Don't be so Mayo!

Advertising is a weird phenomenon. It tends to be a Chicken and the Egg type scenario. What comes first: the Marketer manufacturing the concept or the concept which is already manifest that the Marketer just co-opts in order to be “hip with the kids” or current/relevant? I would say that, unless it is an extremely “Underground” or “Under the Radar” Brand, then, it is generally the later case because Marketers are not “Creators”—they are not Artists; they rely on market research, which tells them the current climate in which they are trying to “position” their Brand and the type of Values/Lifestyles/Language they want to employ in order to “Target” a certain “Segment” of the population.

As you may have noticed, a lot of Brands today are trying to position themselves with this type of Individualistic attitude/Brand Personality in order to differentiate themselves from the rest of the Market no matter how far of a stretch it may be for the correlation between the product and this concept.

Case in Point: Miracle Whip.

What the hell do condiments have to do with defining one’s Individuality/Identity/Unique Personality? Does anyone really believe that by choosing Miracle Whip over Mayonnaise that they will not “go unnoticed,” “blend in,” “be ordinary,” “boring,” or “bland?”

Will this product help us to define who we are as an Individual and help us to create our own personal Lifestyle Brand? By choosing the “zesty” flavor of Miracle Whip over the tired, old egg-white flavor of Mayonnaise will we be rebelling against the System, bucking the Status Quo, or redefining a Generation? Does Miracle Whip’s refusal to conform help us to be more “Creative” or to “think outside the box?” By using Miracle Whip do we become the “Hero” or the “Outlaw” (or maybe one of the other 10 overly-simplified personality Archetypes that marketers use—based on Jungian (as in Carl Jung, a one time collaborator of Freud's) psychology—to define their target audience)?

Do we really believe that the most minute consumer decisions can express our Individuality and that the Brands we choose actually make a difference to our identities, our aesthetics, even our happiness?

We are our own unique, one of a kind flavor and we will not tone it down!

Some Hip Youths in an undisclosed location on the East Coast, who are still trying to decide which sandwich condiment best expresses their Personal Brand Lifestyle.

There is a Policemen Inside All Our Heads...

After the Cultural Revolution of the Sixties in America, there became an over-emphasis on the need to be an Individual, to be oneself, to be a free, autonomous Being defined over and against the “Organization Man” in the “gray flannel suit.” The attack began with a direct, physical assault on the United States government, which soon failed because the government simply had more guns/soldiers. So the Radicals’ strategy was altered a bit. It began to be thought that if one could just change one’s own mind, to start thinking for oneself and remove the controls planted there by the State and the Corporations—which kept people subservient to the dominate "system"—then the old order could still be overthrown and it would be “the dawning of the Age of Aquarius,” of non-conformity, of Freedom and Democracy, and, above all, Community.

This new form of Individualism, however, is much more radical and doctrinaire than the old brand of US Individualism—personified by the image of the Rugged Individualist—and replaces the idea of Self-reliance with the vague notion of Self-esteem. People wanted new ways to express their “Self” in a seemingly conformist world; to differentiate their Self from “The Masses;” to break free from oppressive and repressive Tradition and Convention. The only problem is that there is no guide for being oneself. People then tried to “invent themselves,” but where do these new values come from? Is the Self something that can be deliberately found, or made, or does it require instruction from Nature and History, as well? What exactly does an invented or discovered Self look like and how does one know when they are being authentic or inauthentic to this Self?

The idea of Self-fulfillment that went along with this Movement gave a bit of glamour to this new Self-centeredness, but it was by no means a noble act—it was merely a concession, an admittance that all other alternatives had failed.

It is now become more important to feel awesome, than to do awesome things; we have become more accepting, but also much less demanding. We are now Egoists, not in a vicious way, but because the Ego is all there is in present theory. We are a nation of narcissists taking pictures of ourselves in mirrors and posting them on the internet in order to get instant Ego-gratification. But there’s nothing new to be seen in a mirror and this Self-centeredness has actually become the ultimate form of dependence which has no other standard than the opinion of Others about our-Self.

And the ultimate irony of it all is that this Radical Individualism does not seem to satisfy the Self. The initial goal of the Sixties movement was really an incoherent idea from the start—somehow through greater emphasis of the Individual, we will ultimately create greater Community—and we are now feeling the repercussions of its dissonance. We have become a nation of Individual Wills, simply bouncing off of one another with no Common Good taken into consideration. Republicans try to express this idea when they talk about "The Real America”—apparently still in existence somewhere in the South and Midwest—yet, whenever Liberals try to express it they are denounced by the same Republicans as being Marxists. This is not a new problem, we have just reached the end of its history—the culmination of a project begun 250 years ago during the Age of Enlightenment, which has been criticized by every major Philosopher (on the Left and the Right) that has lived since then.

In the Beginning There Was the Word

What does it mean to be an “Individual” and where does this concept come from?

Individualism's origins begin in the late Middle Ages (The Dark Ages) in the works of early Renaissance writers, artists and scholars rebelling against the authority of the Catholic Church. A few centuries later, Individual autonomy is once again asserted by Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation, further deteriorating the Catholic domination of the West. And the concept becomes fully developed during the Enlightenment, in the writings of Classical Liberals (not to be confused with our current crop of Liberals) such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes who helped drive the final nail into the coffin of the Church's authority over Civil Society and private life.

Being an “Individual” necessarily entails antagonism against others because of an assertion of one’s own beliefs and interests against the commonly held concerns of "The Masses.” It is the promotion of one's own goals and desires thru independence and self-reliance, while opposing most external interference upon one's interests by society (the dominant Culture/Majority) or institution (The Government/State). Individualism’s natural by-product is the concept of “Freedom,” in which one has the Right to Freedom of thought, of conscience, of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, etc., all secured by Private Property and promoted by a Government founded to protect these cherished ends.

Individualism also means the emphasis of Rights over Duties, of desire over responsibility, of the singular Will over the general. It is the Right to your own personal satisfactions regardless of the cost to the community—in which you are inextricably a part, despite your level of participation/non-participation in the Whole. It also attenuates the possibility of “Culture”—defined as a shared set of assumptions which unites and binds a People—because the Individualist’s goal is to transcend the commonly held beliefs and create one’s own standards upon which to live.

As the bohemian artist Oscar Wilde put it, “Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.” An important function to be sure, but where does one draw the line between the desire to be one’s self and the desire to be part of a community; to be independently minded and to participate in a Culture; to be a part of something bigger than one’s self as opposed to merely an atom in a continually changing flux?