Month: April 2017

The definition of discourse is “groups of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of that thinking.” (Rose 2001, p. 136). It is a form of language that has laws within the institutions that it is circulated. An example given by Rose (2001) is medical discourse, which has its own forms, rules and spaces that it is spoken. Medical discourse produces its own knowledge (Nead 1988 as cited in Rose 2001, p. 136). Discourse also produces subjects, doctors nurses etc (Rose 2001, p. 136). To simplify, there is meaning and knowledge behind each word spoken, it is not simply the word itself.

Discourses do not have to be specialised like medical discourse, and can be articulated through a variety of images, texts and speech (Rose 2001, p. 136). Foucault pioneered this understanding of discourse and discourse analysis. He stated that discourse is a form of discipline and power (Rose 2001, p. 137). Discourse is associated with power because it is productive, disciplining its subjects to a certain understanding and appropriate behaviour, creating human subjects. (Rose 2001, p. 137). Identity, a sense of self and our relation to the surrounding world is created through discourse (Rose 2001, p. 137). Discourse analysis I, used by Elliot (2001), “tends to pay rather more attention to the notion of discourse as articulated through various kinds of visual images and verbal texts” (Rose 2001, p. 140). It is used to display how certain images construct specific views of the world and is concerned with the social modality of the image (Rose 2001, p. 140).

Elliot (2001) uses discourse analysis methods to analyse marketing of coffee and its representation of global culture (Elliot 2001, p. 369), involving Starbucks coffee in her case study. Elliot discusses how Starbucks market their product to create a new life style and induce excitement in the coffee bean. Elliot also discusses the “interpretive repertoire” of marketing, as consumers ingest contradictory discourses of foreignness (Potter 1996 as cited in Rose 2001, p. 156, Elliot 2001, p. 369). This discourse aligns with “the complexity and contradictions internal to discourses” (Rose 2001, p. 156). They have structures but are not necessarily logical or coherent.

Rose states that “discourse analysis is to be concerned with the discursive production of some kind of authoritative account” (2001, p. 142) and with the social practices embedded within the discourse. This can be seen with Elliot’s analysis of Starbucks symbolic marketing of their product. Elliot uses starting points of academic texts on globalisation to begin her discourse analysis (Rose 2001, p. 142). By looking at symbolic analysis’ and other disciplines, she asserts the need for a discourse analysis of Starbucks and globalisation. She moves onto to using iconography methods to analyse the effects of Starbucks on cross cultural consumption and globalisation. Iconography is “the subject matter or meaning was, for Panofsky, to be established by referring to the understandings of the symbols and signs in a painting that it’s contemporary audiences would have had” (Rose 2001, p. 144). Through understanding the symbols and multilayered text of coffee, one can analyse its effect on the global scale (Elliot 2001, p. 371) becoming integrated as a key part of Western consumer identity.

Elliot looks at how marketing of coffee has changed through historical advertisements (Elliot 2001, p. 372). Through this analysis of advertisements, Starbucks use of symbols and discourse can be compared and contrasted. They personify the beans, creating an otherworldly sense (consuming culture in a cup) (Elliot 2001, p. 373), from Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Indonesia and New Guinea, to Kenya, Ethiopia and Yemen. This discourse is combined with Starbucks array of trademarked blends. Starbucks asserts it “creates” its blends (Elliot 2001, p. 373). This contrasts with its otherworldliness, yet is tied together within Starbucks advertising. Thus, the “interpretive repertoire” is created (Potter 1996 as cited in Rose 2001, p. 156) and hosts a great symbolic power (Elliot 2001, p 374).

Elliot goes further into Starbucks advertisements harnessing otherworldliness with how coffee is described, as “”magical”, “intriguing”, “fleeting” and “elusive” (Elliot 2001, p. 378). This combines “Starbucks’ sense of the exotic and its Western gaze with the mysterious and primitive to create a coffee profile with multiple meanings” (Elliot 2001, p. 378). She gives countless other examples of discourse and visual images Starbucks has used to create their iconic brand, controlling coffee and all its cultural behaviours. Methods described by Rose are used by Elliot to analyse Starbucks’ discourse on coffee in order to market its product.

Holt uses Oxford’s definition of a cultural icon, “a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol, especially of a culture or movement” (Holt 2004, p. 1). Cultural icons are shorthand to represent important ideas, a compelling symbol of ideas and values that a society deems important (Holt 2004, p, 1). This idea of a cultural symbol is as old as society itself. The economic motives that are tied to cultural symbols however, is more recent. As society advanced and communication and production moved to a mass scale, cultural icons developed economic motives (Holt 2004, p. 2). They are successful due to “identity myths” (Holt 2004, p. 2), consumers use cultural icons to address desires and anxieties. Addressing cultural anxieties is the most successful economic strategy, making a consumer believe this anxiety will be soothed if the product is bought (Holt 2004, p. 8).

Economy is about making things until the 1980s when it became about making brands with the success of Nike, Tommy Hilfiger and Microsoft. These brands, according to Klein (2009), are constantly competing to occupy unmarked space in private and public lives. Institutions like schools and concepts of identity are all free game (Klein 2009). Economically, branding made sense as it made corporations smaller and more manageable. Advertisements involving inventions of new products were joined with advertisements of better versions of products. As the market became flooded with uniform mass-produced products that were virtually indistinguishable from one another, branding become a key economic tool to set a product apart from the others. Thus, food became associated with names, Campbell’s Soup, Heinz Ketchup are just a few examples. This strategy helped create a connection to the product, an emotion and loyalty.

A successful brand, however, does not automatically become a cultural icon. A brand becomes a brand when consumers associate meaning to their name, logo, slogan etc (Holt 2004, p. 3). Brands become cultural icons when they have “identity value” (Holt 2004, p.3), meaning they hold values which consumers use to construct their identities. Wearing Nike means to be athletic; buying Apple is to be hip and young. Holt coined the term cultural branding to describe this phenomenon (Holt 2004, p. 5). Most consumer brands use this economic strategy to market their product, Holt assess this in his socio-cultural analysis of six different brands (Holt 2004, p. 6). Cultural branding helps separate brands from their economic motives, giving them authenticity and credibility and making the consumer feel wanted and apart of something (Holt 2004, p. 9, p. 36). Cultural brands also use abstract associations, and insisting consistency as one of their many economic strategies (Holt 2004, p. 38).

An example of cultural branding is Redbull energy drink. Redbull has associated itself with action, adventure and bravery. Using sponsored events and flashy stunts, Redbull has harnessed cultural anxieties of not living life to the fullest in order to get people to buy their product. Thus, to drink Redbull is to be a daredevil, an action hero. The two bulls going head to head alludes to strength and bravado, tapping into common Western masculinity anxieties. Almost every event and stunts involve men.

The basic definition of semiotics is a sign, according to Berger (2010, p.3), it is “defined conceptually as something that stands for something else” (Berger 2010, p. 3). This is evident in the word semiotics itself, which comes from the Greek word for sign, semeion (Berger 2010, p. 4). Modern semiology, fathered by Ferdinande de Saussure, works on the understanding that social and cultural phenomena, such as objects and events, holds meaning beyond their material being (Berger 2010, p.4).

Berger defines a sign simply as something that stands for something else (Berger 2010, p. 3, p. 11, Branston, G., & Stafford, R 2003, p. 12
). It is the unity of the signifier (the word or object) and signified (the prescribed meaning) (Berger 2010, p.3). This relationship is entirely socially constructed, according to Berger (2010, p. 5). Berger asserts that similar things can be understood as different to different individuals, depending on their social and cultural background (Pierce 1958 as cited in Berger 2010, p. 9).

Icon is one of Pierce’s “three types of signs” (Pierce 1958 as cited in Berger 2010, p. 9). These include icon, indexes and symbols. Icons signify by resemblance. An example of an iconic sign is photographs (Berger 2010, p. 10). They are drawings of the things that they stand for (Branston, G., & Stafford, R 2003, p. 12). Examples of this are signs of smoking areas, gendered toilets and dog areas.

Symbols signify by connection and have to be learned (Pierce 1958 as cited in Berger 2010, p. 10). An example of symbolic signs is a flag, which symbolises a nationality or geographic location (Berger 2010, p. 10). More contemporary semiotic academics such as Saussure, believe that symbols are never completely arbitrary (Berger 2010, p. 14). Symbols always have some kind of bond to the signifier, although we must learn that bond. Seeing a red light does not naturally produce us to stop, we must learn the meaning behind the colour of the traffic lights. Symbols are not only socially constructed but help construct culture. They shape our behaviour in many areas such as religion, nationality and status (Berger 2010, p. 15). This differs from iconic signs as they hold some resemblance to the signified. A picture of a rose is iconic, the word “rose” is symbolic (Branston, G., & Stafford, R 2003, p. 14).

Index’s signify by causal connection (Pierce 1958 as cited in Berger 2010, p. 10, Branston, G., & Stafford, R 2003, p. 14). Smoke generated from fire is an example of an indexical symbol, as they are physically connected (Berger 2010, p. 10). Smoke coming out of an exhaust pipe is an indexical sign of a broken car, a runny nose a indexical sign for a cold. This differs to symbolic and iconic signs, as there is a causal connection, it is not simply a learned connection or a resemblance. One leads to the other.

Signs and semiotics can be studied to different ways, synchronically (at a given point in time) and diachronically (as they develop over time) (Berger 2010, p. 6). Semiotics is used widely in cultural studies, in order to understand historical developments and understandings. It is also commonly linked to Marxist theories and psychoanalytical theory (Berger 2010, p. 11). Semiotic theory is used as a research method to offer understanding into how people consume media and how find meaning in everyday life (Berger 2010, p. 11). Berger gives the example of semiotic analysis research method with the Acura motorcar. The name is based on a series of codes and representations (Berger 2010, p. 27).