A CRITICAL REVIEW

of Vince Carducci’s

‘Culture Jamming: A Sociological Perspective’

By Ashley Richardson, BA

Nov 2011

Carducci’s sociological perspective of culture jamming offers a

stimulating account of the psychological effects and wider

cultural implications of this expressivist activism, unique to our

media-dominated society. He describes culture jamming as ‘the

appropriation of a brand identity or advertising for subversive,

often political, intent,’1 representing the process as an

articulation of postmodern consumer demands,2 seeking

authenticity and transparency in ‘consumption oriented media

messages.’3 Culture jamming thus aims to expose the reality of

brands’ cultural capital, and remove the ideological brainwashing power of big corporations

over consumers by enlightening them using satirical forms of the media against itself, an

ironical and postmodern protest against capitalism. While providing an interesting,

intellectual explanation of culture jamming for those unfamiliar with the concept, Carducci’s

focus is the way in which its practice effects both individual and community identity, which I

will explore further. However, I feel his bias towards the merits of culture jamming also

allow room for reconsideration in the context of 2011, forming the main tension when

assessing its success today.

1 V. Carducci, ‘Culture Jamming: A Sociological Perspective,’ Journal of Consumer Culture, (2006),

Volume 6, No. 1, pp 116-138, p 117. 2 D. B. Holt, ‘Why do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,’

Journal of Consumer Research, (2002), Volume 29, No. 1, pp 70–90; in V. Carducci, ‘Culture Jamming:

A Sociological Perspective,’ p 121. 3 J.M Handelman and R.V Kozinets, Proposed Encyclopedia of Sociology entry on

‘Culture Jamming,’ (Unpublished manuscript, 2004); in V. Carducci, ‘Culture Jamming: A Sociological

Perspective,’ p 116.

While obviously a very contemporary concept, culture jamming is grounded in

traditional Marxist thought, with its basic wish to overthrow the capitalist media we are

surrounded by. However, Carducci writes from a refreshingly neo-Marxist perspective in

that, rather than simply bemoaning the social situation, he supports and illustrates how

those involved actively protest what they perceive as relative injustice, subverting capitalist

media power in an attempt to improve society. For example, Adbusters— culture jamming’s

media headquarters— calls itself a ‘leaderless, people-powered movement for democracy,’4

which seeks change without taking credit, emblematic of their true anti-capitalist goals.5

Therefore, what Carducci brings to the field of media studies is an acknowledgement of the

new political platform which the media (fuelled by capitalism) has necessitated in our

generation: ironically, the media itself. As van Zoonen point out, in contemporary society

politics is entertainment and entertainment is the media;6 in this context Carducci concludes

that culture jamming provides a rare outlet allowing the public to challenge media power,

and have a non-violent (yet effective) political voice, even if their targets are corporate.

Focusing on the sociological implications, Carducci praises culture jamming for giving

power back to the consumer, liberating the public and allowing independence, while at the

same time creating a subversive community created from a shared consciousness. He points

out that in an age where the concept of community is dying, culture jamming’s network

provides one, bringing a sense of moral duty and belonging. Carducci paints a utopian-esque

future for culture jamming, conceptually mirroring Boje’s vegetarian capitalism— ‘a way of

moving all of humankind down the food chain and closer to the earth—’7 creating a more

socialist, postmodern consumer culture. Being sociologically focused, Carducci also

emphasises the way brands’ carry meaning or ‘symbolic capital,’8 making one’s adoption or

rejection of products identity forming, as an expression of self. He concludes that this is

why, with culture jamming present in our society, authentically perceived brands flourish,

4 Adbusters website, (accessed on 28/10/2011), http://www.adbusters.org

5 For example, most people are unaware that the current occupation of Wall Street was an

Adbusters campaign, proving that culture jamming has intentions far-removed from self-publicity.

6 L. van Zoonen, ‘Distinctions,’ Entertaining The Citizen: When Politics and Popular Culture Converge,

(Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield), pp 1-18, p 2-3. 7 D. Boje, ‘Vegetarian Capitalism,’ (Unpublished manuscript, 2004) URL (accessed 1December

2004):http://cbae.nmsu.edu/%7Edboje/Veggie_Club/papers/Vegetarian_Capitalism_book_chapter.htm, in V.

Carducci, ‘Culture Jamming: A Sociological Perspective,’ p 121. 8 V. Carducci, ‘Culture Jamming: A Sociological Perspective,’, p 126.

while seemingly manipulative ones are rejected. However, as Oscar Wilde heralded: “There

is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about,”

or as we would say in contemporary society, bad publicity is better than no publicity. Thus,

while culture jamming draws attention to certain brands in an effort to dissuade consumer

appeal, the unforeseen consequences not only create a market for culture-jamming-friendly

goods, as Carducci vaguely acknowledges, but also unintentionally advertises the negative

product.

In actively protesting a brand, culture jamming incentivises companies to improve

themselves which, while having a negative impact in the short term, can actually have the

effect of publicising a company’s turn-around from stereotypically ‘bad’ to ‘good,’

eventually promoting the brand in the long-term. While Carducci acknowledges that culture

jamming ‘ironically help[s] rehabilitate the market system it often portends to transcend,’9

he does not consider consumer reaction opposing its intent. For example, some consumers

continue to endorse a brand or buy products despite knowledge of its potentially unethical

nature, almost in protest of the protest, effectively producing a subculture against the

counterculture. Thus despite culture jammer’s best efforts, certain consumers brand loyalty

remains solid, perhaps having become reliant or ‘hooked’ on a product, or perhaps because

they just don’t value the contentions made against it, especially considering there are worse

crimes in the world than having non-environmentally friendly trainers- to use Carducci’s

Nike example- for instance.

One problem that has arisen since Carducci’s publication is the fact that corporations

have become savvy to the cultural capital and meaning carried by their products— as

prompted by culture jamming— and are actively advertising their goods in a more ethical,

honest and environmentally friendly way. However, a recent Marketing Week article seems

to indicate that the public are growing suspicious of products that seem too good to be

true.10

It seems that under the influence of culture jamming, brands are trying harder than

ever to appeal by amending their former deficiencies, leaving society wondering whether

9 V. Carducci, ‘Culture Jamming: A Sociological Perspective,’ p 116.

10 R. Baker, ‘Consumers are “Cynical and Wary” of Eco Car Ads,’ (Mon, 17 Oct 2011), Marketing Week

website, http://www.marketingweek.co.uk

this new image is reality or illusion. This is the problem with using media as a means to

subvert the media: society is still consuming the brand images, even if in a subverted way,

since culture jamming is a media-based rather than a social movement, which Carducci

overlooks.

Thus, however sociologically empowering culture jamming has proven to be, the

flaw in Carducci’s argument lies in his overestimation of the positive power of culture

jamming, and his neglect of those who have no interest in changing the status quo. While

Carducci identifies that people express themselves via what they consume, his article

focuses overly on how this self identity is formed through a rejection of goods, when much

of society is able to make ethical consumer decisions based on common sense rather than

through dissident means. Arguably there is no need to ‘jam’ certain brands when we have

an endless array of alternatives, exposing the reality that while Carducci would like to

believe culture jamming is driven by a sociological, moral obligation, and a desire to improve

the world, the more realistic antagonist behind such behaviour remains socio-political outlet

provided by such activism. Thus, while culture jamming is effective as both a technique and

a social movement, involvement within it is arguably a justification for people to legally

dissent and feel better about themselves for doing so, while not really destroying their

oppression, but rather, manipulating it so it seems less oppressive. Unfortunately,

capitalism still wins. Therefore, Carducci’s optimistic vision of culture jamming is like the

metaphor for vegetarian capitalism mentioned earlier: while everybody knows

vegetarianism is a healthier, enlightened way of life, most people are resistant to change, or

cannot understand the benefits. And some people just love meat.

Ashley Richardson – University of East Sussex

Bibliography:

Adbusters website, (accessed on 28/10/2011) http://www.adbusters.org

R. Baker, ‘Consumers are “Cynical and Wary” of Eco Car Ads,’ (Mon, 17 Oct 2011), Marketing

Week website, (accessed on 28/10/2011), http://www.marketingweek.co.uk

V. Carducci, ‘Culture Jamming: A Sociological Perspective,’ Journal of Consumer Culture,

(2006), Volume 6, No. 1, pp 116-138.

L. van Zoonen, ‘Distinctions,’ Entertaining The Citizen: When Politics and Popular Culture

Converge, (Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield), pp 1-18.