Postmodern Marketing and Business Ethics - Essay Example

?POSTMODERN MARKETING & BUSINESS ETHICS Introduction In the of reading the various articles in the academic and professional journals concerning postmodern marketing, it became apparent that the postmodernist approach is deconstructionist, non-definitive, bordering on the whimsical and capricious. Apparently, such an approach is easily accepted to be advantageous to the creative aspect of marketing, in a manner not necessarily inconsistent with the conventional way business is conducted. As one peruses further, one becomes aware that the larger implications of the broader application of the postmodern approach creates profound implications on the on way business is understood to be conducted. One such aspect affected by postmodernism in any aspect of a business, marketing in particular, involves the sphere of business ethics, because it is in the marketing function that the business makes a promise to its customers, and customers respond on the basis of this promise in the corresponding sale. If there is an aspect of business that must be as categorical and definite as possible, it is this interface between the customer and the firm. Ethics is governed by a set of norms and values that define relationships between people. In the context of business, ethical behaviour, or one that is conceived to be, is necessary to maintain trust in what is essentially a fiduciary relationship (as between transacting parties, faith that each counterparty will comply with his or her obligations). Were such a relationship governed by the subjectivity of postmodernism, then the clarity of obligations between parties – what is promised and how it should be accomplished – will be tantamount to an unenforceable matter because of a lack of definition. For this reason, there have been spirited debates about the effect of postmodernism on the conduct of business ethics. This paper shall first discuss the meaning and significance of postmodern marketing and its usefulness as a strategic business tool; thereafter, the discussion shall well on the degree to which postmodern marketing may promote or impede realization of imperatives of business ethics. Meaning of postmodernism vis-a-vis modernism Before the topic of “postmodern marketing” could be discussed, it is necessary to give a meaning to the term “postmodern” – and upon a quick scan of the available literature, the only impression that the reader is left with is that postmodernism defies definition. The term conveys something that is “after modern”. The dilemma in this term is that the layman’s connotation of “modern” is that of the here and now; therefore there can never be an after-now, because “modern” is always current and always new. As much as been said by some authors, who state that “modern would seem to be a time-descriptive term, not a fixed state, and therefore ”modern” and “postmodern” had often been interchanged and are, sometimes, used to connote the same thing (Alloway, 1981). To this reader’s mind, it amusedly mirrors the similarity between “flammable” and “inflammable” that the inclusion of a prefix does not change the meaning conveyed. One’s misconceptions are set aright, however, with the explanation Firat, Dholakia, and Venkatesh (1994) about the distinction between modernism and postmodernism. Modernism does not describe the attribute of things due to their currency in time, but rather a state of mind in viewing things. In postmodernism, the individual, self, freedom, agency, and structure, all of these become “ephemeral rather than essential and fixed” (Firat, et al., 1994, p. 40). They are viewed as imaginary, as in a myth system, compared to modernism’s concept of things as essential and fixed. When something is allowed to be a myth, however, then it ceases to have a substantial reality, and instead may assume several essences, to as many who would perceive it. The reality of the thing exists in the mind of the viewer, and if this mythical reality is to be sustained over its substantive reality, then necessarily many realities should be allowed. There will therefore be groups of individuals who will share the same (or similar) realities, and other groups who would agree on their own realities (Firat, et al., 1994). This is also referred to as hermeneutics, which presents a view of human understanding and interpretation, and where socio-cultural significance define the view of reality (Palmer & Ponsonby, 2002, p. 175). The confusion about this state of affairs, and whether such a post-modern position could be maintained has been the subject of much debate, particularly when the topic pertains to business and marketing which, because the field is so governed by pragmatic assessment and contractual relationships, would make more logical sense to keep within the realm of objective categorization and stern definition. Postmodernists contest this, averring that the multi-mythic position is advisable as well as inescapable. Challenges to set frameworks of perception are met everyday, and walls set up by logical classifications, pursuant to modernism, are continuously being torn down and redefined. This is the manifestation of post modernism at work. Elements of postmodernism The purpose of this paper is to discuss the post modernist view as it applies to the marketing function in business. Before this could be undertaken, however, it is necessary to gain a working understanding of post modernism, inasmuch as its definition, if such could be called, is to say that it is devoid of definition. Brownlie, Saren, Wensley & Whittington (1999) identified five principal attributes of postmodernism: fragmentation, dedifferentiation, hyper-reality, pastiche, and anti-foundationalism. Fragmentation refers to the disintegration of institutional stability and organization, and instead espouses the fluidity of constant alteration. Dedifferentiation means the erosion of established hierarchical structures and the blurring of boundaries. Hyper-reality means the fantasy-like quality of virtual reality and theme parks, mimicking reality although it is but a simulation. Pastiche is the collage of available styles and combination of existing codes, in a manner that is whimsical, playful and tongue-in-cheek (Brownlie, et al. 1999). Finally, anti-foundationalism is the urge to deconstruct, to challenge orthodoxy and traditionalism, and to tear down the systematic generalizations and objective classifications that have comprised the vast sum of organized conventional knowledge. The fact that post-modernist authors have espoused the existing of five essential elements appears to counter its own assertion that postmodernism has no rules. In identifying a thing as postmodernist, it should stand to reason that the nature of the thing itself is disperse and undefined. In the course of describing postmodernism, however, it is ironic that postmodernism itself should be so described, that five elements must be ascertained to exist without which it is not a postmodernist position. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the five key elements that postmodernism is contradictory to the orderly and regimented scientific approach, to strict definition and categorical definition, and to the faithful observance of convention and tradition. It espouses originality, improvisation, confluence of styles, individuality. Postmodern marketing Modern views of marketing tend to stress the scientific and determinative position that those elements in the market that influence the product image and design must be studied and defined. Postmodernism takes the contrarian approach, that the thing being sold is not confined to its material components but is associated with a metaphysical attribute separate from it. To ascertain those aspects of marketing that are susceptible of being described as postmodern, each key element shall be described here and examples of marketing techniques given to demonstrate the element being discussed. Fragmentation – This condition is most evident in the design of advertisements and short videos that are characterized by quick slices of mental images that focuses the audience’s attention for a brief but intense moment, and which imprints as an experience associated with the product. This technique is most characteristic of music videos where the fleeting image sequences are provided greater emphasis by the music. Another example is the way sports is visually covered by reportage, with the multi-camera angles, quick cuts, and the close-up and instant replay capabilities that make the game more exciting to watch. Fragmentation has been made more effective by the digital technology that enables a greater degree of precision in editing and timing images to more effectively match the music and convey the desired impressions. Dedifferentiation - The breakdown of hierarchies is resorted to in certain marketing campaigns, particularly those that appeal to the breakdown of distinctions among the social classes. There is particular appeal among children and adults alike, for instance, of the Walt Disney movie “Princess Diaries” where a typical American high school student suddenly discovers she is really a European princess. Also in the case of certain round-the-clock restaurants, the distinctions among breakfast, lunch and supper are broken down by all-day breakfasts, or the offering of certain fare at any time of the day. Hyper-reality – This element is seen in marketing campaigns as the association of larger-than-life connotations to a product, beyond the limitations of its physical attributes. This is mostly associated with consumption experiences particularly in the tourism industry. The hype associated mental images of a trip to Disney theme parks, for instances, have been cited as typical examples that demonstrate this key element (Firat, et al., 1994, p. 41). The mental images developed in relation to the real experience create an imaginary system that pertains to the mythical realm espoused by the postmodern position. The consumer is enticed to a suspension of disbelief, and to feel an other-worldly aura in the course of participating in the real-worldly experience. Pastiche – More and more often resorted to is the combination of divergent styles and nuances that used to be separated into their own distinctive and appropriate settings under modernism. For instance, the marketing of so-called “gladiator footwear” as women’s sandals (i.e., with multiple straps all the way along the leg) has become the fashion recently, restaurants featuring Japanese cuisine have cross-over menu items such as Mexican burritos with wasabe, sushi with curry powder, or spaghetti noodles with tonkatsu sauce. The experience provides the impression of a collage of what should be different styles but which nevertheless work together to produce a new and unique experience when combined. Anti-foundationalism – In a way, each of the foregoing examples are deconstructivist in approach, because they take the customers through an experience that challenges the conventional and structured. Deconstructivism creates a twist in the customer’s experience than that which is ordinarily expected of the traditional product. For instance, designing the on-board entertainment for long-haul flights to be individualized rather than showing just one single movie for the whole cabin was largely enabled by advances in technology, but still it deconstructed the way in-flight entertainment had been traditionally dispensed at that time. One thing that should never be said about the postmodern approach is that it conveys the simplistic and naturalistic. Postmodernism defies the natural and logical order of events and things. It draws its market impact and competitive differentiation from the shock factor of the metaphysical attribute. For instance, the coverage of a basketball game is interesting when the camera is situated in the bleachers; it becomes more exciting if shown from the front seats or even the teamplayers’ midst; however, these are neither unnatural nor logical. However, if the camera is situated at the top of the goal looking down, so that the impending lay-up or dunk is viewed some six inches from above, then it becomes a truly moving experience. Overall, there are so many other concepts associated with postmodernism, such “heterotopia”, “contrived depthlessness”, “a series of perpetual presents”, “excremental culture” ad infinitum, that it becomes truly difficult to determine with certainty what is postmodernist or not. What every one can agree upon, however, is on what postmodernism is not – it is not modernist, because post modernism is essentially a reaction in negation of modernism (Brown, 1992, p. 20). The debate between postmodernism and business ethics As the world becomes increasingly globalized, there are growing concerns about unethical practices particularly for cross-border transactions that are ill-supported by legal systems and costly dispute resolution mechanisms. Thus together with the move towards postmodern marketing, there is also a progression towards the observance of higher standards of business ethics particularly in the transfer of goods and services between countries. Business ethics pertains to various applications in the different functions that make up a business enterprise. There are business ethics principles that deal particularly on the relationship of management with shareholders (i.e. agency contract), and those that deal on the relationship between employers and employees (i.e. labor relations). However, most important is the relationship between the company that produces the product, and the buyers of the product, because this is the raison d’etre of the business, the provision of the good or service to meet the need of the market, and for which it is rewarded with a profit. Without customers, the firm need not undertake the production function, for which it will have no need of capital from investors, nor the motive force of employees. In such case, there is no need for the business to exist, and liquidation becomes the only recourse. In dealing with its market, therefore, the firm must develop the trust and confidence of its customers, for which it is mandatory to transact only and always in good faith and observing the standards of business ethics. Of late there have even been developed more stringent standards of good governance, corporate responsibility, and sustainability accounting, for which international conventions have been developed which multinational companies are expected to comply with. The industry expectation is one of full disclosure, in no uncertain terms, all manners of dealings of the firm with all its publics, but most importantly with its customers. Here is where post modern marketing and business ethics are seen to clash. The fluid interpretations of post modernism and its perceived disregard of convention appear to contradict the strict requirements of ethical standards for business conduct and transaction reporting. The deconstructivist thrust of postmodernism “seeks to unfix boundaries that onceal domination and authority; to provide an umbrella for diverse ideologies…; to reorder the present by reordering the past; and finally, to concentrate mainly on Cartesian theorists in order to expose their defects” (Walton, 1993, p. 286). Walton, a critique of postmodernism, finds issue with what appears the drawback of postmodernism: its inherent definitional difficulties, its rejection of unitary explanations of reality, and its decentering of perspectives. Because of the lack of definition and its rejection of stable structures, Walton argues the underlying assumption that if foundations are weak, the superstructure is in danger (Walton, 1993, p. 286). That the lack of a definitional foundation is not a problem does not seem an acceptable premise, as pointed out by Walton, because of the clash among postmodernism’s most renowned proponents. Differences in contexts have arisen between Jacques Derrida, father of the form of deconstructivism, with most American deconstructionists; Jean-Francois Lyotard and Richard Rorty, who disagree on the meaning of persuasion; Habermas and Derrida champion the Enlightenment, while Lyotard argues that the Enlightenment is no longer relevant. The problem that arises between postmodernist theory and business ethics is that the first refuses to recognize the meta-narrative of good and evil; business ethics, on the other hand, dwells not so much on the question of good as it is with the problem of evil (Walton, 1993, p. 288). It is the existence of evil that makes business ethics necessary, so that business transactions may be more confidently entered into with less fear of being inflicted evil upon. Upon closer scrutiny, however, despite its protestations against deconstruction of traditionalism and orthodoxy, the paradox of postmodernism is that it does not abandon modernist ideas and techniques. The most glaring of this is that which was observed at the beginning of this report, that postmodernists allow for the definition of postmodernism despite its negation of definitions in general as constructivist and categorical, and therefore objectionable. In short, postmodernism fails to produce a consistent philosophy for the systems its seeks to destroy (Walton, 1993, p. 298). Another article, this time by Rasmussen (1993) asks the question: to what extent can a position, identifying itself as post modern, be also ethical? The author advances the interesting and perceptive proposition that the modernity-postmodernity debate is itself the debate as to the possibility of ethics. Seen from this angle, it becomes necessary to determine whether postmodernity and ethics are aligned at all, before it may be determined whether they could co-exist. Rasmussen echoes Walton’s question: “Does plurality of methods and diversity of expertise by those engaged in moral inquiry… prove that business ethics is a postmodern phenomenon?” He found this most appropriate, because the use of pluralism has, by nature, a greater affinity with modernity than with postmodernity, because the very categorization behind the pluralities abides by the constructivist stance of modernity, and more distant from postmodernity. There are those who have taken the position that ethics and postmodernism may coexist integrally. Nielsen (1993) stated that “postmodernism can be positively ethical and not necessarily aesthetical or nihilistic” (Nielsen, 1993, p. 251). In his article, Nielsen described the situation where the ethics issue figured in a problem that involved cross-cultural differences, involving a U.S. buyer (Christian Caucasian), the business owner who was overseas Chinese, and the factory manager who was Indonesian Muslim-Malay from the lower economic class. The gist of the ethical problem revolved around a child worker safety issue. Essentially, what worked towards the usefulness of Postmodern techniques was the fact that there was no single ethical foundation that united the three individuals involved. Normally, foreign non-interference policy precludes the imposition of ethical principles and frameworks couched in Western classicism, scholasticism and modernism (Nielsen, 1993, p. 252). In this particular instance, however, the issue at stake is the brain and lung injuries to which the child workers had been exposed to in the factory setting in Indonesia. In the course of discussion, the buyer employed the conversation method which made use of three aspects of postmodernism, which may be viewed as three different moments in a single integrated process – Gadamer reconstruction, Derrida deconstruction, and Rorty neopragmatism. Coupled with these, the method also combined elements of effective mutual learning and effective action. The end result is that the problem, although not fully resolved, had however been alleviated for the moment. Nielsen concluded that on the basis of monolithic theories, there may appear to be no reconciliation between ethical and postmodern tenets; however, when approached from the viewpoint of a series of moments, then there are many areas of consistency where the moments, viewed integrally, may serve the purpose of ethics. In this case, because of the absence of a mutual ethical “center” due to their divergent cultural, social, political and economic backgrounds; therefore, deconstruction, neopragmatism, and reconstruction were effectively applied to arrive at a solution to an ethical problem. A bolder, more philosophical and less practical article was written by Green (1993) to which many ethics advocates have taken exception to and written responses for. Green stressed that work in business ethics is related to two aspects of postmodernism: that business ethicist, like postmodernism, reject “the grand narratives of historical and conceptual justification”; and that business ethicists, both in terms of content and method, are like postmodernists in their belief in “de-centering” of perspective and discovery of “otherness”, ”difference”, and marginality as valid modes of approach to moral decision-making. This makes ethics, in the perception of the author, a “profoundly postmodern phenomenon” (Green, 1993, p. 219). Where Green represented the postmodernists and Walton the ethicists, there is the third voice that treads the middle ground and seeks to make sense of the matter of postmodern business ethics. Gustafson (2000) reacts against the positions taken by either of the aforementioned authors, and seeks to redefine the issue in terms separate from them. First, Gustafson took issue with Green’s argument that ethics is postmodernist, questioning his presumption that only Marxian or Friedman accounts are the two alternatives in responding ethically; thinking along these lines creates a false dichotomy. Such theories are merely regulative and therefore make no more than general claims, some of which are vague, and perceived by many to have many problems. These are the result of simple pragmatism, however and not postmodernism. In this matter, Gustafson observes that the act of listening to many perspectives, understanding them and reconciling them, are the not exclusive purview of postmodernists. Everybody seeks out various perspectives in order to learn, not just the postmodernists. Neither is Walton entirely right, because he confused deconstruction with destruction, and that his premise, that absolute truth is necessary for ethical discernment, is not entirely true. Many have acted according to a system of ethics which are not founded on a fundamental set of absolute truths (Gustafson, 2000, p. 648). Conclusion This paper sought to understand postmodernism in the marketing function, delve into its feasibility as a strategic tool, and ultimately to discover the implications of postmodern marketing on the fair and effective observance of business ethics. There are some practical issues that may first be addressed. First, as to whether postmodern marketing presents a valid view of the changing world inhabited by customers: I find that postmodernism is not in itself a new framework or paradigm, but that it simply provides an identification for that which already exists. Marketing is an evolving function that depends on many things, most important among which are the changes in society, technology, politics and law. Whether postmodernism is given a name or not, the developments of digital electronic media which enhanced communications and understanding, the end of segregation and the fall of apartheid; the opening up of national borders; the end of the cold war, glasnost and perestroika; the unification of Europe; the oil dependent economy of the Middle East; affirmative action - any of these and many other events each contributed to the evolution of consumer perception, because they affected the development of human thought through the generations. There are more profound elements that drive peoples’ lives, such as the pursuit and enjoyment of freedom, human rights, security, which are regarded as absolute truths, the very existence of which runs counter to postmodernism. Modernism, postmodernism or any other philosophical debate does not drive human behaviour or thought, they merely describe it. Second, as to whether postmodern marketing a practical prescription for the development of strategy: I am convinced that postmodern marketing provides an interesting direction to an area of business that constantly seeks a new approach, and may suggest technique or style, but beyond that there is little in postmodern marketing that would develop strategic theory. Strategy tends toward greater definition, because it works off the totality of the business environment and selects a specific set of goals or objectives towards which it may concentrate its resources. Strategy, much like economics, identifies a limited set of activities out of a universe of unlimited wants, because resources to pursue them are limited. Postmodernism, by its very lack of definition and the use of jargon and mannerism in discussion (which only academics can understand - Walton, 1993), limits its higher-order implications to the realm of the academe. Unless the full range of the approach may be expressed in practical terms, business strategists have little use for it. Thirdly, as to whether there may be a source of competitive advantage in a postmodern approach: Competitive advantage by its nature relies upon a core competency not available to its competitors. If, as the discussion showed, postmodernism is a prevalent aspect common to all firms, then it cannot be a source of competitive advantage Finally as to business ethics, I agree with Gustafson (2000) that postmodernism by itself is neither compatible or incompatible with business ethics, simply because postmodernism is largely undefined. There are many elements some observers attribute to it while others view in a different context. Some ethical situations call for a relative answer, some for adherence to absolute tenets. Largely, postmodernism does not provide answers; it poses the questions which, in the end, may be invaluable in resolving the issue (Gustafson, 2000, p. 651). References Alloway, L 1981 The Idea of the Post-Modern: Who is Teaching It? Art Gallery, University of Washington. Brownlie, D 1998 “High minds and low deeds: on being blind to creativity in strategic marketing.” Journal of Strategic Marketing, Jun 98, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p117 Brownlie, D 2006 “Emancipation, Epiphany and Resistance: On the Underimagined and Overdetermined in Critical Marketing.” Journal of Marketing Management, Jul 2006, Vol. 22 Issue 5/6, p505-528 Brownlie, D R; Saren, M; Wensley, R; & Whittington, R (eds.) 1999 Rethinking Marketing: Towards Critical Marketing Accountings. SAGE Publications, Ltd., London Brown S (1993) “Postmodern Marketing?” European Journal of Marketing, Vol 27, 4, pp19-34 Burton D (2001) “Critical marketing theory: the blueprint?” European Journal of Marketing, Vol 35, 5/6, pp722-743 Cova B, Badot O and Bucci A (2006) “Beyond Marketing: In Praise of Societing” Visionary Marketing www.visionarymarketing.com Dobson, J 1999 “Defending the Stockholder Model: A Comment on Hasnas and on Dunfee’s Mom.” Business Ethics Quarterly, Apr 99, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p337-345 Fuat F?rat A, Dholakia N and Venkatesh A (1995) “Marketing in a postmodern world European Journal of Marketing, Vol 29, 1, pp40-56 Green, R M 1993 “Business Ethics as a Postmodern Phenomenon.” Business Ethics Quarterly, Jul93, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p219-225 Gustafson, A 2000 “Making sense of postmodern business ethics.” Business Ethics Quarterly, Jul2000, Vol. 10 Issue 3, p645-658 Nielsen, R P 1993 Varieties of Postmodernism as Moments in Action-Learning.. Business Ethics Quarterly, Jul93, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p251-269 Palmer A & Ponsonby, S 2002 “The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms: The Influence of Personal Perspective” Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 18, pp. 173-192 Rasmussen, D M 1993 Business Ethics and Postmodernism: A Response.”. Business Ethics Quarterly, Jul93, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p271-277 Saren M (2007) “Viewpoint. Marketing is everything: the view from the street” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol 25, 1, pp11-16 Schmidt, D P 1993 Postmodern Invterviews in Business Ethics: A Reply to Ronald Green.. Business Ethics Quarterly, Jul 93, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p279-284 Shaw, B 1995 “Virtues for a Postmodern World” Business Ethics Quarterly, Oct95, Vol. 5 Issue 4, p843-863 Walton, C C 1993 “Business Ethics and Postmodernism: A Dangerous Dalliance.” Business Ethics Quarterly, Jul 93, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p285-305, 21p Read More