The other day I was reading an article written by a well-known Indian columnist. It tackled the admittedly dicey issue of the moral depravity of the peddlers of skin care products in India. I however, have a slightly different take on this.
In an age where mother earth is bursting to its seams with populations it cannot support, one needs of new & innovative ways to leave an indelible mark in the pages of history. The not so mentally gifted of Miss R Sawant ilk, tend to do this by being boisterous and noisy in general. Some others, being naturally talented find their lives ruined by unwanted media attention. There is however a vast majority in the middle: The common man.
The common man, is your average Indian, middle class upbringing, a bachelor's degree at max. and then thrust into the mileu of the Indian economic "powerhouse". He/She tends to have a steady job, a mundane life and not many growth prospects the "right" way. On the other hand, he is bombarded via the Idiot box with incessant stories of fame & fortune, the likes of which he can never hope to earn in his lifetime. All of those personalities, seem to have, an X factor one might say, which got them to their current positions. Some have family connections, while other have ravishing looks, while others are filty rich playboys with dozens of arm candy by the side.
Family connections are mighty hard to produce, and a lack of wealth is what drives the common man to seek out other ways to "stand out". So he/she pursues the 3rd option, albeit to a reduced degree. In a population of over a billion, wherein the skin color brown is as common as sand in the Sahara, an easy way to look "different" would be to be born fair. This again not being in one's control, one turns to miracles via "fairness creams" sold by so-called "exploitative manufacturers". The common man acheives this to a fair degree and is more or less happy with the result. I must point out that the standing out bit does seem to work at least in job interviews and if one tries to gain that advantage then there is nothing wrong with that.
What escapes me however, is the claimed exploitative nature of this process.
The consumer had a need: I need to look different. Most people here are brown. So easiest way to look different is to be white, or fair.
The producer has a product: Take thee this, and thou shalt be fairest of them all!
A simple demand-supply pattern forms which drives the fairness creams economy. This is pretty similar to how tanning saloons work in the western hemisphere, where the common color is white. The people there desire to be darker, and tanning saloon meet this need. Nobody bellyaches about the "exploitation" of the masses there. Its the consumer making the choice, and consumers with TV watching such ads are knowledgeable enough to make an educated decision. The not-so-educated ones are pretty much those in non metro areas who tend to be well read in the holy books and know very well of the color of our holy Gods, and that if they choose not to look like their Gods is again completely their decision.
The product was advertised as shrewedly to exploit the demands as is any other product and I fail to see why it should be singled out or banned outright.
What are your thoughts on this?
P.S I am a grad student and am in no way related to any cosmetics company whatsoever. For what its worth, I don't use any cosmetics as a personal choice.
In an age where mother earth is bursting to its seams with populations it cannot support, one needs of new & innovative ways to leave an indelible mark in the pages of history. The not so mentally gifted of Miss R Sawant ilk, tend to do this by being boisterous and noisy in general. Some others, being naturally talented find their lives ruined by unwanted media attention. There is however a vast majority in the middle: The common man.
The common man, is your average Indian, middle class upbringing, a bachelor's degree at max. and then thrust into the mileu of the Indian economic "powerhouse". He/She tends to have a steady job, a mundane life and not many growth prospects the "right" way. On the other hand, he is bombarded via the Idiot box with incessant stories of fame & fortune, the likes of which he can never hope to earn in his lifetime. All of those personalities, seem to have, an X factor one might say, which got them to their current positions. Some have family connections, while other have ravishing looks, while others are filty rich playboys with dozens of arm candy by the side.
Family connections are mighty hard to produce, and a lack of wealth is what drives the common man to seek out other ways to "stand out". So he/she pursues the 3rd option, albeit to a reduced degree. In a population of over a billion, wherein the skin color brown is as common as sand in the Sahara, an easy way to look "different" would be to be born fair. This again not being in one's control, one turns to miracles via "fairness creams" sold by so-called "exploitative manufacturers". The common man acheives this to a fair degree and is more or less happy with the result. I must point out that the standing out bit does seem to work at least in job interviews and if one tries to gain that advantage then there is nothing wrong with that.
What escapes me however, is the claimed exploitative nature of this process.
The consumer had a need: I need to look different. Most people here are brown. So easiest way to look different is to be white, or fair.
The producer has a product: Take thee this, and thou shalt be fairest of them all!
A simple demand-supply pattern forms which drives the fairness creams economy. This is pretty similar to how tanning saloons work in the western hemisphere, where the common color is white. The people there desire to be darker, and tanning saloon meet this need. Nobody bellyaches about the "exploitation" of the masses there. Its the consumer making the choice, and consumers with TV watching such ads are knowledgeable enough to make an educated decision. The not-so-educated ones are pretty much those in non metro areas who tend to be well read in the holy books and know very well of the color of our holy Gods, and that if they choose not to look like their Gods is again completely their decision.
The product was advertised as shrewedly to exploit the demands as is any other product and I fail to see why it should be singled out or banned outright.
What are your thoughts on this?
P.S I am a grad student and am in no way related to any cosmetics company whatsoever. For what its worth, I don't use any cosmetics as a personal choice.
Personally I dont see why it ought to be banned either.Its a given, people are shallow, men or women. Advertising as an industry exploits this inherent insecurity and shallowness. People who argue in the name of 'indian culture' and gods are in general showcasing their lack of knowledge of said culture, as culture is a dynamic thing which is constantly in flux. The day people start to feel secure and confident about who they are and what they own is the day advertising no longer affects them.
ReplyDeleteexactly, but the "fairness cream" industry has been particularly singled out time and again for being exploitative. Ppl please, advertising industry is based on exploitation.
ReplyDelete