“We change whether we like it or not” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

As the end of the year is quickly approaching I’ve been thinking a lot about change. How my life has changed since I graduated from high school and how much my life will change after I leave college. I feel that in our society the word “change” has a negative connotation. People view change as difficult, as challenging and often as having negative outcomes. I think the reason our culture sees change as negative is because we are not quite willing to fully adapt to a new environment or a new idea because is it uncomfortable and different. We feel insecure about change because we cannot truly control the outcome. In a society that is largely based on micro managing and controlling almost everything in our own lives, not being in control is looked down upon. After reading about the Gebusi and their ability to accept change, my notion of change has itself changed.

The Gebusi are adaptable to any change in any context because they are “in betweeners,” they defy categorization. I think the best example of the Gebusi’s ability to adapt is their Independence Day celebration. They mocked their old way of life in the skits they performed, but also displayed that tradition was valued by the expression of their cultural selves. They also showed the values of independence and making decisions based on the individual while at the same time holding true to the togetherness and the kagwayay.

I think Knauft’s interpretation of the Independence Day celebration best illustrates the Gebusi as “in betweeners.” He writes, “The festivities of independence day ultimately symbolized the hybrid mix and match that more generally characterizes their locally modern lifestyle” (Knauft 157). Although to our culture the Gebusi may not seem modern, every culture is modern in its own way and the Gebusi have somehow found a balance between being modern while also maintaining their traditional local values.

Cultural change can have unintended results both negative and positive. And although the Gebusi’s cultural changes have not been wholly negative or wholly positive they have become extremely resilient. The world system encroached into Gebusi culture, they started to depend on the cash economy the world system offered, and then suddenly the world system was gone. But somehow the Gebusi still continued to exist. Now they move more toward self-sufficiency because they cannot survive with the world system model. Their ability to adapt quickly has made them resilient.

I think the reason the Gebusi are so accepting of change is because their culture offers something they can draw on that helps them adapt. The fact that they are a community that defies categorization provides them with a constant in an ever-changing world. As my life continues to change it is important that I focus on the things I can draw on that will help me adapt; my family, my faith, my friends, my education… and that I remember while change often carries great cost, it also gives many opportunities.

false advertising

In class we have been discussing culture change and its negative and positive consequences. We made a list of the negative consequences culture change may cause, it included (the last two are italicized because they are most relevant to my blog)

Bad diet

Diseases

Decreased health

Resource depletion

Poverty

Loss of family tradition

Negative perception of what it means to be poor

Dissatisfaction with life

I have recently been thinking specifically about negative culture change and it’s cause and I have come to the conclusion that advertising is the main culprit. Print and electronic advertising both serve as a catalyst for culture change and which often leads to negative consequences. As Noreene Janus writes, “communication and information systems play an important role, permitting a message to be distributed globally through television series, news, magazine, comics and films” (Janus 365). Advertisers have a huge amount of power in our world today. We as a global people are constantly immersed in advertisements about new products, weight loss advancements and new and improved cereals. Although the advertisements may be different they all emphasize the same message: “that which is modern is good, and that which is traditional is implicitly bad” (Janus 364).

Advertising, specifically television is effective with all types of people – even those who are illiterate. Magazines and commercials can be translated into all languages and distributed globally. But the notion that the more “stuff” you have, the happier you will be isn’t effective in all parts of the world. Now in a capitalist American society this is not necessarily a negative consequence. Consumption feeds our economy and although I personally feel that consumption doesn’t always bring happiness – advertisers use this assumption to draw in consumers.

But in other cultures, specifically cultures of lower socio economic statuses the effect of this kind of advertising is greater. Janus writes, “the impact of transnational culture is greater among the poor – the very people who cannot afford to buy the lifestyle it represents. The poor are more likely to associate consumption with happiness and feel that industrialized products are better than the locally made ones. But at the same time they are painfully aware that only the rich have access to the lifestyle portrayed” (Janus 366).

It is here that the true power of advertising is seen. Advertisers have the power to change people’s perceptions of themselves, the power to alter people’s feelings of happiness and contentedness. I know that I personally do not have the power to change the world of advertising and the messages they send. And I know that without advertising our world and economy would not be the same. But perhaps just by becoming more conscious of the true message of advertisements we can have some sort of impact on the role it plays in our global culture.