Kid$ for Sale: An Interview with Joel Bakan

Joel Bakan is the writer, co-creator and associate producer of The Corporation, as well as author of The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. He is in the process of penning a new book that will likely come out sometime in 2010 or 2011.

Note: Images are from Corporations in the Classroom unless otherwise credited.

HCW: Can you tell us a bit about it?

JB: The central thesis of the book is that the modern conception and practice of childhood as a distinct and uniquely vulnerable time, where special protections and benefits are necessary and appropriate, is collapsing under the weight of corporate greed. We, as a society, have committed ourselves, over the last century or so, to this notion that childhood is a special time, that we should prioritize the best interests of children and youth, that preying upon, exploiting and disregarding the interests of children is a really bad thing to do. And yet, when these things are done by corporations in the pursuit of profit, somehow it is alright. That is my central concern in this book. One area - which your questions seem most focused on - is marketing and commercialization in kids' worlds. Others have written excellent works on that project - Susan Linn, for example, who is a leading activist and author in this area. My aim is to locate this topic in a broader analysis.

HCW: What stage are you at with it?

JB: I am currently researching, doing interviews, and writing. I have publication deals in Canada (Penguin), the US (Simon and Schuster), and the UK (Random House).

HCW. In this e'Zine, we're highlighting a film about the commercialism in schools and the insidious creep of corporations into the classroom. It's not just a plaque on the wall anymore, but logos on every desk, kids forced to watch TV ads, and "sponsored" curriculum materials. Yet, horrifying as that is, it doesn't sound all that different from their typical daily experience outside the classroom! How is childhood different today than it was 10, 20, 50 years ago? And what are the implications?

JB: Marketers have various catch phrases - immersion advertising, 360 degree marketing, 24/7 marketing, and so on, which very clearly describe their totalizing ambitions. In my book I trace the history from the introduction of television in the 1950s to today's world as one of a campaign by marketers to fill every nook and cranny of children's (and teen's) lives with marketing. It was really after the deregulation of television in the 1980s that the full marketing potential of the medium could be tapped. But television was still this passive, stationary box, usually located in a household's common area. Through the 1980s and 1990s marketers opened up new fronts - in schools, in the streets, at children's festivals and just about every domain of youth's physical environments - and then with the new millennium, digital technologies really began to take off. Today, children and teens spend hours each day on one type of screen or another, and as cell phones morph into portable interactive entertainment devices, gaming, social networking sites, and virtual worlds are all going portable. Marketers will soon have access to kids everywhere and all the time.

HCW. What made you think this was the issue to follow up on after The Corporation?

JB: Several things. I have two kids, an 11-year-old son and 12-year-old daughter, and spend a lot of time and energy thinking about, and discussing, and arguing, with them about, how to be and what to do in this hyper-commercialized world. That was a big part of it. But I also found that this issue was really at the top of people's concerns - it was an issue that we touched on in The Corporation and that really got people interested and outraged. The reason for this, I think, is that how we treat kids in our society is widely believed to be a measure of what kind of society we are. It was Nelson Mandela who said that there is no keener revelation of a society's soul than how it treats its children. If we, as a society, exploit and disregard the interests of the most vulnerable among us - those whose bodies, minds and psyches are just developing, and who, quite literally, constitute our future - what does that say about us?

HCW. There's been a lot written about the sexualization of children, particularly girls. Is this the result of corporate marketing, at least in part?

JB: It's a complicated issue. Corporate marketing is certainly a part of it. The sexualization of girls is highly profitable. It is not some abstract sexualization we are talking about. It is sexualization through buying things - cosmetics, designer clothing, lingerie, perfume - at increasingly younger ages. The phrase 'sex sells' usually means that sexual content will sell things like movies and television shows. That is part of what's going on. But the other part is that sex - or sexualization - requires that things be bought. Sex(ualization) sells products, which is part of the reason it is happening. If you are a perfume company and you want to expand your markets, where are you going to go? Maybe you could try the developing world, and companies do that. But you can also push down the age at which people desire and feel they must have your products. Hence the logic of sexualization.

There also appears to be a biological element. Earlier onset of puberty has been linked to various hormone-mimicking chemicals that industry uses in its products, particularly plastics, and pumps into the environment.

And finally, going back to the more usual understanding of 'sex sells,' sex, especially for kids approaching, and in, their teenage years, is a natural and healthy fascination. It can be, and is, used by marketers as a powerful draw, for both boys and girls. The problem here is not so much that this style of marketing is sexual - it is more how it is sexual, what conceptions of sex and sexuality it communicates. This is, needless to say, a complicated issue. Diane Levin's new book, So Sexy So Soon, is probably the best work out there that discusses it.

HCW. I know some countries —Sweden, Norway, as well as the province of Quebec— have legislation that limits marketing to children. Can you speak about this, what's in place and whether it's effective?

JB: Another big issue. The difficulties facing regulators at the moment is that their efforts tend to be focused on television, and television is becoming less important, in relative terms, as children and youth embrace gaming, social networking, the internet, and portable wireless devices as their cultural domains. Combine that with the knee-jerk opposition to any kind of regulation of cultural production as violating free speech, and you have real challenges. The challenges are not insurmountable, and in the final chapter of my book I will address them.

HCW. Do you have any recommendations for parents and/or educators?

JB: I hope to have more by the end of this project. At the moment - and here I am drawing more on my own decisions and experiences as a parent than any kind of scientific research - I believe it is important to help kids stay engaged in the real world by being available to them, and by facilitating opportunities for them to be with other kids, in real time and space, play sports and instruments, and so on. Rebecca (my wife) and I limit screen time in quite strict terms, but also provide our kids lots of opportunities to do other stuff. At the same time it is important to respect the world that kids' inhabit, and not effectively isolate them by restricting access. There's no magic formula. You just need to have a realistic sense of the commercial and often toxic nature of and motivations behind the culture kids want access to, and also the needs created by the worlds they inhabit. Most important - keep talking to them about what is happening in their worlds, try to encourage some sense of critical engagement.

HCW. Any plans to go the movie route again?

JB: Yes. I'm working on it.