One of the complaints from white voters during the last presidential election, which amplified opinions voiced by Americans for more than a couple of decades, was that America has become overly sensitive to insensitivity. Fiery protest and shame are triggered with push-button ease. Yet even before the period of what is derisively called an era of “political correctness,” righteous indignation has long been heaped upon people with malicious intent spouting racism, sexism, and jingoism against others. Then again, in many instances malicious insensitivity (like racism, sexism, and jingoism) have been tolerated and justified in this country as timeworn norms. As a kid I was ostracized for being Jewish at one of the schools I attended. In fact, although I was not prevented from attending the school, and my tormentors were punished because their actions went counter to the school’s professed policies, I suffered bullying in any case. Some but not all of my oppressors were actually taught to be more tolerant. Insensitivity is not, I learned, always intentional.
Recently, President Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer criticized Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by asserting that even Adolf Hitler did not “sink to that level of warfare,” despite Hitler’s use of gas chambers to kill millions of Jews. Was this insensitive, historically ignorant, or both…or more? “We didn’t use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had a, you know, someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons,” Spicer said. “So you have to if you’re Russia, ask yourself: Is this a country that you, and a regime, that you want to align yourself with? You have previously signed on to international agreements, rightfully acknowledging that the use of chemical weapons should be out of bounds by every country.”
Ok, it was not only insensitive, it was downright stupid. He apologized, arguing he was trying to make a point that Assad was a very, very bad guy. But insensitivity, like the road to hell, is paved with good intentions. He has a tough row to hoe.
So, I guess you know what’s coming next: Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner advertisement won the insensitivity prize of the week. But was this truly insensitive or silly exploitation? Or was it just the proverbial good intention that misfired?
During the commercial, flashbacks from the 60s and 70s flew by. One was the famous photograph by Mark Riboud of a teenager named Jan Rose Kasmir holding a flower in front of a National Guardsman’s rifle at a 1967 anti-Vietnam war rally at the Pentagon. “If you look at my face,” she told the Guardian in 2014, “I am extremely sad at the moment I realized how young these boys were.” The other was the 1971 “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke” television commercial, which was less authentic than the Riboud photo but nonetheless motivational. The Pepsi commercial was a confused juxtaposition of a sensitive issue with a celebrity and a consumable that had nothing to do with either.
On the surface, Pepsi’s trope was almost a parody of the Riboud photo with a dab of Coke’s kumbaya sentimentality. But underneath the concept was the attempt by a major brand to make a critical connection with its consumers that other brands have done without being criticized. Bennetton, Kenneth Cole, Ben and Jerry’s, Tom’s, Gap, Patagonia, and Dove have all also done so-called “cause advertising” as part of their brand story. Granted, some cause ads are more effective (read authentic) than others. Dove focused on self-image in such a compassionate way that the viewer does not feel the heavy hand of product placement, and Patagonia’s “Common Threads” actually encourages recycling their clothing to show strong, sustainable core values. Pepsi was not recruiting for the “resistance,” but it was acknowledging its existence.
Pepsi’s failed attempt to align with Black Lives Matter did not have a light touch, especially when Ms. Jenner, who transforms from supermodel to super marcher, offers a can of Pepsi to a policeman. Yet in the grand scheme of American exploitative tomfoolery it actually wasn’t as bad as it was vilified on social media and in the press. Rather it was an ill-conceived yet mildly sympathetic message attempting to tie Pepsi to real issues. Yes, it proved to be a poor miscalculation. Yes, it was insensitive to the reality of how racial relations work in this divided country. But it was not malicious or hateful—just unfortunate given this moment in history—when truth and falsity are already in the balance, and Pepsi is not going to tip it to one side or the other.