The Hypocrisy in The Anticorporate Attitude

"It is an attempt to capture an anticorporate attitude I see emerging among many young activists.  This book is hinged on a simple hypothesis:  that as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement, a vast wave of opposition squarely targeting transnational corporations, particularly those with very high name brand recognition,"  Naomi Klein states regarding her book No Logo.

Klein writes extensively on culture jamming, which is a process by which people interrupt the "one-way information flow" of corporate advertising and oppose the general messages and/or ideologies of said corporations.  She separates culture jamming into three basic forms--Graffiti, Adbusting, and Media Collectives--all of which target and criticize established and recognizable brands and their advertising.

The problem with culture jamming movement and the anticorporate attitude it creates is that the entire process can easily become hypocritical and self-defeating.  In attempting to deter consumers from one lifestyle, they are in turn promoting and advertising their own agenda and lifestyle.  Of course, not all culture jamming is guilty of this, but there are more than a few parties guilty of making such superficial criticisms that they themselves could also be criticized for.

To exemplify this, let's examine Adbusters Media Foundation and the "Black Spot" sneakers that they are currently selling.  Adbusters is an anti-consumerist organization that is also a major proponent of "Buy Nothing Day."  The sneakers that they are selling resemble the classic Converse Chuck Taylor design, and are called "Black Spot" sneakers because of the black spot that is present where a logo would normally be present.  This black spot is supposed to represent a lack of branding.

However, I think one could easily argue that this black spot, or declared lack of brand, can be interpreted as a brand in itself--and an expensive one at that.  These shoes retail at $65 a pair, whereas Chuck Taylors retail at least $15 to $20 cheaper.  And not only that, but Adbusters ran a $500,000 dollar campaign promoting these shoes on television on CNN, and also in the New York Times.  So, how is this anti-corporate organization selling a product and promoting a brand any differently than the corporate organizations they oppose?

In their defense, Adbusters does pride themselves on their labor practices, and the fact that their shoes are manufactured without the exploitation of workers in third-world countries.  But aside from that, it is of my opinion that this organization in particular is no different from the organizations that they criticize.  They are merely selling a lifestyle that is slightly alternative to the one promoted by most organizations in the mainstream media.

-Dustin