I teach Introduction to Management at Brooklyn College. The distance learning software we use nowadays is called "Blackboard" (NYU, Troy State and Brooklyn College have all used it since about 10 years ago). I just posted a discussion assignment on the course's Blackboard site for this fall's class. One of the subjects in the course is "creativity" and the question I'm raising is whether there are ethical limits to creativity. I use AMC's TV series Madmen to raise two discussion questions. The links to the Madmen and television advertisement clips are below.
The questions I raise are as follows.
After reading chapter two and after the class discussion on creativity go to blackboard's "external links" folder "Creativity and Ethics in Madmen" (see links below). Watch the five Youtube clips in the folder. The first two are of 1950s Lucky Strike TV commercials. The third is of a 1960s Eastman Kodak camera commercial. The fourth and fifth are from the TV series Madmen. They depict the fictitious creative genius behind the fictitious Sterling Cooper advertising firm, Don Draper (note the allusion to drapes, draping, hiding, the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain). The fourth clip is of Draper creating the Lucky Strike advertising strategy. The fifth is of Draper creating the ad campaign for Eastman Kodak's carousel (a picture slide display device) which is similar to the Eastman Kodak ad shown.
(1) What are the benefits of advertising? What arguments can be made to justify the ethical foundations of Don Draper's approach to advertising?
(2) Are there moral limits to emotional manipulation? For example, is a government which uses patriotism to motivate loyalty despite policies which are harmful to the public ethical? Likewise, is a firm which uses love, happiness, freedom and similar virtues to motivate sales of products ethical? If so, what are the limits? If not, is it realistic to expect managers to adhere to strict ethical standards?
(3) Elaborate on the question of whether Don Draper is ethical in using higher order emotions, happiness and familial love to sell cigarettes that he knows kill and photography supplies given the gains from advertising.
External Links
Lucky Strike ad 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeUAhuSzSDs
Luck Strike ad 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWj_tR64Ti4
1960s Kodak ad, “Turn around”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBWVWjdNWC0
Madmen clip: Lucky Strike: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rQF7Ofc5w
Comment: AMC's excellent Madmen series is supposed to be about the advertising business in the early 1960s, but as you can see from the above the "It's Toasted" concept was already established in the 1950s and earlier (1917 according to Wikipedia). Also, American Tobacco, founded by James Buchanan Duke (cf: Duke University), owned the Lucky Strike brand and it was not a family run operation by the 1960s (the US Supreme Court broke up American Tobacco, the Tobacco Trust, in 1911). Famed heiress Doris Duke who died in 1993 was Duke's only child.
Nevertheless, this scene gives a cool illustration of a creative process. In the episode, the hero, the brilliant and creative Don Draper (Jon Hamm), is asked to think of an ad campaign for Lucky Strike cigarettes to address the recent findings that cigarettes cause cancer. He thinks about it for weeks but cannot come up with an idea. At the beginning of the meeting with the tobacco executives, he still draws a blank. After consulting a psychologist, he is still speechless. His account exec, Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) quotes the psychologist to fill the gap (Campbell is sneaky and the implication is that he stole the research from Draper's trash can).
Just as the tobacco executives are walking out, Draper's light bulb lights: the cancer finding is a strategic opportunity to appeal to higher order needs like happiness. Lucky Strike is "toasted."
Madmen clip: Kodak carousel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRDUFpsHus
The Eastman Kodak executives are interviewing ad firms to handle their new product, which they call "the wheel." You put slides in the wheel and then click to turn the wheel to the next slide. They have told Don Draper and his boss, Herman "Duck" Phillips (Mark Moses), media director Harry Crane (Rich Sommer), and art director Salvatore Romano (Bryan Batt) that their firm, Sterling Cooper, is one of four or five they are interviewing.
Draper uses his own wedding pictures, pictures of his wife Betty (January Jones), his children and himself to show that the product should be named the "carousel", not the wheel, because it is reminiscent of childhood and evokes the nostalgia of bringing up children that the "carousel" can capture--the deep feelings the consumer has for his or her own children, the nostalgia for the past and perhaps their own childhoods. "It takes us where we ache to go again. It lets us travel like child. The carousel."
Harry Crane leaves the room as he breaks into tears. The Kodak executives are speechless. Phillips confidently looks at the Eastman Kodak executives and says "Good luck at your next meeting."
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Two Ways To Organize a Society
Two ways to organize society are equity and achievement. Under the equity principle there can be economic inequality only if it is associated with equal opportunity and if the inequality optimally benefits the disadvantaged. Under an achievement theory, society is best off if it is organized so that the quantity and quality of achievement is optimized. Thus, a nation like Athens would certainly not qualify under the equity principle because there was slavery, but it would qualify under the achievement principle as one of the great societies in history.
Principles like these are not easily tested empirically. Only through history can we judge whether societies that operate under one optimizing rule or the other have worked best. One problem is execution. Few societies (ancient Sparta is one) have been able to establish equal opportunity. If they could, the result would likely be unsatisfactory. The poorest and the wealthiest people in society would possibly be much worse off precisely because of equality of opportunity. This is because achievement is the source of progress and achievement is possible only if there is inequality.
In his book Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius* Robert W. Weisberg of Temple University argues against the idea that creativity results from genius or luck. Rather, creativity results from focused application of ordinary thinking based on well-developed expertise. Creative works are not "set breaking" and do not constitute "revolutions", but rather build on prior inventions and pre-existing knowledge bases. Weisberg writes that to encourage creativity in the young "we should emphasize development of deep expertise in a particular domain"**. As well, motivation to create plays a role. To motivate people to be creative "exposure at an early age to subject matter in the arts and sciences, structured in such a way as to appeal to the young, can result in a child's naturally developing an interest in some area. At a later age exposure to mentors can play multiple roles." Even with respect to prodigies: "these skills will not express themselves without strong support from the environment, especially the family, as we saw...in the case of Mozart and Picasso. Thus, even the most talented must have the right environment if their talent is to bear fruit."
If Weisberg is right, then achievement depends in part on unique opportunities. It is impossible to provide the same nurturing to all, nor would it be desirable. To create a society where all have the opportunity to be Mozart, it would be necessary to exclude anyone's being a Picasso. To create a society where Mozart would not be entitled to the rewards of Mozart's work would likely de-motivate him. But even the worst-off member of society benefits to a large degree from Mozart's creative genius (or Puff Daddy's).
It is true that the achievement theory leads to distributional inequity. Some achieve more than others, and this in part is due to skills developed in the family at an early age. But does that mean that the achievement theory is inequitable? It may be that the worst off is best off in a society that stimulates achievement through the recognition of basic rights.
In addition, there is the question of pragmatic execution. What have been the outcomes of societies organized along the lines of equity and what have been the outcomes of societies organized along the lines of achievement? When the equity principle was first brought to public awareness in the eighteenth century there was considerable injustice. (It also is true that few societies had been organized along any lines but tribal at that time.) Throughout the nineteenth century, societies such as England and America that were organized on the achievement principle were attacked as inequitable. Yet, in the twentieth century, societies that were organized on the equity principle, such as the Soviet Union, Nazi German and Red China, committed far worse atrocities than any in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Today, the United States and England have increasingly been organized along equity principles, but the two societies are less, not more, equitable than they were under the achievement principle.
Thus, there is a gulf between the theory of equity and the results of the equitable philosophy because human nature and human power needs do not coincide with the cool rationality of a philosopher's anticipating outcomes under a "veil of ignorance". Thus, the resolution of the dispute between equity and achievement needs to be reviewed empirically and experimentally, not through philosophical speculation.
Achievement may be defined as a creative act that merits social recognition. The social recognition evolves because the creative act is helpful to at least a portion of society. The best way to motivate socially useful action is through fair reward. Because there is no true way to determine the fairness of rewards, and because human reason is inevitably self-serving and biased, the fairest way is to let the marketplace determine them.
*Robert W. Weisberg, Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1993.
**As well, this contradicts the idea that basic skills are unimportant to creativity, a fundamental precept of progressive education.
Principles like these are not easily tested empirically. Only through history can we judge whether societies that operate under one optimizing rule or the other have worked best. One problem is execution. Few societies (ancient Sparta is one) have been able to establish equal opportunity. If they could, the result would likely be unsatisfactory. The poorest and the wealthiest people in society would possibly be much worse off precisely because of equality of opportunity. This is because achievement is the source of progress and achievement is possible only if there is inequality.
In his book Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius* Robert W. Weisberg of Temple University argues against the idea that creativity results from genius or luck. Rather, creativity results from focused application of ordinary thinking based on well-developed expertise. Creative works are not "set breaking" and do not constitute "revolutions", but rather build on prior inventions and pre-existing knowledge bases. Weisberg writes that to encourage creativity in the young "we should emphasize development of deep expertise in a particular domain"**. As well, motivation to create plays a role. To motivate people to be creative "exposure at an early age to subject matter in the arts and sciences, structured in such a way as to appeal to the young, can result in a child's naturally developing an interest in some area. At a later age exposure to mentors can play multiple roles." Even with respect to prodigies: "these skills will not express themselves without strong support from the environment, especially the family, as we saw...in the case of Mozart and Picasso. Thus, even the most talented must have the right environment if their talent is to bear fruit."
If Weisberg is right, then achievement depends in part on unique opportunities. It is impossible to provide the same nurturing to all, nor would it be desirable. To create a society where all have the opportunity to be Mozart, it would be necessary to exclude anyone's being a Picasso. To create a society where Mozart would not be entitled to the rewards of Mozart's work would likely de-motivate him. But even the worst-off member of society benefits to a large degree from Mozart's creative genius (or Puff Daddy's).
It is true that the achievement theory leads to distributional inequity. Some achieve more than others, and this in part is due to skills developed in the family at an early age. But does that mean that the achievement theory is inequitable? It may be that the worst off is best off in a society that stimulates achievement through the recognition of basic rights.
In addition, there is the question of pragmatic execution. What have been the outcomes of societies organized along the lines of equity and what have been the outcomes of societies organized along the lines of achievement? When the equity principle was first brought to public awareness in the eighteenth century there was considerable injustice. (It also is true that few societies had been organized along any lines but tribal at that time.) Throughout the nineteenth century, societies such as England and America that were organized on the achievement principle were attacked as inequitable. Yet, in the twentieth century, societies that were organized on the equity principle, such as the Soviet Union, Nazi German and Red China, committed far worse atrocities than any in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Today, the United States and England have increasingly been organized along equity principles, but the two societies are less, not more, equitable than they were under the achievement principle.
Thus, there is a gulf between the theory of equity and the results of the equitable philosophy because human nature and human power needs do not coincide with the cool rationality of a philosopher's anticipating outcomes under a "veil of ignorance". Thus, the resolution of the dispute between equity and achievement needs to be reviewed empirically and experimentally, not through philosophical speculation.
Achievement may be defined as a creative act that merits social recognition. The social recognition evolves because the creative act is helpful to at least a portion of society. The best way to motivate socially useful action is through fair reward. Because there is no true way to determine the fairness of rewards, and because human reason is inevitably self-serving and biased, the fairest way is to let the marketplace determine them.
*Robert W. Weisberg, Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1993.
**As well, this contradicts the idea that basic skills are unimportant to creativity, a fundamental precept of progressive education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
