A news article on CNN addresses the issue of adult-inspired lingerie marketed for young girls. This article discusses the events preceding the actions of Jours Après Lunes, a French company which has designed a line of “loungerie”—a compromise between loungewear and lingerie—for girls between the ages of 4 and 12. Certainly, a clothing line targeted for infants is rather common in the marketing industry today, but the photographs published to promote the line were what ignited the heated controversies revolving around the company’s designs. Questions concerning the appropriateness of child lingerie resulted in a public outcry which claimed that the ads and lingerie are sexualizing young girls. Thus, the debate of whether it is the ad or the lingerie that is inappropriate remains in question.
The issues of marketing demand and body image are primarily being contested in this article. The subjects of this issue are young girls who, at a very young age, know how to pose in front of the camera when asked to “look beautiful”. This campaign, with its “prominently featured stuffed animals” is also similar to a recent Victoria’s Secret fashion show, where “scantily-clad models dragged teddy bears down the catwalk”. This begs the question of how one can draw the fine line between what is appropriate and what is not? Adding on, these merchandises are not distributed in the UK or the US, which may draw on other cultural issues. Who gets to decide whether or not these pieces of clothing are worth buying? Is it the mothers of children, the public, the manufacturers, or perhaps even the State? Even more so, what is beauty? To what extent can someone grasp the concept of beauty and attempt to convey it through means of advertising? How can one determine what will sell best? Also, how can one deem what is “beautiful” if most of the pictures we see are actually products of fabrication? Consequently, the most important ways of knowing in this issue include language, emotion, perception, and logic. The subject at hand also touches on certain areas of knowing like art and ethics.
One of the most prominent knowledge issues raised in this article concerns the idea of ethics. Are the pictures only demands of the market and promoted for marketing purposes? Or does it show the evolution of ideas to target younger children? Is it socially appropriate or not for companies to target young girls and exploit them for marketing purposes? To start off with, one must understand what ethics is. Is there absolute truth in ethics or is it simply a matter of context, beliefs, and experiences? Ethics is either subjective or objective depending on a person’s take on issues. We gather our knowledge of worldly events based on the four ways of knowing, but often times, these areas can easily be tampered with through context that could create personal perspectives and biases. As a result, it is hard to draw out what is right and what is wrong. Is there such a line that exists to differentiate between what is morally right and morally corrupt? Or is everything based on contextual truth? Some people argue that there indeed exists an absolute truth because it helps to preserve order in society and validates what knowledge and understanding we have accumulated over the years as human beings. In relation to this article, I think the problem here is that parents who support this industry by continually buying their products are what feed into the ubiquitous images of this kind in society. If nobody expresses an interest in buying the product it will surely go away. But then again, new marketing strategies will be utilized and considered for further improvements. Consumers are lured into purchasing such things because of their personal interpretations of what is “attractive” or “practical”. Of course, one must acknowledge the idea that the description of beauty is largely diverse across cultures, thus making it difficult to measure as a universal factor.
Many parallels can be drawn from this case. A notable real-life example could be Toddles and Tiaras, a beauty pageant show that aired in the UK which was specifically designed to give toddlers the opportunity to win the title of a beauty pageant queen. Some toddlers were shown to have undergone plastic surgery either by their own will or the pressures exerted by their relentless mothers. Certainly, this was quite shocking and controversial, as it raised many concerns that dealt with similar ethical values portrayed in this case. This show, like the case above, puts into consideration the sexualization of girls in every form of media, ranging from magazines to advertisements to reality-television shows. It addresses female body image and sexuality, and how the market (or even parents of the young girls), have evolved into adopting certain ideals for what they believes is what the greater population wants to see. Research has shown that sexually objectifying women at a progressively younger has been occurring for the last 20 years in advertising, where young girls are now shown what the fashion industry deems as perfect/beautiful. Is it okay for children to be exposed to face criticism at such a young age pertaining to their physical appearances? What is most horrifying here is that these young girls are actually aware and fixate on certain expectations that are attached to beauty, and in turn, know how to portray a sexualized look at such a young age. But with a progressive society that continues to place emphasis on the value of younger women, it becomes more difficult for girls to steer away from striving for physical perfection.
Besides demand and body image, there are also ethical concerns with exposing young children to sexual contents. Lingerie is associated with under garments that are worn with the purpose to enhance figure to make the wearer more sexually appealing or attractive. Is it appropriate for young children between the ages of 4-12 to be exposed to such promiscuous contents? You raised some very critical questions when addressing who does gets to decide whether or not children should get to buy these items, the children, the parents or the state. Perhaps you should expand on this concept of defining the word appropriate and discuss some of the language issues with defining particular words. The general term 'appropriate' cannot be clearly defined because depending on the context of the situation, different conducts will be considered appropriate. For example in modern society in the United States, it is appropriate and common for people to have natural sized feet. However in ancient China, there was the tradition of foot binding (http://www.chinaindepthtravel.com/guide_info.asp?id=24). In the context of the Chinese culture, it was entirely appropriate and necessary for women to find their feet. Although the primary issue in lotus feet probably lies more in ethical considerations, however there are language issues involved in the matter. It was socially acceptable and preferred for women to have small feet to be considered as a candidate for marriage in ancient china, just like how it is socially acceptable for people to have natural feet in modern society.
ReplyDeleteI particularly liked the parallel example that you selected between the line of lingerie for young children and the case of the beauty pageants. It really does raise ethical concerns as to the effects of the media on children. Are the children becoming prematurely exposed to contents beyond their age?
In my opinion, the most important question that you suggested is "how we can deem what is "beautiful" is most of the pictures we see are fabrications?" The fashion industry has a heavy influence on what we believe to be beautiful. I don't think that it is the fault of the parents for wanting to make their children be "beautiful" in the eyes of other people. The fashion companies are to blame for, what I consider, to be using the parental instinct to make their children seem beautiful as a business. The corporations should not be the only ones to blame for these new trends. Jacci makes a good point when she says that corporations will create new marketing ideas to sell these new clothing lines to people. I think that parents should be responsible enough to make the proper judgments for their children when they are at a young age.
ReplyDeleteVery strong potential TOK issue, but the controversy and the explicit positions of the respective sides of the issue are not clearly delineated and therefore the post lacks a focus. Clearly this is related to ethics and economics but how and why is not fully clear and therefore erratically developed.
ReplyDeleteIn future, make sure you clearly describe the opposing sides arguments because it is from those arguments that the very specific issue will arise. Without that, you are left to speculate which ends up being a paragraph of rhetorical questions seeking some traction on the real issue.
Commenters struggled to straighten out the confusion and therefore were limited in their ability to add something relevant and new. PCD largely reaffirmed what had already been stated.