You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel
so gradually, I didn't even notice. Yeesh!
— Marge Simpson, "Lisa's Wedding"
In pop sociology there is a term called "McDonaldization," referring to the trend toward homogeneity and sameness brought about by factors such as globalization, mass production, or even cultural hegemony. Hey, cut that out! I can hear your eyes rolling!
The thing is, you don't need a McDonald's to have McDonaldization. It can be brought about by other global corporations, like Coke™ and Pepsi™, General Motors and Toyota, Apple™ and Microsoft™, or even Burger King.
So I'm noticing on television lately these BK commercials where they go into some remote part of the world where the villagers there have supposedly never ever seen a burger, much less eaten one, and they have those beef patty neophytes do a taste test between a McDonald's Big Mac™ and a BK Whopper™.
The neophytes are called "Whopper virgins," which is also the name of the website to which the viewer is directed. If you go there, you are shown a Discovery Channel-style documentary showing how they ran the taste test (objectively, apparently, since some of the "virgins" chose the Big Mac over the Whopper or they had no preference; the majority of those with a preference chose the Whopper. Surprise! D'uh).
Above is a Mickey D's in Thailand, which is close to a Burger King. They brought the villagers to a taste test site that was within fifteen minutes of both a McDonald's and a Burger King so the burgers would be fresh. (I like how Ronald McDonald is doing a Thai greeting... that's "localization of globalization," kiddies!)
The villagers featured in the commercial (from which these scenes were captured with EyeTV) are all from a remote Thai village, but the faux National Geographic special shows the same effort in Romania and in Greenland.
Frankly, I am troubled by this. First, it's bad enough that American corporate hegemony has eroded the cultural and dietary practices of people all over the globe, but do we really need to find some of the last no-burger holdouts and force them to participate in a corporate-sponsored taste test designed to boost consumerism among a largely overweight customer base back home? [Burger King, I hate you for making me sound like a freakin' leftist!]
I mean, do we really need to contaminate the palate of the few that are left who have never let a bleached flour bun cross their lips? Sure, there's something to be said for trying new things. I'm a resident of Seoul, where gutsy visitors try to steel themselves to try kaegogi [also gaegogi; 개고기, dog meat] or pŏndegi [beondegi; 번데기, silkworm larvae, a favorite of kids for God only knows what reason], but with hegemonic fast-food it's not the same.
I mean, it's not like pŏndegi is taking over the world. It's not like Big Beondegi is producing silkworm larvae en masse with hormones and excessive antibiotics all the while polluting the local water supply with manure runoff (or are they?) and you consuming one is just one more nail in the coffin of some ecosystem somewhere.
I love me a good burger. I'm thankful to be living in a place where I can go to Carl's Jr anytime I want, and I don't mind getting a double cheeseburger every now and then. But do we need to push it on the locals in Thailand, Romania, and Greenland? Sheesh.
Now, call me a prude, but I'm also not terribly happy with their word choice. I realize "virgin" lately been used in place of words like neophyte, novice, rookie, or even newbie, but I see this as creative laziness. By using a word that clearly has a meaning intrinsically related to sexual activity, they're subliminally trying to give their campaign a bit of an edge.
"Whopper Newbies." Couldn't they have gone for cute over edgy? Sheesh. [Anyone back in Korea able to tell me if there is a similar advertising campaign going on over there and, if so, what term they're using in lieu of "Whopper virgins"?]
This is part of a disturbing trend of pornification of mainstream culture. Raise your hand if you heard Alaska Governor Sarah Palin referred to as a "M.I.L.F." Now, when did you first hear that term? Better yet, where did you first hear it? I first encountered it in porn spam. Then I noticed people were starting to use it in everyday conversation.
Okay, fine. We're adults. But then I started hearing people use it in conversation in front of children. In other words, it has become so engrained in our heads that we easily forget (temporarily) that it means "Mothers I'd like to fuck." (I'm assuming cyber nannies are blocking kids from reading this blog due to the profanity; if so, kudos on their mom and dad for their mad parenting skills.)
Mothers I'd like to fuck... said in code in front of kids. Sheesh.
BK's contribution is to introduce the term "Whopper virgins" on cartoons watched by millions of kids (these stills were lifted from a recording of The Simpsons). Great. I don't have any kids of my own yet, but I have nephews and nieces and young cousins from infants to very early teens. Their parents fear letting them have email addresses in part because of unsolicited spam mail talking about MILFs and links to "Nailin' Palin" or bukkake or all kinds of other crap that I'd never heard of just a few years ago (nor cared to see).
It's pervasive. On the radio here in Honolulu, 101.9 was telling listeners in evening drive-time to go to their website to see "Nailin' Palin" pictures. Drive-time is when some parents might actually be taking their kids somewhere. Good way to show corporate responsibility, Star 101.9.
BK is a willing player in all this. They have chosen to further perpetuate this pornification of culture solely for the purpose of making a profit. It's just too much. Burger King, you've lost a customer. [And I hate you for making me sound like a leftist prude.]
UPDATE:
More weird or borderline offensiveness from Burger King. How about a paper placemat depicting a de-pantsed onion about to get probed very uncomfortably.
Or an ad (frankly, I have no idea where this one is from) depicting the Burger 
Well, I find myself in both total agreement and confused ambivalence with your post. To be more specific, I find myself in total agreement with the first part.
ReplyDeleteI first encountered the "Whopper virgins" campaign a few days ago, and it horrified me[1]. I don't think I need to go into the reasons why, as you've covered the issue quite thoroughly in your post.
I'm less convinced, although not in complete disagreement, with the language point. The term virgin, whilst often taken in a sexual context, has certainly entered the vernacular with a broader meaning. Even historically, we've used "Virgin olive-oil", to refer to oil produced from the first pressing of the olives, and classically have used the word in the context of war to describe a fortification not yet breached. Since the 16th Century, at least according to my OED, the term has also meant: "Not yet touched, handled, or employed for any purpose; still undisturbed or unused; perfectly fresh or new".
My point, I suppose, is that it's not a word that children are likely to be shielded from for too long, and that's even ignoring the fact that most children are going to be exposed to far worse at school before they reach double-digits.
Even taken in the worst possible way, it's nowhere near as offensive as the term that you compared it to: "MILF".
"MILF" is an interesting example in itself; terms of this nature hardly being a recent trend. The English language is replete with examples of acceptable words which are either derived from, or euphemisms for, unacceptable terms. "Snafu" has made its way into the common American parlance, despite its infamous origins. British English isn't devoid of such cases, either, with the benign insult "berk" originating from a far more offensive piece of Cockney Rhyming Slang, and the ubiquitous "taking the mickey" having a similar history to it. (And I'm not going to elaborate further - the web filters that you alluded to are legendarily ineffective ;) ).
Euphemistic terms and acronyms are hardly new fodder for advertisers, either. In the last year, we've seen "FUBAR" brand energy drinks, and as an example perhaps familiar to most people: Does anyone besides the insanely credulous really believe that the "G" in "TGI Friday's" stands for "Goodness"?
It's a thorny issue, for sure, but honestly, the cultural contamination of some of the few truly isolated indigenous groups left on the planet is far more outrageous to my mind than the questionable use of the term "virgin".
[1] I am not a Daily Mail reader.
JamesRC wrote:
ReplyDeleteI'm less convinced, although not in complete disagreement, with the language point.
Lucky for you, then, that you're not completely wrong. ;)
The term virgin, whilst often taken in a sexual context, has certainly entered the vernacular with a broader meaning.
Yes, yes, but there is that dominant meaning, which was clearly not lost on Burger King, the same company that has been using subliminal gay porn to advertise their burgers (which, frankly, I found amusing).
Even historically, we've used "Virgin olive-oil", to refer to oil produced from the first pressing of the olives, and classically have used the word in the context of war to describe a fortification not yet breached.
Well, there's a reason we try to keep children off the front lines and away from olive presses whenever possible.
Since the 16th Century, at least according to my OED, the term has also meant: "Not yet touched, handled, or employed for any purpose; still undisturbed or unused; perfectly fresh or new".
Well, I'm not arguing the lexical accuracy so much as the ethical propriety.
My point, I suppose, is that it's not a word that children are likely to be shielded from for too long, and that's even ignoring the fact that most children are going to be exposed to far worse at school before they reach double-digits.
True. I'm one of those people who thinks kids should be shielded but I am under no illusion that shields are impenetrable.
While it's true that we can't protect little Bobby, Sumi, or Kumar from hearing the playground retelling of humping jokes, I don't think it's too much to ask that corporations not introduce adult topics for no good reason to our kids during cartoons.
Even taken in the worst possible way, it's nowhere near as offensive as the term that you compared it to: "MILF".
True. While I was connecting them in the sense that I feel they are both part of the pornification of mainstream North American culture, I wasn't suggesting they were of the same degree.
"MILF" is an interesting example in itself; terms of this nature hardly being a recent trend. The English language is replete with examples of acceptable words which are either derived from, or euphemisms for, unacceptable terms. "Snafu" has made its way into the common American parlance, despite its infamous origins.
Ha ha... I'd forgotten about snafu.
But I wouldn't say that snafu is part of pornification. The "all fu¢ked up" part of snafu isn't the carnal meaning of "f-ed up." No one is calling the potential leader of the free world a "snafu," as was done with the MILFing of Palin (even though we might suggest that Bush's presidency was one giant snafu).
British English isn't devoid of such cases, either, with the benign insult "berk" originating from a far more offensive piece of Cockney Rhyming Slang, and the ubiquitous "taking the mickey" having a similar history to it. (And I'm not going to elaborate further - the web filters that you alluded to are legendarily ineffective ;) ).
Ha ha. None of those examples would work if the British would learn to properly pronounce words. ;)
Did I mention before that I had to stop using the British voice on my new Garmin GPS because it kept adding extraneous R sounds at the end of A's, of which there are many in the Hawaiian-themed street names here in Honolulu? Fortunately the Australian and American voices know better. ;)
Euphemistic terms and acronyms are hardly new fodder for advertisers, either. In the last year, we've seen "FUBAR" brand energy drinks,
Well, the manufacturers of energy drinks are a soulless bunch. I came to realize that after "cocaine" was introduced. And again, the "f-ed up" in fubar isn't salacious.
Why let ethics get in the way of profit-generating shock? We seem, as a culture, to think that because we as adults are able to absorb more and more dissonance, little kids with their sponge-like tabula rasa of a brain are somehow able to proceed normally in such an environment.
and as an example perhaps familiar to most people: Does anyone besides the insanely credulous really believe that the "G" in "TGI Friday's" stands for "Goodness"?
Are you referring to it meaning "God"? If so, then there's an example of what I'm talking about. I grew up surrounded by people who thought nothing of saying God this and God that in ways that might be clear examples of vanity-taking. As long as it didn't have "damn" or "dammit" after it, it was okay.
It's only after college that I realized how many people take genuine offense at that, and I've tried to stop (although one time, on a Christian radio station, no less, I said g-ddammit on the air).
It's a thorny issue, for sure, but honestly, the cultural contamination of some of the few truly isolated indigenous groups left on the planet is far more outrageous to my mind than the questionable use of the term "virgin".
Yeah, I don't exactly disagree. That's why that was first.
Indeed the advertising agency is named Bogusky after Alex Bogusky. He's basically a god in the advertising agency world though I think his work is eh...[flipping my hand as if to say eh]
ReplyDeleteI totally agree- I'm less concerned about "virgin" being heard by children than I am by the ideological implications of it for the globalization process. Burger King's forced export of American culture/food becomes sexualized, casting the "third world" as the receptive/passive partner (gee, where have we seen that imagery before?...maybe the ENTIRE COLONIAL PERIOD.)
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, BK is participating in a weird pure-state-of-nature trope(i.e. the test subjects from less-"developed" countries are purer in judgment etc-etc-shades-of-Rousseau.)
UGH!