MARKING A LIMIT OF NEOLIBERALISM: DEMOCRATIC THEORY, ADVERTISING, AND THE CLASSROOM A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Liberal Studies By John E. Buschman, M.A. Georgetown University Washington, D.C. November 30, 2011 Copyright 2011 by John E. Buschman All Rights Reserved ii MARKING A LIMIT OF NEOLIBERALISM: DEMOCRATIC THEORY, ADVERTISING, AND THE CLASSROOM John Buschman, M.A. Chair: Gerald M. Mara, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This study is a theoretical exercise in the practical use of democratic theory applied to a paradigmatic case of advertising in the public school classroom. It is practical in the sense that it addresses and frames a contemporary public policy and practice via the question, should we care about this, and if so why? Democracies have historically concerned themselves with the purpose and structure of education since their flourishing and continuation depends upon the attributes of democratic citizens. The contemporary neoliberal environment has fostered and spread the market model to shape public institutions, their functioning and purpose, and it is neoliberalism and its intersection with the democratic function of schools and classrooms that is the focus of this study. Advertising has penetrated American society deeply, up to and including advertising in the classroom during required school time. There are empirical and theoretical critiques and concerns about advertising and the young generally, and in the schools specifically, but these have not substantively affected the practice. This study will establish the historical connection between American democratic thinking and education (Chapter 1), the presence of advertising in the schools (Chapter 2), and the iii empirical and theoretical critiques of advertising vis-à-vis the young (Chapter 3). The study will then turn to three resources within democratic theory in order to more deeply interrogate the practice (Chapter 4): Tocqueville (section 4.1), communitarianism (section 4.2), and deliberative democracy (section 4.3). The study concludes with an analysis (Chapter 5) of why this practice is of continuing concern, and may even be extended and protected under neoliberal logics. iv Acknowledgements Conventions such as thesis acknowledgement pages can be exercises in tedium for the reader, so I will try and spare at least some of that by moving quickly from the general to the specific. Boswell said that “A man will turn over half a library to make one book.” We now no longer limit that to “a man,” and we have such substantial resources available to us routinely in good libraries (let alone in research libraries) that we don’t turn half of them over. Nevertheless, what we research and think is shaped by the context in which a library situates the resources we discover, and it is as important what we decide not to include as what we do. Deciding to include something (or not) means it has to be there in the first place. The future of libraries, seemingly ever at issue, was never far from my mind—right along with their enveloping context of education. My goal is that we not distort either beyond recognition in their roles in a democracy. I am grateful to the Liberal Studies committee that accepted my application, and for the support I received along the way here at Georgetown. This thesis had its genesis in the work of many teachers over the years. I would especially like to acknowledge Richard Brosio, Phyllis O’Callaghan, and my committee members Vincent Miller, Francis Ambrosio, and Gerald Mara. I learned a tremendous amount from them, and I could not have asked for better or more incisive guidance than I received from Gerry. He accepted and worked with my premise, and made every page better. v Finally, phrases like “could not have done this without the love and support…” do not suffice in this case. Simply put, the opportunity, the ability, and the reason to write this would not exist without Dorothy, to whom this thesis is dedicated, of course. vi CONTENTS Copyright ii Abstract iii Acknowledgements v Introduction 1 Chapter 1 : Education as a Core Concern of Political Theory 22 Chapter 2 : Advertising in American Public Schools: Framing the Paradigmatic Case of Channel One 58 Chapter 3 : Critiques of Advertising: From the Theoretical to the Empirical 84 Chapter 4 : Three Resources of Analysis and Critique from Democratic Theory: Tocqueville, Communitarianism, and Deliberative Democracy 132 4.1: Tocqueville and the Centrifugal/Centripetal Forces Within America 134 4.2: A Practical Communitarianism 175 4.3: Deliberative Democratic Theory’s Deeper Critique of Neoliberalism and Advertising in the Public School Classroom 214 Chapter 5 : Conclusion: Reasons to Look Ahead 250 References 273 vii Introduction [Political philosophy] cannot, from the very nature of its interests, avoid evaluation; it is thoroughly committed not only to the analysis of, but to conclusions about the validity of, ideas of the good and the bad, the permitted and the forbidden, the harmonious and the discordant problems which any discussion of liberty or justice or authority or political morality is sooner or later bound to encounter. How do we know what is not an adequate programme for human beings in given historical circumstances? --Isaiah Berlin, Does political theory still exist? Advertising in the schools is very prevalent: over 80 percent of American public school students at all levels are subjected to some overt form of advertising directed at them during the school day (Moore 2007). What form does the practice take? Broadly, there are three types: direct advertising (an ad appearing on school walls, book covers, posters, athletic scoreboards, etc.), sponsored educational materials (Exxon’s lesson plan and video on the re-flourishing of Prince William Sound, or Scholastic Inc. sending teaching units on Puerto Rico sponsored by that government to stimulate tourism), and contests, samples and incentive programs (the familiar cereal box-top programs) (Center for Commercial-Free Public Education; France 1996). The practice is expanding: school districts in Minnesota now allow the surfaces of lockers to be used as ad space, and along with Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas, the outside of school buses (Draper 2010; Blankinship 2010). The reason it is happening is universally acknowledged: the schools need the money in a flat or shrinking budget environment (Draper 2010; Blankinship 2010; Macedo 2010; Moore 2007). Moreover, the practice is 1 defended by both businesses and the schools on the basis of the good that funding does, that the information updates and enriches curricular materials and equipment (like updated software), the information (now) promotes healthy behaviors, the materials are heavily filtered by the teachers, and that with these examples in front of the students the schools are probably the best place to teach media and advertising literacy (Macedo 2010; Moore 2007; Austin et al. 2006; Kane and Wynns 1999; France 1996). The arguments against the practice are straightforward: it is marketing, not philanthropy and “advertising in schools exploits a captive audience of schoolchildren; exposure to marketers’ messages should not be compulsory” (Golin in Macedo 2010). Furthermore, the schools are not even getting a good return for the privilege (Blakinship 2010; Moore 2007). Should this state of affairs bother us, and if so why? The question is not as easy to answer as it might seem on its face. The popular argument questions the harm: after all, aren’t American children and adolescents immersed in an environment saturated with advertising already? “It doesn’t offend me, but it’s sort of stupid. They’re ugly” as a high school student put it when questioned about ads on her school’s walls and buses (Weschler 1997, 69; Hoffman 1991). Advertising is simply their environment; its occurrence in the schools represents a mere drop in the bucket. Eliminating it would have little meaningful effect. Conversely, the popular arguments that make the claim that the practice represents a positive good in the form of better services/resources for students at lower costs broadly follow the ascendant neoliberal argument that “markets co-ordinate society more efficiently and effectively than states … can ever hope to because they are dynamic and responsive” (Clarke et al. 2 2007, 3). A recent survey of American mothers found support for an array of advertising practices when it provided materials or support for the school, and opposition only in clear cases where the practice was “intrusive and inescapable” (Dolliver 2009). Those who have critiqued advertising and consumption 1 have in turn been critiqued as elitist: “the baubles of consumerism buy off discontent,” and in “dismissing them as baubles” empty of any aesthetic or political or cultural content, critics assume a “higher” moral or intellectual stance (Schudson 1999, 351-352; 1001; Kahan 2006). The broad phenomena have been defended as the sign of a healthy society or as liberating individualism. Consumer goods can be “authentic sources of both utility and meaning” (Schudson 1999, 352; Twitchell 2000; Wilson 2000; Fiske 2000; Lasch 1993, 1388). The opposite position seems to be arguing “as if it were not a good thing for ordinary men and women to possess useful and beautiful objects (as the rich and powerful have always done)” (Walzer in Schudson 1999, 353). Media, consumption,