacco Control 7.4 (1998): 409-20. JStor. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.
7.) Warner, Kenneth E., Thomas A. Hodgson, and Caitlin E. Carroll. "Medical Costs of Smoking in the United States: Estimates, Their Validity, and Their Implications." Tobacco Control 8.3: 290-300. JStor. Web. 7 May 2010.
A.
B.
Early Norwegian Black Metal: Varg Vikernes, Satanism and Media
The evil and destruction of Norwegian Black Metal was a common news story in the early 1990’s. A spate of church burnings and a murder awakened a faction who sought to vilify and condemn those involved. This paper will give a close-reading to a series of the more formative and influential events approximately between 1991 and 1994 which have come to epitomize early Norwegian Black Metal. The way in which these events were interpreted, portrayed and then circulated by the media and the effects therein will also be explored. During the early 1990’s, media coverage portrayed members of the Black Metal scene as insensitive satanic terrorists. My purpose is not to defend nor malign any aspect or attitude of Black Metal, as that has already been done and will continue to be done by others. Rather I seek to expose the faults of this description through these formative events and first-hand accounts of artists within the genre. Finally, I will suggest an explanation for the popular adumbration which occurred through the media’s account of the beliefs and actions of these individuals.
The band Mayhem began in 1984 by Øystein Aarseth (whose stage name, ‘Euronymous’, allegedly means “prince of death” in Greek) and was inspired by earlier groups such as Bathory, Venom, Slayer and Celtic Frost. Vocalist Pelle Yngve Ohlin’s reputably melancholic and depressive personality was epitomized in his own stage name, ‘Dead’. To live up to this name Ohlin would bury his clothes to achieve a legitimate appearance of decay, keep a dead crow in jar which he would occasionally smell to obtain the scent of death, initiating and popularizing corpse-paint and serious self-mutilation. Each of these actions was an attempt to represent an embodiment of death itself. Death has repeatedly played a large part in metal music as well as many other genres. One explanation holds that “adolescent revolt so often involves of a turn towards the symbolism of death [because] such symbols mark the exits from the convivial homeostasis of existing society, and serve as portals to the land of the dead” (Fox 45). Ohlin’s morbid practices were unquestionably ‘portals to the land of the dead’ as each one brought an element of death (i.e. decay, sense, appearance, experience) into his life and the lives of those around him.
In the spring of 1991, Ohlin committed suicide in a house outside Oslo that was shared by the band. When Aarseth returned home he found Ohlin with slit wrists and shotgun to the head. Aarseth proceeded to make minor rearrangements to the scene and took pictures before calling the police or contacting any other band members. He allegedly collected small pieces of Ohlin’s scattered skull which he gave to friends as talismanic jewelry. It is also rumored that Aarseth ate a small amount of Ohlin’s brains “‘so he could claim himself a cannibal’” (Moynihan and Søderlind 59). Aarseth’s reaction to Ohlin’s death seems callous and disturbing, especially considering that the two young men had been good friends and collaborators for several years. It seems that Aarseth did not think twice about the loss of Ohlin, but instead preoccupied himself with what he could gain from it. Although these actions are undeniably harsh, Aarseth’s actions may have been driven solely by his own fascination with death that was not as well-versed as Ohlin’s or his own form of grief. In 1995, one of the pictures of Ohlin’s suicide was released as the cover to a bootleg live Mayhem album, Dawn of the Black Hearts (Appendix A).
After Ohlin’s death, “Aarseth appeared to feel little sorrow over the loss of Dead [and] glorif[ied] his violent departure in order to cultivate a further mystique of catastrophe surrounding the band [and]… as part of an ongoing war against other music scenes from which Mayhem had now fully distanced itself” (Moynihan and Søderlind 59). In a 1992 interview, Aarseth stated that “[Ohlin] killed himself because he lived only for the true old black metal scene and lifestyle… [he] died for this cause and now I have declared war!” (Moynihan and Søderlind 60). It seems that Ohlin’s suicide was most directly the result of his personal obsession with death and desire to experience it himself. Furthermore, is almost humorous to think that Ohlin might have killed himself for a musical scene that had been created and subsequently falsified to a suicide-worthy point within less than five years. Aarseth managed to portray Ohlin as a Black Metal martyr who had given up everything for a just cause. In retaliation to the loss of such an upright individual, Aarseth found justification for extreme antagonism against other kinds of music and people. According to Bård Eithin,“Dead's suicide marked the point at which, under Euronymous' direction, the Black Metal scene began its obsession with all things…evil” (Campion). At this point, Aarseth’s actions seem fully driven by an attempt to be diabolical and extreme. Perhaps, this was concomitantly the point at which “the leaders of the Norwegian scene realized–wisely–that in order to grab the attention of minds and souls they would need to willfully take things one step further…[F]anciful violence and bloodlust…wasn’t anything in itself – it must be made real, and become a means to an end, if it was to hold greater purpose.” (Moynihan and Søderlind 32).
In the summer of 1991, Aarseth opened an independent Black Metal record store in Oslo named ‘Helvete’ (Norse for ‘hell’) and started his own record label, Deathlike Silence Productions. Through the shop and the label, Aarseth was in contact with many bands around the world. One of DSP’s potential releases was Burzum, the one-man band of Varg Vikernes. Vikernes and Aarseth became friends based on several shared, strong political and artistic opinions. Helvete quickly became a gathering place for members within the scene. The people who hung around the store were called the Black Circle; this was “‘just a name that was invented’” (Moynihan and Søderlind 67-8) says Bård Eithun of the band Emperor who worked in Helvete from 1992-3. Who were these members within the scene? As with many other ‘extreme’ areas of popular culture it is almost immediately apparent to any observer of or participant in Black Metal that the genre is dominated by mostly adolescent males. At this age, young men are most likely moving away from their parents and their newfound freedom from authority may push them towards more extreme forms of expression. Martin Alvsvåg a Christian theologian who has taken a great deal of time to examine Black Metal holds Norway’s wealth and high standard of living responsible for making
young kids very blasé. It is not enough to just play pinball anymore[;] they need
something strong, and Black Metal provides really strong impulses if you get into it.
They’re looking for something more in life than what they have already, and might feel
that it’s better to identify with evil than not to identify with anything at all. Black Metal is
something strong that gives you respect and a sense of belonging in certain circles”
(Moynihan and Søderlind 43).
Once an original group was established, others were drawn into the Black Metal scene by a shared interest in extremity. Members of the scene agreed with or were convinced by the radical views of people like Vikernes and Aarseth. The sense of community created by this small, tight-knit ‘Black Circle’ created a group that, like other areas of youth culture, was “a youth phenomenon dominated by young males between the ages of fifteen and the late twenties. As such, these social groups are notoriously volatile, constantly forming, breaking up and re-forming. Strong leadership, personality clashes and opportunistic alliances largely dictate their growth and development” (Goodrick-Clarke 212). These natural and masculine conflicts would create a lack of an entirely cohesive or organized group and lead to envy and eventually, death.
Aarseth “cultivated a philosophy of nihilistic hatred, colored by the brooding, depressive morbidity often associated with the negative side of the Scandinavian psyche….[:] folklore, grotesque monsters and a malignant atmosphere provided an uncanny background to the cacophonous music with obscene…and nihilist lyrics” (Goodrick-Clarke 204). Aarseth and Helvete represented “manifestations of the Black Metal aesthetic” (Moynihan and Søderlind 72) (Appendix B). As Aarseth was occupied with creating the Black Metal aesthetic and defining what was evil and worthy of the scene, we must consider what was true and what was an act. It is almost impossible to distinguish between the two from an outside perspective; however some elements must have been based on showmanship and their inherent shock-value.
Within the next few years a series of small and anonymous crimes occurred around Oslo: church break-ins, grave desecrations, and cross-burnings. Eithun says that “many people were happy about all the attention we got… I also believe that many people were really into it because of the music, Black Metal philosophy, working against Christianity and organized religion. They believed in it”. Eithun continues to describe the origin of these beliefs, “‘the feeling around the shop was that we worked against all these organized religions that were in Norway – Christianity and also the new ones like Islam. That was at least my intention… that we would make an organization which was mostly basing its action on illegal activities’” (Moynihan and Søderlind 70). These destructive actions nonchalantly carried out by members of the Black Metal scene further drove a sense of community from shared experience among the young men. The young men probably egged each other on to commit increasingly serious and destructive offenses in order to gain recognition and respect within the group. These actions functioned to promote and progress their anti-Christian and heathenistic beliefs as they created their own form of chaos. This chaos was centered on a lack of moral or societal proprieties, sacrilege, destruction and illegal activity. Gry Mørk classifies these activities as creative violence because of the “formative, healing, structuring, centripetal and/or balancing functions that violence has for the individual” (Mørk 172). In terms of Black Metal, this creative violence reflects “a range of existential issues, such as alienation, pain, thirst for vigor, force and self-fulfillment, while simultaneously launching critical perspectives on Western civilization. The construction and shaping of masculine identity is also one of the most distinctive features of this particular subculture and its worship of darkness” (Mørk 172). Through these destructive actions, young members of the scene were able to mediate their own personal issues through a masculine community dedicated to extreme beliefs.
The stave church is one of Scandinavia’s great historical treasures. These wooden churches were built soon after the arrival of Christianity in the 11th and 12th centuries and can be seen as a representation of a connection between the eras of paganism and Christianity. Many of these churches were built on top of sacred pagan sites symbolizing dominance over and erasure of prior religions. The Fantoft church outside of Bergen was set to fire on June 6th, 1992. News of the fire immediately made national headlines and within the next four months, five more churches were burned. At first, these burnings were thought to be tragic accidents caused by weather or electric failures.
In January 1993 after eight major Norwegian churches had burned, Vikernes spoke to a reporter at the Bergens Tidende daily newspaper. The reporter, Finn Bjørn Tønder, met Vikernes in his apartment at midnight for an anonymous interview. Vikernes claimed he knew who burned the churches, alluded to an underground group of evil-doers and said “‘we’re not stopping now’”(Tønder 1). Vikernes claims that the interview was theatrically absurd, revealed nothing which could prove his involvement in any crime and was meant solely to popularize Black Metal and boost business at Helvete. He says, “‘I fed him a lot of amusing info… Of course he twisted the words like usual. After he left we lay on the floor laughing’” (Moynihan and Søderlind 92). The article itself even states that “the youth’s story is cruel and perhaps not immediately believable” and he appears to be “an overgrown kid who finds Nazi paraphernalia, weapons and satanic symbols exciting” (Tønder 1, 2). However, these dismissive claims are overshadowed by other statements like “there are groups in Norway that the public needs to take very seriously” and quotes Vikernes as saying, “‘our intention is to spread fear and devilry… we have nothing to laugh about in this laughable society’” (Tønder 1, 3). In the interview, Vikernes gave detailed descriptions of how the churches were set fire and gave information which matched unreleased police evidence. Most of Vikernes’ statements were given in a plural ‘we’ form as he explained that six people had participated in the eight fires. The next morning Vikernes was arrested in his apartment, not for the interview but because police had found flyers for Burzum’s Aske (‘Ashes’) album which featured a photo of the smoldering Fantoft Stave Church ruins (Appendix C). Vikernes was already in custody when the article was printed, but the ramifications of the interview would continue to affect the Black Metal scene.
The Bergens Tidende article put Black Metal under intense scrutiny and brought widespread attention from mainstream Norway. Previously, Black Metal had been a relatively “unknown byway of underground youth culture” but Vikernes’ interview linked “it to the burgeoning wave of inexplicable church burnings” which were already considered a national tragedy (Moynihan and Søderlind 92). The exposé revealed that the church disasters were not random acts of violence or pyromania, but that a national menace was involved. The article solved the mystery of responsibility for the destruction, but awakened another of the motivations and influences behind the arsons. In the article, Vikernes managed to “set the tone for the Black Metal scene’s subsequent interaction with, and portrayal by the media. In flamboyant phrases he unveiled the story of a grand conspiracy aiming to overthrow the forces of good” (Moynihan and Søderlind 93). The article is significant in showing how Vikernes tried to construct his own image. Even if the interview was a joke to him, his self-portrayal as malevolent, harsh, unsympathetic and strong-willed remains somewhat sincere. The interview also caused a falling-out within the Black Metal scene as Vikernes mentioned ‘a less intelligent individual’ who then contacted police in order to refute his own misrepresentation. Others were annoyed that Vikernes had brought the scene such attention because now they had to be cautious about both their legal and illegal activities. This media fiasco gained Vikernes huge notoriety in Norway. The attention he received likely created jealous animosity from others involved as Vikernes became a well-known name. While in jail, Vikernes preserved his innocence during police interrogations and was released that March.
As media attention escalated, the U.K.-based popular metal magazine, Kerrang!, published a cover-story on Norwegian Black Metal. The cover featured the title “Arson…Death…Satanic Ritual…The Ugly Truth about Black Metal” and a macabre picture of Vikernes. Inside the magazine Aarseth and Vikernes were referred to as ‘Satanic Terrorists’ and Vikernes is quoted saying he will become the dictator of Scandinavia (Arnopp 43). He also states that “‘there is no such thing as mindless violence’” and promises that their work is not done. The article also revealed “a network of bands actively involved in Satanic rituals and vandalism” (Arnopp 45). A burning church was a symbol of their intention and Vikernes calls his Aske album a “‘hymn to church-burning’” to inspire others to follow the example that the ‘Black Circle’ had set (Arnopp 43). This article brought Vikernes and Aarseth, as well as the entire Norwegian Black Metal scene, “to the rest of the world’s attention…. [as] the best piece of international P.R. the scene would ever receive” (Moynihan and Søderlind 98).
A church is not only a symbol of Christianity, or whatever religious sect it facilitates, but churches are also generally viewed as a place of community, security, continuity, sanctuary, reverence and faith. The destruction of these churches symbolized a destruction of these qualities, however idealistic and abstract they may be. Citizens across Norway were upset at the loss of this symbol of cherished principles. The impiety of the arsons and the fact that a group of people were behind it caused general upset and outrage at these rash actions. In total forty-five to sixty churches have been burned and “roughly a third have a documented connection to the Black Metal scene, according to Sjur Helseth, head of the Technical Departments of the Directorate of Cultural Heritage” (Moynihan and Søderlind 79). In terms of practicality, not all of these fires can be attributed to Vikernes or even the “Black Circle” alone; much of this is thought to be the work of enthusiastic imitators. These additional burnings were not necessarily ideologically motivated but some of these copy-cats may have been trying to gain their own notoriety and respect in the scene or the media.
On August 10, 1993, Aarseth was killed in a tumultuous meeting with Vikernes. As the murder itself was not witnessed, Vikernes’ word is the only evidence to go by. He says he arrived at Aarseth’s apartment to cancel a record deal after he had heard rumors that Aarseth was planning to torture and murder him. Supposedly Aarseth wanted to kill Vikernes because he was jealous of Vikernes’ infamy in the press and wanted to do something to revive his waning evil reputation. When Vikernes arrived with the contract Aarseth kicked him and ran to another room. Vikernes, assuming Aarseth had hidden weapons, chased him down a flight of stairs and stabbed him to death with an eight centimeter boot knife (Vikernes Part II-Euronymous). Vikernes holds that this murder was entirely in self-defense. For this murder and the arson of four churches, Vikernes was charged with twenty-one years in prison, the maximum sentence in Norway.
A grotesque suicide turned album cover, a record store for all things Black Metal, a series of grave desecrations and church burnings and an inner circle murder could not have really granted the Black Metal scene a favorable popular reputation. However, both the Bergens Tidende and Kerrang! interviews made the situation worse. Retrospectively, “all involved realize the absurdity of much that was said. Vikernes now insists vehemently many of his remarks were misunderstood, misquoted, or taken out of context; others reflect back on the mentality of the scene at that time and see it as naïve and deluded” (Moynihan and Søderlind 98). Regardless of the sincerity or accuracy of either the Bergens Tidende or Kerrang! description, these two articles established Black Metal’s presentation by popular media. It is important to note that Aarseth was barely twenty-five and Vikernes was only a little more than a month passed his twentieth birthday at publication. It does not seem that adolescents are generally given much credibility in most spheres of public discourse. Why was so much weight placed on what a few kids had to say? It must be that the church burnings gave legitimacy to their words since they had managed to set their opinions into action. Similarly, the boldness with which these two young men espoused and stressed their beliefs granted accountability to these actions. The combination of their radical words and destructive actions made their arguments dangerous and threatening to those that this information reached. These two main articles spread Black Metal throughout Norway and to heavy metal fans around the world, while simultaneously depicting the scene as obdurate radicals fueled by satanic axioms. This regard is shown in Vikernes’ reflections on his trial: “Oh, and of course the judge included in the sentence that: ‘Varg Vikernes believes in Satan’, although I had repeatedly told in court that I didn't believe in neither ‘Satan’ [nor] ‘God’. They ignored the truth, and made up their own reality (Vikernes Part II-Euronymous). The inclusion of Vikernes’ media circulated systems of beliefs in the sentence shows that his public portrayal had a greater impact than his testimony.
Unpleasant themes of Satanism, fascism and Nazism, Scandinavian paganism and destruction of the Catholic Church had been elements of Heavy metal, Thrash Metal, Death Metal and Black Metal for many years prior to Mayhem or Burzum. Bands like Venom, “pointed out organized religion as a worthy target for assault”; Bathory in 1984 and Unleashed in 1989 introduced and “pre-Chrisitian heathenism”; Slayer gained ‘skin-head’ followings and Robert Johnson’s 1938 blues sang about the Devil and sin (Moynihan and Søderlind 30, 32). Norwegian Black Metal “attempted to break from metal’s most fundamental definitions and create new values based in Christianity’s most negative polarities” (Olson 9). And although “the concepts of Satan, Satanism and the Satanic [are] of great importance within the scene; they also come across as ambiguous, flexible and vague” (Mørk 172). This vagueness is likely a result of the lack of any agreed upon organization of belief within the scene. Aarseth and Vikernes expounded and promoted their own beliefs to others through their influence and extremism. Once these ideological leaders were removed from the scene, by death or imprisonment, these beliefs became less organized. Views on Satanism (or paganism, fascism, etc.) became even more swayed by personal opinion and disparate in the scene as groups and individuals distanced themselves because of their beliefs.
Vikernes describes his church-burning, Satanist reputation by saying, The press very successfully managed to do what the Judeo-Christians have routinely been doing since the early Middle Ages, and convinced people that the persecuted dissident in question…was a mad and dangerous devil worshipper… [because] there has never been devil worship in any form in Europe, then you must also understand that there has never been any devil worshippers. When you know that, it should become clear that I cannot possibly have been a devil worshipper either” (Vikernes A Burzum Story: Part V- Satanism).
Vikernes holds that the Satanist label was given to him and the scene by the media and popular culture in order to remove dissidents against established religion or government. In Vikernes’ opinion this has been a repeated strategy for removing infamous individuals by whatever means available. He also says, The killing of Euronymous was a blessing to them… they had an excuse to get rid of me… I don't think it would have happened if the media had not written so many lies about me, because that was what made Euronymous want to get rid ofme in the first place: I got so much attention that he became envious. Then the justice system gave me [twenty-one] years because the media had given me so much attention that I had become more important and influential than I was originally, and because they were just so incredibly provoked by the church burnings…they lost their minds completely. (Vikernes Part II-Euronymous)
This quotation shows his beliefs that the murder was the final event which allowed for his removal from society. He holds that the established government used the murder as leverage to finally convict him because of his influence. Here we also see the jealous tension between Aarseth and Vikernes, eventually leading up to Aarseth’s death. Vikernes extends this jealousy to be between himself and Norway. Although this is an astoundingly ego-centric view, Vikernes did indeed receive a great deal of Northern European media attention following the Bergens Tidende interview up to the present day, including his March 2009 prison release on parole. He justifies his ego-centric extension of jealousy that the Norwegian public was aroused by the church-burnings to vilify him as a Satanist so he could be separated from society and thus rendered harmless. Vikernes writes that “there was no satanic movement in Norway at all, but what emerged after the media-lies was a subculture consisting of rebellious teenagers who liked metal music and flirted with satanic symbolism to provoke the establishment (Vikernes An Attempt at a Review of Torstein Grude’s “Satan Rir Media”).
It seems that Black Metal generally threatened the establishment, but it is important to note the critical difference between ‘Satanism’ and ‘Anti-Christian’. Vikernes and other people involved were openly and strongly Anti-Christian; some may have actually been Satanists, but certainly not all. The church burnings were not any satanic ritual or sacrifice to the devil, but rather a statement against the institution of Christianity and the oppression it brought upon early Norwegians. Vikernes says there has always been a genuine connection between church burnings and nationalism: “it’s not a satanic thing[;] it’s a national heathen thing. It’s not a rebellion against my parents of something, it’s serious’” (Moynihan and Søderlind 90). From the media and Vikernes’ trial it seems that Satanism was the attributed, over-generalized cause for the actions of the Black Metal scene. This label was an easy (and trite) way to place blame on a small, albeit violent, group. Furthermore, the satanic label drastically overlooks the more complicated and significant views of paganism and extremism behind the church-burnings and other activities as well as media motivations.
It is obvious from much of Black Metal’s symbolism of upside-down crosses and pentagrams that Satanism has played some role in the formation of Black Metal iconography. However, who is to say that the role of Satanism has been greater than any other influence? It is certainly not the members of the Black Metal scene itself. Although the iconography and idea of Satanism entered the genre from earlier influential bands like Bathory and Venom, it grew and spread with time. Other influences to Black Metal were probably of equal or maybe even greater importance. Vikernes’ own music and beliefs were influenced by role-playing games and fantasy, specifically J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series, and Norse paganism. According to Will Straw, the convergence of heavy metal imagery, which was often considered Satanic, with “elements of heroic fantasy” was of crucial influence to young men like Vikernes, who through “heavy metal iconography, saw their heroic or masculine features emphasized” (Straw 379-80). The combination of fantasy and metal created an iconography with which young men were able to identify and involve themselves. The blatantly masculine and physically violent character of heavy metal is perhaps the most useful way to relate “knowledge/competence and physical/sexual presence” for young men (Straw 381).
Vikernes’ reflections on LOTR; “I could easily identify with the fury of the ‘dark forces’, and enjoyed their existence very much because they were making a boring and peaceful world dangerous and exciting”. He then relates this to his own artistic work stating that “the idea with Burzum was not only to make original and personal music, but also to create something new – a ‘darkness’ in a far too ‘light’, safe and boring world” (Vikernes Part I- The Origin and Meaning). The name Burzum actually means ‘darkness’ in Tolkien’s ‘Black Speech’ language, expressing Vikernes’ quest for darkness and his desire to share it. For Vikernes, the new which he sought to create through his music and actions would add conflict and incite change in the static environment that he was accustomed to. His own personal interests in paganism, specifically Norse mythology and runic symbolism, would then influence what these conflicts and changes would entail.
Manifest elements of Norse paganism were first seen in the lyrics and imagery of the band Bathory. Later bands would elaborate on these atavistic features, eventually developing into Vikernes’ own form of “post-apocalyptic rural paganism” (Fox 55). Vikernes puts a great deal of importance on runes, an ancient alphabet of Germanic languages, as the scripts were “symbols used to help people remember the myths”. He holds that the runes “can provide answers to even our most existential questions” (Vikernes Paganism: Part XI - The Esoteric Runes). Vikernes has used these symbols to garner strength and inspiration. To Vikernes, the runes are a form of communication between ancient, pagan myths as strong symbols that still hold the same inherent meanings which can be used in the modern world. Black Metal also possesses elements of a strong cultural legacy of pre-Christian Nordic folktales. These folktales often include somewhat gruesome beings such as giants, trolls and witches in harsh and foreboding forested or marine locales. This classic imagery was evidentially influential in the formation of many Black Metal groups’ imagery, iconography and lyrics. Their dress and makeup may well represent ghoulish or witch-like otherworldly characters. The bold and dominant Viking past of Scandinavia was another major influence to Black Metal ideology. Many bands embraced their war-like heritage with violent imagery. Early Nordic metal bands like Bathory even went so far as to dress in historically inspired leather loin-cloths and wield swords for promotional photographs that presented their insurrection (Appendix D).
In Norway, horror films are surprisingly rare; domestic films are few and far between while imported ones are strongly censored as “a taboo against violence and horror permeates every part of Norwegian media” (Moynihan and Søderlind 41). Many people in countries with uncensored horror films decry the desensitizing effects that violent movies, television and video games has created in recent years. Norway’s denial of fictitious aggression has no doubt maintained a low tolerance for violence in Norway. It is probable that this cultural censorship created a void that individuals were inspired to occupy. This absence of violence implies that sadistic actions, like those of the Black Metal scene, would then appear even more vicious. Norway’s inexperienced sensitivity to violence must have made the Black Metal scene significantly more horrific and extreme than they would have appeared in other countries accustomed to inappropriate levels of violence. Therefore, it may be difficult to fully reconcile the emotional Norwegian reaction to Black Metal’s tirade from an outside perspective.
A complete explanation for why this media driven misrepresentation, or more accurately, partial representation, of a group of people occurred is quite peculiar. Unfortunately, and as with most things, there is no single, simple, straightforward explanation for this, but perhaps some insight may still be gained. An obvious cause is the emotional drives of fear and insecurity that inevitably arose from the threat of an evil coup in Norway’s midst. Suicides, church burnings and murders are not exactly lauded by society and the insecurities created by such defiant forces indubitably caused an escalation of outrageous and unfounded claims. The sensationalism of an event that included violence, sacrilege, a secret society, and ‘evil’ also probably drove people to create their own astounding ideas and false facts about the scene. Vikernes’ belief that mass media favors sensation over truth can also be seen in these overly reactionary claims (Vikernes Part V- Satanism). Oftentimes people seek sensation through entertainment; this is likely simply given the vast amount of variety of entertainment in modern culture. Thereby the sensationalism of the Black Metal scene became a form of civic pursuit. Calling individuals involved in Black Metal ‘Satanists’ was an easy blanket-term for a group that the general public might not have wanted to have a full understanding of. As evidenced by the diverse influences of Black Metal, we can see that delving into all the possible explanations, motives and influences of this group of people is evidently more difficult than assigning a simple label. Furthermore, the actions and opinions of the scene were most prolifically circulated and communicated by news and other media organizations. As this is the case, it is crucial to remember that these institutions are ultimately capitalistic corporations with the perpetual goal of achieving profit and influence. This is no conspiracy, but it is likely that journalists, editors and administrations knew that these kinds of stories would sell papers and magazines. Driven by gain and also partially by their own personal beliefs, consciously or not, a sort of propaganda exploited the Black Metal scene as Satanists. Calling this group satanic is much more sensational and would earn a more fervent response than saying they are heathens or pagans, Tolkien fans or Viking enthusiasts. Likewise, a subterranean society dedicated to desecration and destruction is much more threatening than a group of guys hanging out in a record store. Eithun states that “‘the media made [the Black Metal scene and their activities] look lots more organized than it was in reality. The media loves these big scandals and always try to make the most out of it’” (Moynihan and Søderlind 67-8). It seems that emotion, ease, profit and sensationalism all played a part in the media portrayal of Norwegian Black Metal. This portrayal then was able to influence Vikernes’ court trial and general reputation. In fact, it is most likely that all of these factors contributed in part, perhaps unequally, to this phenomenon of Black Metal’s portrayal as strictly satanic.
Media representation of Black Metal becomes all the more layered and complex if we consider the ways in which the scene itself used the media. Aarseth’s statements that Ohlin’s suicide was for a metal cause and Vikernes’ absurd interview were some of the earliest interactions between Black Metal and the press. Mayhem drummer Jan Axel ‘Hellhammer’ Blomberg recalls that Aarseth “spread the rumor that [Ohlin] committed suicide because of the scene. That was not the reason for it, but he wanted it to look that way because then he could make more money and make [himself] look more evil than he really was” (Moynihan and Søderlind 60). Here we see Aarseth altering the causes of Ohlin’s suicide to match his personal objectives. This promoted his extremism and would bring him both economic profit and influence. In the Bergens Tidende interview, Vikernes communicated the desired violence and radicalism within Aarseth’s created scene. Both of these examples show Aarseth and Vikernes portraying themselves as strong, evil and insurrectionary forces of a “fundamental rejection of modern culture, religion and identity” (Olson 9). Despite any specific political or religious attitudes, the actions of main players in the Black Metal scene “were generally expressions…to develop an ideology maximally incompatible with the peaceful social democratic self-image of Norwegian society” (Fox 50). These individuals were primarily interested in disrupting the status quo of daily life. This was attempted through their extremism in opinion and modes of dress as well as their dismissal of societal forms of authority like the law or church. The public reaction they received as a consequence of the media may not have been one of overwhelming enlightenment to their world-view or even an appreciation of the ‘darkness’ they brought to the world. Nonetheless, they managed to cause quite a stir. In this way their ultimate goal of spreading chaos was achieved. Maybe they even did manage to bring ‘darkness’ to the world by showing the ideological corruption of objectivity and identity that occurred through media coverage. In addition, subsequent church-burnings, an avant-garde interest in Nordic paganism and the constant, although continually marginalized, popularity of Black Metal show that many ideals have been preserved. Although these minor acceptances and followings are not the evil and apocalyptic chaos that radicals like Aarseth and Vikernes desired, they show the influence that these individuals heald in their realms of discourse.
In Norway, “Black Metal is not an absurd manifestation of teenage angst, but rather a national trauma” as it has been characterized by a set of radical beliefs and a series of violent acts (Olson 2). The polemic media portrayal of this group has lead to a popular reputation of satanic terrorists, despite statements from these individuals that they are not Satanists, but rather anti-Christian and anti-establishmentarian. Perhaps this distinction is difficult for some to make as motivations and influences to these beliefs are complicated and varied among individuals. Nonetheless it is necessary to acknowledge that they are not identical systems of belief. However, when popular discourse has chosen to equate the two, some groups are misrepresented and perhaps unfairly depicted. The explanation for this over-simplification is complex and incorporates many aspects of popular culture including emotion, profit, sensationalism and complacency with the status quo. The overgeneralization of the Black Metal scene as Satanists has created the interpretation of “human groups… as absolute categories of good and evil, light and darkness [When this occurs,] both the human community and humanity itself are diminished. Such degraded religion never leads to light but only into darkness” (Goodrick-Clarke 6). Although Vikernes is vehemently opposed to his media reputation, perhaps the darkness of an evil overgeneralization of the Black Metal scene created the very darkness he was trying to spread into a far too boring and bright world.
Appendix A
Mayhem’s Dawn of the Black Hearts: This bootleg live album released in 1995 displays one of the pictures Aarseth took of Ohlin’s violent suicide in 1991.
Appendix B
1991 promotional Mayhem photograph of Aarseth: This picture epitomizes the Black Metal aesthetic which Aarseth heavily contributed to and defined. Note the archival cloak, corpsepaint, his scowl, the spiked club in hand and the inverted cross pendant.
Appendix C
Burzum’s Aske (‘Ashes’) album cover which featuring the charred ruins of Fantoft Stave Church: This same image was found on promotional flyers for the album and was the basis for Vikernes’ first arrest in 1993.
Appendix D
Early and influential Norwegian metal band Bathory in the 1980’s: Their primitive dress, weaponry and the forested setting of this promotional photograph demonstrate the kind of Viking-metal which would influence others to strongly embrace their pre-Christian heritage.
Works Cited
Arnopp, Jason. “Arson…Death…Satanic Ritual…The Ugly Truth about Black Metal”. Kerrang! 27 March 1993: 40-45 Print.
Campion, Chris. “In the Face of Death”. Guardian.co.uk. The Observer (Guardian Unlimited).
February 2005. Web. 25 April 2010.
Fox, Dominic. Cold World: The Aesthetics of Dejection and the Politics of Militant Dysphoria.
Hants: Zero Books, 2009. Print.
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity. New York: New York University Press, 2002. Print.
Kelly, Sean. “Communities of Resistance: Heavy Metal as a Reinvention of Social Technology”.
The Resisting Muse: Popular Music and Social Protest. Ed. Ian Peddie. Burlington:
Ashgate: 2006. Print.
Mørk, Gry. “‘With my Art I am the Fist in the Face of god’: On Old-School Black Metal”.
Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology. Ed. Jesper Aagaard Petersen.
Burlington: Ashgate, 2009. Print.
Moynihan, Michael, and Didrik Søderlind. Lords of Chaos. Los Angeles: Feral House, 1998.
Print.
Olson, Benjamin Hedge. I am the Black Wizards: Multiplicity, Mysticism and Identity in Black
Metal Music and Culture. MA thesis. Bowling Green State University, 2008. PDF file.
Satan rir Media. Dir. Torstein Grude. Subfilm, 1998. Film.
Straw, Will. “Characterizing Rock Music Culture: The Case of Heavy Metal”. The Cultural
Studies Reader. Ed. Simon During. New York: Routledge, 1993. Print.
Tønder, Finn Bjørn. “We Lit the Fires” trans. Didrik Søderlind. Bergens Tidende. 20 January
1993: 1-3. Print.
Super Lies
While driving down the freeway one can see numerous fast food restaurants adorning nearly every exit. It’s nearly impossible to avoid seeing the plethora of eateries during the course of daily activity because of the range and the depth that they’ve entered our society. When one thinks about the aspects of popular culture, few things have become as engrained or essential in defining life in the 21st century, compared to the early to mid 20th. On any given day, one in four Americans will visit a fast food restaurant (Super Size Me). The increase in fast food joints directly correlates to Americans’ obsession with getting everything quickly, cheaply, and efficiently. While restaurants have been a main stay in American society for over a hundred years, the influx of fast food restaurants compared to mom ‘n pop diners is a result of a capitalist society in which mass production is the key to success.
Companies are accused of using dubious means to obtain their meat at as cheap a cost as possible, as is documented in “Fast Food Nation”. Although the movie is fictional, it is based on the book of the same name; it shows how “Big One” patties are made by a meat packing companies that put profits ahead of safety and proper cleanliness. In the movie, feces was found in the burger patties and there were multiple reports of lost appendages by the illegal immigrants who were paid to work in the kill rooms, but not properly trained in safety procedures. When the issue was brought to the attention of a VP with the burger company, he responded that feces in the meat weren’t a problem because as long as the meat was cooked properly, all of the germs would be killed. This attitude of putting profits ahead of morals is exactly what the companies do now, especially within the field of public health.
Nearly everyone has seen “Super Size Me” within their lifetimes, and the results of the documentary probably disgusted, outraged, or scared many of the viewers. Fast food’s extreme unhealthiness has been expressed by numerous health studies, and yet Americans continue to eat fast food at an alarming rate. To account for this phenomenon it is important to analyze the way in which these companies advertise their products, and the nutrition information that is available for various menu items.
McDonald’s is one of the most popular fast food restaurants in the world, with well over 1 billion customers served worldwide. Within my lifetime McDonald’s will have served more hamburgers than the world’s population. However, McDonald’s has more items on their menu than just hamburgers. For the health conscious population there is a wide variety of salads to help you watch your weight. Or at least that is the hegemonic rhetoric that we are taught to believe. McDonald’s commercials often include advertisements for these “healthy” salads, and depict skinny women enjoying a salad during their lunch break. Morgan Spurlock is even told by one of his doctors that if he starts to feel bad during his McDonald’s binge he should “cheat and get the salads” (Super Size Me). However, how healthy are these tasty salads really? McDonald’s conveniently provides nutritional information on their website for each item on their menu, and the results would shock you. A Premium Bacon Ranch Salad with Crispy Chicken and Newman’s Ranch dressing is a whopping 540 calories, and 310 are from fat! Compare this statistic to the world famous Big Mac, which also has 540 calories, but only 260 are from fat. So when you are eating a salad from McDonald’s and think that you are watching your weight, you actually are consuming more fat and just as many calories as the greasy burger that the sweaty construction worker is eating while making eyes at you. Want to know the real kicker? McDonald’s is charging you more for that salad than for the Big Mac. Most customers gladly are willing to pay the extra few dollars because after all it’s a healthier choice, but in reality you would be doing your arteries and your wallet a favor by just sticking to the classic choice.
Not to be outdone by McDonald’s on the health front, KFC has introduced grilled version of chicken to counter their original recipe, which is deep-fried. While the grilled chicken does have fewer calories and grams of fat, salt levels are drastically higher than in the original recipe. In the new Double Down, there are an extra 50 mg of salt in the grilled version. The Double Down is the hot new sandwich that KFC is pushing in their most recent commercials. If you don’t know what the sandwich entails, according to the KFC website it is made from “two thick and juicy boneless white meat chicken filets (Original Recipe® or Grilled), two pieces of bacon, two melted slices of Monterey Jack and pepper jack cheese and Colonel's Sauce.” This whopper is also 540 calories when made with the original recipe and has 32 g of fat. The astonishing part about the calorie numbers in the Double Down, is that there is no bun to boost the calorie numbers like in Big Macs. In Big Macs the bun accounts for 210 of the 540 calories, but in the double down it all comes from the chicken, bacon, and cheese, meaning that a high percentage of it comes from fat.
My final example of “health” in fast food is the most impressive, and it comes in the form of the Taco Bell Drive Through Diet. The “Diet” was first mentioned on a commercial on a commercial featuring the story of Christine Dougherty and how she lost 54 pounds by eating Taco Bell fresco items for lunch. At first this claim seems outrageous and amazing and exactly what thousands of Americans would love to hear because it means that they can continue eating fast food daily and they will be able to lose weight. However, it is imperative to examine these claims in greater detail than what the audio commentary during the commercial tells us. It turns out that Christine ate fast food every day prior to switching to the Drive Thru diet, but just not at Taco Bell. Her new diet simply entailed eating fewer calories at Taco Bell than she had at other restaurants. Her testimonial shows that this reduction in calories was in the range of 500 to 1250 every day! The Drive Thru Diet website also illuminates the fact that this weight loss took place over the course of two years and also involved making other sensible eating choices as well as exercising on a regular basis. Even then, fast food is not recommended to be included in a healthy diet by nutritionists, although companies like McDonald’s have claimed that their food can be apart of a healthy diet. In a survey of 100 nutritionists across the country, 45 said that people should never eat fast food (Super Size Me).
One of the main reasons for eating fast food besides the convenience aspect is the fact that fast food is cheap and filling. For the price of a burger or a couple of burritos someone could only get a banana or a few apples. Grains, fats and sweets are high in energy density and among the lowest-cost food options, whereas fruits and vegetables are often less affordable (Babey 4). The healthy choice loses out when it comes to families that don’t have the economic means to purchase healthy food for every meal. Michael Pollan points out that for lower income people fast food provides “not cheap food exactly (for the consumer ultimately pays the added cost of processing), but cheap calories in a variety of attractive forms. In the long run, however, the eater pays a high price for these cheap calories: obesity, Type II diabetes, heart disease” (Pollan 117). The difference between the short and long term affects is crucial. Families who need to be fed are going to sacrifice the mythical and not concrete threat of obesity caused health issues for a chance to avoid the very real and immediate threat of starvations. In the end however, society ends up paying to take care of these people when they become sick and a burden on our health care infrastructure. A study by UCLA found that 50.3% children 12-17 in families who are below the poverty line eat fast food on a daily basis, and 54% of children in families who are at the poverty line or make double consume fast food daily. These numbers decrease fairly drastically when looking at more and more affluent families (Babey 6). These results are available to the fast food companies, and yet they choose to continue to serve unhealthy food at a cheap price because the bottom line is more important than the health of future generations.
Marketing plays a key role in the success of food companies in attracting new customers, as well as retaining old ones. Effective marketing is the heart of a food company’s body, and it is what allows for the difference between the scientific facts, and the public discourse that exists. This discourse cannot be gauged through some public survey, but instead is reflected in the sales and economic success of various companies. The effectiveness of marketing in attracting new customers is something that is debated by corporations because it gives them some liability for their customers’ actions. Instead, companies put forward the idea that “In a competitive industry, however, promotion may simply constitute a zero sum game in which participants battle over shares of a fixed market and not, in fact, increase the size of the market as a whole. Alcoholic beverage and cigarette companies have used similar arguments to avoid bans on media advertising” (Padilla 1). If the companies are not responsible for the actions of their customers, then it allows them to benefit from the profits that reap in, but keeps them from being responsible for any negative side effects that result from use of their product, such as obesity and heart disease. However, Research by Timothy Richards and Luis Padilla finds that marketing increases a businesses share of the market, but it also increases the entire fast food market at the same time (Padilla 14). McDonald’s reports on their website that for the first quarter of 2010 their sales were up 4.2% globally (Financial Press Release). These results are astonishing considering the current economic situation. However, upon closer examination the results make sense because as mentioned previously, as people have less and less money, fast food becomes a better option for feeding their family a high calorie low cost meal.
Research done on the link between childhood obesity and fast food marketing suggests that a ban on TV advertising would reduce overweight children ages 3-11 by eighteen percent, and it would reduce overweight children ages 12-18 by fourteen percent. “The average American child sees 10,000 food advertisements a year, and 95% of them are for sugared cereals, soft drinks, fast foods, or candy” (Super Size Me). A crucial aspect of childhood and adult obesity stems from an increase in serving sizes. When visiting a fast food restaurant customers are limited in their choices by a range of serving sizes, and their choice must correspond to the preset amounts that each company deems appropriate to serve. It is easy to see how corporate responsibility factors in, because for example, if the only soda available were a 64 oz. one, plenty of people would purchase it. Research of McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s serving sizes from 1998 to 2006 illuminates changes made by the respective companies. This time period is doubly important to analyze because this is the period in which childhood obesity began to gain national prominence and calls to address it increased drastically. The study examined size changes in sodas, french-fries, and hamburgers, and also noted any changes in the names of the various sizes. A common theme that exists in the data is that companies either increased the sizes of products and kept the same name (such as medium), added a new larger size (such as King or Supersize), or renamed products to be more socially acceptable. Wendy’s, who renamed their fries Large instead of Great Biggie while keeping the same size, particularly used this last practice. They also further deceived their customers when they renamed their soda Large instead of Biggie while increasing its volume by 10 oz! The term Large assuages a customer’s conscience much more than the term Biggie or Great Biggie does, and the actual volume of the product does not factor in. Both Burger King and Wendy’s serve a 12 oz. burger, which is considered two-days worth of meat, while McDonald’s serves an 8 oz. burger that exceeds the single-day recommended serving size. McDonald’s kept the same size drinks and burgers, and actually reduced the size of their fries from 1998 to 2006. However, a comparison of their largest sizes in 2006 to the original sizes in 1955 shows a 500% increase in amount of meat on a burger, a 457% increase in soda size, and a 250% increase in the volume of french-fries served (Nestle 3-7).
Michael Pollan explains how McDonald’s stumbled upon the secret of larger, or supersized serving portions in his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma. He tells us while working for a movie theater, David Wallerstein, a member of McDonald’s board of directors discovered that “people would spring for more popcorn and soda-a lot more-as long as it came in a single gigantic serving” (Pollan 105). The reason that this phenomenon occurs, is, as Pollan goes on to explain, a combination of “deep cultural taboos against gluttony” and that “researchers have found that people (and animals) presented with large portions will eat up to 30 percent more than they would otherwise” (Pollan 106). This fluctuating appetite might have been evolutionary beneficial when food was scarce at times, and calories needed to be saved when they were available, but in our modern society we are not hard pressed to find calories to gorge ourselves on. The result of this is that people are eating up to 30% more than what is necessary, per meal, on a fairly regular basis. A study by James Binkley “found that fast food diners are less likely to reduce their food consumption during the rest of the day than are those eating at table service restaurants, most likely because of the difference in energy density. As a result, fast food may ultimately result in more calories (Binkley 12).
Obesity is now the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, behind only tobacco. While tobacco companies have taken a hit in respectability in the public eye, their profits and marketing strategies are undeniable. Because of this, many fast food companies mimic the tobacco companies in an attempt to attract new customers. Tobacco companies used to and continue to this day to make products such as toy cigarettes, or candy shaped tobacco that appeals to children. While these actions are easily recognized now by the average American as an underhanded attempt to lure in new customers, most people do not say the same thing about McDonald’s play areas, toys in happy meals, convenient locations for birthday parties, or a mascot who is a clown (Super Size Me). However, the impressions that McDonald’s forms on children at an early age can lead to a nostalgic attachment later on in life. Morgan Spurlock jokingly says that when he has kids he’s going to punch them in the face every time they drive past a fast food restaurant to discourage them from wanting to go there. While this suggestion may seem far-fetched and ludicrous, the highly addictive nature of fast food needs an even stronger deterrent.
An important part of the public discourse about fast food is reliant on what fast food corporations tell the public. A close reading of McDonalds’ website, as well as some of their actions gives an insight into the image that they wish to portray, and the true facts about what they actually are doing with their products. McDonald’s to this day continues to contradict itself and lie to the public to hide the true facts that exist. On their website, they are asked if eating at home is better for you than eating at McDonald’s, and they are quoting as saying, “Actually, a 4-piece Chicken McNuggets with Apple Dippers and milk contains fewer calories and fat than a homemade grilled cheese sandwich, cup of tomato soup and glass of lemonade” (FAQ’s for Students). First, the fact about calories does not accurately represent the healthiness of the meal, especially since most of the calories in the homemade meal come from sugar in the lemonade, while the McDonald’s meal has milk. The other high source of calories in the homemade meal is the bread in the grilled cheese. However, despite even these basic misrepresentations of facts, McDonald’s contradicts their own claims that their chicken nuggets are healthy when they responded to a 2003 lawsuit by saying that “it is also a matter of common knowledge that any processing that its food undergo serve to make them more harmful than unprocessed foods” (Super Size Me). In that same lawsuit the judge told McDonald’s that the 38 ingredients in Chicken McNuggets misleads customers who would be inclined to think that they are eating a piece of fried meat. McDonald’s in turn switched to all white meat chicken nuggets, although did not site the lawsuit as the reason for the switch (Pollan 112). This blatant flip-flop undermines the entire basis that McDonald’s displays itself to the world with. Another contradiction that is a blatant lie is that of sugar in hamburgers. In a questions and answer section of their website McDonald’s says that no sugar is used in their burgers, although the nutritional information that they supply on the same website says that the basic hamburgers have six grams of sugar, and burgers like the Angus Deluxe has a whopping sixteen grams of sugar (Your Questions Answered). In fact, only seven items on McDonald’s menu in 2004 did not have any sugar in them at all (Super Size Me). Morgan Spurlock towards the end of his 30-day McDonald’s experiment found himself becoming addicted to the food that he was eating, and his mood would drastically improve after each meal. The addictive quality of the food, much like nicotine in cigarettes, does not give the consumer much of a chance.
While marketing and false information helps to distort the public perception about fast food, one of the most crucial ways in which the large food companies are supported is actually by federal policy, and they are even protected by federal laws. “In March 2004 Congress passed ‘The Cheeseburger Bill’, which would make it illegal for people to sue food companies for making them obese” (Super Size Me). The fast food world that we live in is a direct result of an overabundance of corn in the United States, and the industrialization of the feeding of livestock. It is quite astonishing to think about how cows, which are herbivores, now eat a diet of nearly 25 pounds of corn a day while on feeding plants. In fact, they are responsible for consuming nearly 60% of all corn that is grown in the United States (Pollan 66). Michael Pollan points out the insanity of this process here when he says,
“This biological absurdity, characteristic of all CAFO’s. is compounded in the cattle feedyard by a second absurdity. Here animals exquisitely adapted by natural selection to live on grass must be adapted by us-at considerable cost to their health, to the health of the land, and ultimately to the health of their eaters-to live on corn, for no other reason than it offers the cheapest calories around and because the great pile must be consumed” (Pollan 68).
In the early 20th century cows were being slaughtered at about four or five years old, after gaining their weight naturally on a diet of pure grass. Now, cows are being slaughtered at fourteen to sixteen months thanks to a diet of corn, fat, and drugs (Pollan 71). While this diet may not seem to be much of a big deal, cows cannot be fed on their new diets for more than about 150 days before it completely blows out their livers (Pollan 78). Apparently a diet of corn and fat affects cows in a similar method that McDonald’s affected Morgan Spurlock: destroyed their livers. It is easy to see how fast food companies and other large meat companies such as Tyson are able to benefit by the industrialization of cow feeding, and increasing the “efficiency” of the whole process. Not to mention, the new corn-fed cows produces meat that is drastically less healthy for us because it now contains much more saturated fat, and less Omega-3 fatty acids (Pollan 75).
Another group of people who are heavily invested in the food companies, although it would seem evident at first glance, are the oil companies. That’s right, the oil companies are making profits off of the mass produced foods that we eat every day. During its lifetime, Michael Pollan discovered that a cow uses about 35 gallons of oil, which amounts to about an entire barrel. With the thousands and thousands of cattle that are raised and slaughtered it is easy to see how oil companies would be motivated to maintain the current status quo, and not let our beef industry to return to grass feeding, like that of Argentina.
There is a definite disconnect in the United States between public perception and scientific fact when it comes to fast food. This divide exists through a variety of means, not least of which include ingenious marketing by companies, the targeting of customers at a young age to form an attachment early on, blatant lies or misrepresentations, and through the support of rich and powerful companies and law makers. However, regardless of all these facts, and despite the depth of their lack of concern for public health, the real reason that there is a disconnect between facts and reality is because we allow there to be one. Americans have become obsessed with the convenience of fast food, and seem to be willing to pay the costs that it inflicts on our long-term health. One in three Americans eat fast food every day, and 19 percent of all meals in the United States are consumed in a car (Pollan 109-110). The real reason for the eschewed public discourse that exists is that we want it to, and unfortunately, until Americans are able to notice that they are being slowly killed in a prison of HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) the problem will continue to worsen, as all fatal addictions do.
Babey, Susan H, Theresa A. Hastert, Allison L. Diamant, and E. Richard Brown. “More California Teens Consume Soda and Fast Food Each Day Than Five Servings of Fruits and Vegetables.” UCLA Health Policy Research Brief (2005). 1-8. 13 Apr. 2010.
Binkley, James K.. “Calorie and Gram Differences between Meals at Fast Food and Table Service Restaurants.” Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (2008) 750-763. 13 Apr. 2010.
"FAQ's for Students". McDonald's. 5/9/2010 .
"Financial Press Release". McDonald's. 5/9/2010 .
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.
Super Size Me. Dir. Morgan Spurlock. Perf. Morgan Spurlock. 2004. DVD
"Your Questions Answered". McDonald's. 5/9/2010 .
Popular discourse and scientific evidence both play an important role in governing the way any individual feels about a certain object. It is important to note that discourses can be generated by anyone and can be framed around any issue. Thus, the knowledge held by any individual in reality is a discursive formation – the interplay and interaction of these discourses transmit scientific evidence in some way. It is also important to remember that this scientific evidence may not always be faithfully transmitted within the sphere of popular discourses. Nevertheless, popular discourses and scientific evidence are seen to have very real effects, expanding its influence through media and mass public communications.
Culturally specific, popular discourses are drawn around everyday issues. Simple routines like watching television, listening to the radio, or walking down the street exhibit a wide variety of discourses that can affect an individual’s mind. In our contemporary world, where globalization has already begun, discourses may travel across the globe instantly in the form of data or images. The power of these global discourses should not be underestimated and undervalued due to its increasingly dominant effect over universal constants like scientific evidence.
Even concerning information like scientific evidence, the influence of popular discourse is not limited just filtered. Scientific paradigms, topics of research, and approach are all affected by popular discourse. Especially in the cases of global warming and the tobacco industries, research funds are appropriated through popular discourse. Furthermore, it is apparent that these findings are kept quiet if they do not support their interests. Much like the discussion on the rhizome by Deleuze and Guattari, popular discourse has an innumerable multiplicity. In relation to research, these allocated funds are given by a higher-level discourse, and even they are influenced by another discourse and so forth. Popular discourse, as it pertains to media, is as complex as they come. Public mass communications may have many different agendas, and may be backed by another popular discourse.
You may have been wondering when reading the introduction to our anthology why you are in such an unlikely situation – sitting in the passenger seat of a Hummer, listening to black-metal music and smoking a cigarette while ordering food from McDonalds. The improbability of this situation doesn’t seem so impossible now – with the rise of media and popular discourses. You may wonder why you are in a Hummer or why it appeals to you so much; while the media and environmental health groups blast you for driving a “gas guzzler” scientific fact has not fully rendered a conclusion. With the jury still out, the hummer that you are in will protect you nicely when thirty seconds from now, a Prius runs a red light and crashes into you. Why are you listening to black-metal music? As only the realm of popular discourse would allow, you may find this popularized form of rebellion attractive to your teenage youth mentality. As cigarettes go, you don’t really know what to think. You hesitate to take that cigarette from your step-uncle because discourses from both the tobacco industries and health organizations conflict – it seems attractive, but you are also aware of the adverse health effects associated with it. Lastly, ordering from McDonalds can be the perfect example of globalization and popular discourses transmitting scientific evidence. After vaguely recalling McDonald’s healthy choices, you immediately choose a salad over a Big Mac, thinking that this choice would benefit your health. Little do you know that the salad has more calories than the Big Mac, and it is through the discourses created by McDonald’s that lead you to misinterpret the nutritional facts. You, my friend, are also another product of popular discourse.
The situation mentioned before may still seem improbable, mainly because it is accepted within our culture. Popular discourse, in this case, is seen to play its influence on the mind of the individual. What becomes tradition and normality is first filtered through the lens of a popular discourse. Whether or not scientific evidence is faithfully represented, it makes little significance because the general public does not have access to these scientific facts. Elaborating further on science, even statistical conclusions may not always be unbiased. Due to the influence of popular discourse, the area that is polled, sample size, and background are all taken into consideration before it is conducted. Simply put, it is highly unlikely that anything can escape this form of regulation. With the general public, many people do not question these findings, especially if they are backed by an acknowledged source. What they do not know is that even these “reputable” sources can be manipulated in a way that suits a discourse. Even so, many claims go unchallenged in today’s society. Being targeted by a specific discourse, these facts are specially designed to persuade an individual to lean one way or another.
Why are these popular discourses so important to our collective society? Certain parties have certain aims, and they way that they achieve them is to release these discourses that can change the way society thinks. If there is a particular social stigma attached with a certain object, for example, smoking tobacco and black-metal music, discourses are released to amplify or mitigate these effects. Industries that make profit off of tobacco or metal music will release popular discourses that portray their product in a benevolent light. To protect their private interests and their market shares, the deliverance of these discourses are essential. On the contrary, within the same topic, health organizations and conservative music movements will release discourses that expand upon the adverse health effects and unorthodox nature of these products. In both cases, scientific evidence may be misconstrued, exaggerated, undermined, or ignored.
What can these popular discourses tell us? While we cannot take their discourses as absolute fact, they give an enlightening insight into the values and traditions from the society that they are derived from. In the examples of the fast-food and cigarette industries, it is apparent that health and well-being is emphasized within United States culture. Although some of these scientific backings are manipulated or left out, it is important to note that they are shaped in a way to support popular discourse. With the examples of black-metal music and global warming, many aspects of values are continuous across cultural traditions. In this sense, people around the world would like to view themselves or representations of themselves as modest and ecological. Information that threatens to change this preferential thought is then subjected to a discourse that can manipulate these perceptions.
While the boundaries of a popular discourse may be very abstract at times, the effects these discourses have very real implications. In the case of the fast-food industry, while global mega-corporations like McDonald’s do in fact know that their salad has just about the same calories as a Big Mac, none of their commercials reflect this truth. Because the general public may accept these discourses as truth, few actually look up the nutritional value of each. Therefore, these popular discourses in effect become what is seen by the public as fact. With the integration of the world into one collective community by means of globalization, there are many implications. Hypothetically, if reputable sources for information like BBC or CNN started to spread false information, how would the general public ascertain and corroborate this information? Already accepted as a couple of the most known sources for information, the public does not have the means necessary to verify this information.
In conclusion, popular discourses have an incalculable effect on the public’s perception of any issues that they are framed around. While scientific evidence should be universally constant, even the way science is conducted and scientific paradigms are affected by the range of popular discourses. Issues like the fast-food and cigarette industry, black-metal music, and global warming are just four of the innumerable objects that are formed by the interplay between popular discourses and scientific evidence. While the scientific evidence manipulated by these discourses may not reflect reality, they can reveal traditions and values that each culture upholds. Popular discourse, in turn, should be considered as regulatory mechanisms for culture. While each culture has many different opposing and complementary discourses, the thoughts of the individuals are formed with the complex interaction between these two factors. Determining the shape of the future, these popular discourses have the ability to propagate these effects throughout time. As a result, what someone thinks may not be so personal after all, but rather an aggregation of the thoughts of the whole world.
No comments:
Post a Comment