• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

© 2010 Catherine Adelaide Coleman DISEMPOWERING THROUGH DEFINITION: A DIALOGIC ETHICS FOR UNDERSTANDING CONSUMER VULNERABILITY THROUGH NIKE’S ‘MIKE AND SPIKE’ ADVERTISING AND AFRICAN AMERICAN CONSUMER HISTORY BY CATHERINE ADELAIDE COLEMAN DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Communications in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Jason Chambers, Chair Professor Clifford Christians Professor Linda Scott, Oxford University Associate Professor William Berry ii ABSTRACT Through socio-historical and market analysis and through the lens of ethical theory, this research argues that past thinking about vulnerable audiences is insufficiently grounded in evidence, unsubtle in its understanding of markets, and unselfconscious about its own paternalism. As a result, such thinking can actually disempower the very audiences it sets out to protect. This project is not simply a commentary on branding or on an historical incident; it is an important reflection of race relations in the United States and a theoretically important exploration of the power dynamics of defining vulnerability and of the roles and responsibilities of marketers, advertisers, endorsers, the media and consumers. This research proposes dialogic ethics as the framework through which to understand and define vulnerability in the consumer realm. Advertising frequently is criticized for creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes of vulnerable populations. Scholars have criticized the media and, in particular, advertising for reflecting and perpetuating racism in portrayals of minorities, with much popular and scholarly criticism of advertising and race into the 1980s based on the fact that there were few to no positive representations of African Americans in mainstream advertising. In 1984, Nike signed rookie Michael Jordan and, in 1986, Nike’s advertising agency hired Spike Lee to direct commercials starring the athlete-turned-hero. The Spike/Mike campaign became emblematic of a breakthrough in race relations. However, the cultural “success” of the Michael Jordan, Spike Lee and Nike relationship and its influence on the brand was played out on the streets across America. The late-1980s and early-1990s mass media was full of reports about youth— specifically black, urban youth—killing each other for Nike’s Air Jordans. Social discourse on the increasingly mainstream images of African-Americans, initially pleased with the depictions iii of a positive, successful and empowered black man in advertising, exploded with charges of exploitation and manipulation. The debate was framed by the premise of urban African- Americans as vulnerable to advertising in a unique way. The circumstances of the “sneaker killings”, which coincided with a time of change and re-formation in the advertising industry and its relation to the African American community, offer not only a rich context in and of itself but unsettles current perceptions of consumer vulnerability and are a hub from which to explore broader concerns about this concept—including issues of social, corporate and consumer responsibility, meaning exchange and control, power and discourse and empowerment. This long-running campaign and the discourse surrounding it are powerful expressions of American race relations and an opportunity to address how definitions of vulnerability can affect the marketplace and the populations deemed vulnerable. This research explores the development of the Nike brand through its association with Michael Jordan and addresses to what extent this association came at a time when the black community was looking for and developing new expressions of their social experiences and position within American society, particularly as it was lived on the streets of urban America, and the ways in which that experience was represented to Main Street America. I argue that the Nike example provides a different perspective on the history of race dynamics and advertising than previously has been presented in scholarly inquiry. This case is a rich illustration of the complexities of and consumer engagement with the Nike brand; and because of the various, but similarly partial, interpretations in media and academic journals of the use of the Nike brand by black, urban communities, it provides a strong foundation upon which to question scholarly approaches to vulnerability and responsibility in consumption environments. Thus, the intention of this work is to interrogate the construction of vulnerability and issues of power and iv responsibility in the consumer realm, and to affect change in discourses of and approaches to consumer vulnerability by re-conceptualizing an approach that both recognizes the structures of power through which consumers must navigate and acknowledges the interpretive domain of human nature. I propose a dialogic ethics as a framework for understanding vulnerability and responsibility in consumer environments. Paulo Freire, in particular, helps us to understand that our humanity is bound in dialogue. Dialogue requires co-participation. The naming of groups as vulnerable through sweeping generalizations neglects to empower the oppressed by giving them voice in the encounter. When definitions of vulnerability are instituted in cultural and social structures of meaning without appropriate respect for and discourse with those so-named, then we risk instituting a culture of silence from the oppressed or “vulnerable.” This dehumanizes the oppressed and diffuses the structures of accountability that come with liberation. Instead, we must engage in true dialogue that accepts multiple voices, presents message that enable critical consciousness and empowers the participants, acknowledges the historical circumstances of our language in discourse, and promotes our humanness, which we find in relation to others. v In memory of and to my mother, Elaine Constantine Coleman And to the rest of my family, especially Ronald N. Coleman and Ronald H. Coleman, and to my friends—thank you vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I received funding through the American Fellowship Grant, 2009-2010 of the American Association of University Women. I extend my thanks to the AAUW for their support and encouragement and for believing in the potential of my scholarship. This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and support of some very special, patient and understanding people. My acknowledgements are many and I count myself fortunate to say that I did not write this dissertation in isolation, but instead I did so under the support and guidance of many wonderful people along the way. My adviser, Dr. Jason Chambers, joined my committee in the middle of my proposal defense and did so with a great deal of his characteristic professionalism. As a very busy academic, he offered me hours of his time and energy in talking with me, providing guidance, and supporting me through important career choices. He approached the barriers of my circumstances with poise and understanding and a great deal of patience, and he has taught me so much about what it means to be a scholar, a mentor and a colleague. I also thank my committee members Drs. Christians, Scott and Berry. Dr. Clifford Christians’ kindness, support and constructive criticism have inspired me to strive to produce my best work, to meet the highest standards, and to aspire to make a difference through my scholarship. He seems to me a gentle soul who approaches everyone with equal amounts of respect and expectation. He also continually expands my vocabulary and ability to express nuance as I observe his use of language. I thank Dr. Linda Scott, whose flair, pursuit of knowledge and friendship are inspiring. She taught me the importance of making strong and bold arguments and to think “outside the box.” She also was an incredible mentor and a steadfast friend when “life” interrupted the process of scholarly production. I owe her a great deal for believing in me and seeing this through. I thank her for taking me under her wing and thank her vii for pushing me out of the nest. I also thank Dr. William Berry, who was willing to step onto an already formed committee and whose support has proven invaluable. His challenging but encouraging questions about my work and the insights he offered contributed a great deal to the layout of this project. His ability to offer insightful metaphors for the dissertation writing process has kept me on track, and whenever I found myself off course, I would recall his well-rounded meal of thought development or his roadmap to completion. I have found myself frequently in awe that such a wonderful group of scholars would be willing to support my work. I am truly honored to have such an “all-star” (to draw from the contents of my dissertation) committee. Thank you simply is not enough. I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to my family, especially my mother, Elaine Constantine Coleman, whose strength, beautiful spirit, passion for learning and creativity, determination, and unwavering belief in me propelled me forward. I am so proud that she witnessed me begin the process of writing this dissertation, I am grateful for her early words of advice as I grappled with the difficulties of writing such a large and complex project, and I find value every day in the enduring nature of her wisdom and support even as she is no longer with us. Thank you, mother, for helping me keep perspective on what is important in life and for providing me, through your life, with a model of how to be. I also thank my father, Ronald Coleman, who continues to believe in and support me and who reminds me how to be “hard-headed” in the face of adversity. I thank my brother, Ronald Hobson Coleman, who offers me the joy of seeing my mother’s love for literature and grace with words live on in him, whose knowledge of history and literature amazes me, and whose determination to pursue his dreams has inspired me. I also thank my extended family, all of whom have rallied around me, especially my Uncle Robert and Aunt viii Louisa and all of my aunts, uncles and cousins.

Load more

  324

Copy Link