Each
year the festive period evokes benevolence stemming from the guilt-edged
realization of being happier than thousands of other members of society. Christmas
is only one of many sentimental avenues of eliciting momentary charitable
response. Despite the cynicism I struggle to veer away from, I do think this is
a positive thing. However nice enough as it is to know that people show
concern, the effectiveness of how these concerns are addressed is questionable.
Unfortunately, it seems the direction in which to aim this guilt-induced
temporary selflessness is steered through a cascade of overstated images and
false-truths. Emotion levels must reach levels of disingenuousness similar to
that of a resentful conniving teenage girl beaming “hiyaaaa” through
excruciatingly grimaced hateful gritted teeth.
The present in an unrelenting cycle of short-term good-spirited but ultimately
unavailing charitable deeds, recycled at times of mass-public shock. Social
media both fuels and exacerbates these reactionary emotional responses through
myriad short-lived campaigns. This works because somehow people exhibit the
same level of shock at the newly-discovered ‘popular’ societal discrepancy as
they did at the last. It is this recurring abrupt mental trauma that fires
people into a conveyor belt of panicked emotional non-responses.
Go no further than the annual sentiment attack by John Lewis. A reminder of the
loneliness a neo-liberal neglect of public service funding brings, but with strong
felt levels of sentiment that make you feel it is your fault. John Lewis is of
course far from the forefront of disproportionate business spending, but I’m
sure John Lewis chairman Charlie Mayfield could use both his influence and
recent 3% pay-rise to better effect than most could. But scapegoating one
individual is unfair, and more importantly has sidetracked me from the less
serious satirical narrative.
People cannot simply be informed of loneliness in the elderly community.
Instead they must see an old man in solitude stranded on the moon with his head
dropped staring at the ground like an upset toddler. Overblown banality of
Coldplayian levels. It is interesting how people can interpret metaphors yet
are unable to understand simply being told.
If it is not excessive metaphors being implemented, another technique often used
by adverts is presenting a series of upsetting images whilst a slow version of
an otherwise uplifting song. It is not enough to be upset at the facts. People
notice sadness when it is presented in the more familiar framework of
entertainment as opposed to reality, and so adverts become dramatized to the
point where it is like a sad scene in a movie. Reality must be trivialized
because on its own it is not quite engaging enough. To comprehend which emotion
we should feel it is made starkly overt through superfluous juxtaposition.
An alternative mode of persuasiveness by advertising campaigns is simply lying.
Logical scientific facts, no matter how ominous, are dismissed by the general
public with blind ignorance. The most patent example of this is combating climate
change. Nobody is interested when the true consequences are highlighted, but eyelids
begin furiously batting in front of tears of inattentive melodrama when presented
with the image of a polar bear helplessly drifting away from its home on a tiny
iceberg. Polar bears can swim. Lies are necessary in convincing people to care
about issues which are equally as threatening without the lies. Sentiment is
the catalyst of provoking interest.
Before long we will be subject to sea-level rise campaigns depicting a
conglomeration of jungle animals clinging for dear life on canopy treetops,
anxiously peering down in trepidation at hungry sharks with wide-open jaws showing
glimpses animal carcass between their teeth, evoking tears of family
reminiscence in the animals. Or an anti-deforestation campaign involving a
lonely tree weeping, surrounded by hundreds of its dying friends in a lake of
blood-red sap.
Clearly it is good to care even if it is jumping on a bandwagon, as any level
of care will help someone somewhere. But the immediately obvious question to
ask yourself is – What issues have actually been resolved through these
randomly hyped charitable acts once the initial frenzy fades to boredom? Even
those once completely emotionally-gripped by the John Lewis advert even bore of
it a week later as the advert declines into an incoherent fragmented shorter
version. Yes, it is easy to moan and be cynical, but I like to, and its
justified, so I will.
I do believe with the sincerest non-sarcastic fuck I can muster that people are
ultimately caring and compassionate. People just bore easily. It takes no more
than “look over there, this problem is also happening” and we are gone. What
people best respond to is short-term panic. The solution must therefore be to
implement a sustained paradoxical long-term short-term goodwill agenda of panic.
