Our local community college recently held a symposium on capitalism. One of the events on the agenda was a screening of the documentary “Consuming Kids,” which purports to “[Throw] desperately needed light on the practices of a relentless multi-billion dollar marketing machine that now sells kids and their parents everything from junk food and violent video games to bogus educational products and the family car. Drawing on the insights of health care professionals, children's advocates, and industry insiders, the film focuses on the explosive growth of child marketing in the wake of deregulation, showing how youth marketers have used the latest advances in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to transform American children into one of the most powerful and profitable consumer demographics in the world. Consuming Kids pushes back against the wholesale commercialization of childhood, raising urgent questions about the ethics of children's marketing and its impact on the health and well-being of kids.” Viewing this film was a very disturbing experience, but not for the reasons I expected. In hindsight, the charged language in the preview should have alerted me to the unbalanced slant of this film, e.g., describing consumer products companies as “relentless multi-billion dollar marketing machines,” who are responsible for the “wholesale commercialization of childhood.” This was the tamest of the rhetoric in this film; later, an “expert” compared these companies to “pedophiles.” In short, the film blames the government for failing to protect children and consumer products and media companies for “exploiting” children, while paying almost no attention to parents’ responsibilities to make choices that align with their values and protect their young.
First, the film blames Congress, under the Reagan administration, for deregulating television advertising, and points to this historic shift in Federal law as the source of our present consumerist culture and the increase in marketing to children. Then, it demonizes “corporate America,” claiming that consumer products and media companies are to blame for everything from the degradation of our culture’s values, to the sexualization of youth, to the present increases in children diagnosed with Bi-polar disorder, depression, ADHD, obesity, and diabetes. I am not a fan of consumerism and its influence on our culture’s values and beliefs, but consumer products and media corporations’ attempts to maximize profits are not "the evil"; it is, in fact, their duty to maximize profits for their shareholders. If they fail to do so, they are not doing their job and their shareholders, whose numbers include many of us, either directly or via our 401(k) plans, have grounds to sue them. Moreover, these corporations have rights under the First Amendment, which deserve protection whether or not we like what they are saying to us and to our children. A legitimate question to ask is: Just because a person or corporation has First Amendment free speech rights, should they exercise them? In my opinion, many ways advertisers communicate with us and our children are shameful. That is why we do not have cable TV and I have stopped purchasing tabloid magazines (I had a guilty habit of both, but I made a choice to vote with my wallet, and it works for me and for our family). That said, I value the free flow of ideas, even those I do not like, because the more ideas that are expressed, the more and better ideas we get in the idea marketplace. However, as people (including corporations) push their individual rights, including the right to communicate in whatever way they wish to whomever they wish, their behavior contributes to the break down of our culture and our communities. When this happens, inevitably, some people ask the government to step in and play the role that community and family should be playing. But, government regulation of consumer behavior has proven ineffective Consider, for example, the price of gasoline in California. How many of us have sold our cars and are taking public transportation as a result?
What is the answer? Who can regulate this? Parents. Parents are the ones buying fast food for themselves and their families. Parents are the ones purchasing “Lunchables.” Parents are allowing their children to watch hours upon hours of TV and to play video games. Parents are the ones who break up families. Parents have tremendous power. Yet, the film minimizes the power parents have to ameliorate the situation. Instead, the “experts” assert that: "Parents can't cope with this alone. They need help.” While I agree with this statement – we all need help raising our children – I disagree with the film’s conclusion as to what form that help should take. Where the film urges greater government intervention and regulation, I would suggest owning up to our own choices, educating ourselves about different options, and taking personal responsibility for how we raise our children. I believe it is our responsibility, as adults, to turn off the television, to say “No” to our children when they want to watch “too much” TV, or beg to watch something that may not be age appropriate, or want another toy. If they ask for a cartoon-branded item at the grocery store, we can say “No” and explain why not. We can be empowered consumers and we can empower them. We can explain that companies use cartoons on packaging to try and convince children to want their product and to beg their parents for it, when it really is not any better than the non-branded item, and is often less healthful than the non-cartoon-branded item. We can model self-control. We can guard against engaging in consistent, unabashed consumerism. We can resist shopping as a form of entertainment (at least during our children’s waking hours ;)). Have we forgotten that children, especially young children, learn almost everything by watching their parents? We are their primary teachers and guides. We don't have to let them watch it. We don't have to buy it. Yes, media is very powerful. Yes, it is hard, and exhausting, to say “No” over and over again, but we can discuss this with our children. We can disappoint them. In fact, the more we disappoint them over the small stuff of childhood, the more resilient they will be when faced with the inevitable disappointments in adulthood. If you need more evidence, watch this timeless clip from The Simpsons:
The consumer is the ultimate power in the marketplace. Don't watch it! Don’t buy it! Government regulation is not the answer. Community building, family building, and education are the real solutions. They are more difficult and require more time and effort for each of us than does handing over our responsibility to “Big Brother,” but they are the only real tools we have to resuscitate our culture and protect our children.
