Stasis Theory and the Timken Ad: We're onto their dirty game

One of the pre-established arguments in this piece is that Communists are very, very real. Though they apparently can't be spotted via profiling (try taking that one up with McCarthy), they are only loyal to Soviet Russia as it stood in the late 50s. The consequences of having Communists as a part of the American public are grave, apparently. Their entire goal is to indoctrinate people in high-up positions as well as the average American citizen, taking the white and blue out of our beloved national colors one person by one. The way this ad is worded, Communists are basically the ultimate evil. They are scheming for world domination, and "no tactic is too low" for them.

The ad argues that it is the patriotic duty of Americans to call out potential Communists (who will "usually deny that [they are] Communist[s]"). We must take action, says the Timken company - and on a larger scale, the American public.

While the Scot Tissue ad was chiefly worded as an appeal to employers, this Timken ad goes further. The Timken company has brought the capacity to do justice to the entirety of the American public (take that, Batman!), and as such, has placed an enormous responsibility on the public as well.

Now, if you'll let me get off topic for half a second, I want to talk about the fear-mongering that's going on in this ad. The Scot Tissue ad didn't inspire nearly as much terror - rather, it offered a form of protection. The language used in the Timken ad, however, really puts the "scare" in Red Scare.

There's a similar kind of fear-mongering going on today in mainstream media about...well, about almost everything. Global warming is the end of the world! Snowpocalypse! Terrorism! Snowmageddon! The government shutdown! Snowquester! (And that's not even to start on the harsh racial undertones that are carried by one of the networks that basically rules the fear-mongering market - looking at you, Fox News.)

Fear has become an acceptable method of journalism, and I think part of that may have come from ads like this Timken one being run so frequently in the 1950s. 

timken ad was mid 50s

Correction: timken ad was mid FIFTIEs

What the rhetorical situation profoundly shows us about the degree of anti-communism in the 60s.

Disclaimer: The slogan at the bottom of the Timken Guide mentions “right to work”. Either this guide was not for employees, the way I thought it was, or I am very mistaken about the union situation in industrial plants in the Midwest during the 1960s. I would have assumed that that type of mantra wasn't part of the conversation among workers until much later. So, much of my analysis may well be slightly inaccurate. I had pictured the timken guide to have have been posted throughout the steel plants. In the break room. Next to the cigarette vending machine. Next to a circle saw. It would be dusty and faded.

Who here has read an employee handbook? Or an employee training video. In my experience, their seemingly unpolitical. “Smile when talking to club members.” “Tuck in your shirt at all times.” Much of the cookie-cutter employee-training literature, though, is part of political circumstances. 

So sure, handbooks are gnna change with new laws and new zeitgeist. This blog post, though, will show how much they can show about zeitgeist.

On the one hand, most of the Employee training manuals that aren’t too obscure to find come out of big corporations. Big corporations, more so then any politician, tries to be moderate, though this is specific of industry. Corporations do not want consumers mad at them. So their official statements are bound to be pretty tame and noncontroversial. This is a huge generalization, of course. The point is that Target is one of the most staunchly anti-union shops in the country. Their anti-union employee videos, though shameful, don’t fail to mention some tame viewpoints (Like that it has historically, maybe, bettered working conditions). This is a far cry from some of the stuff we hear about unions from elected representative.

On the other hand, this isn’t advertising. It isn’t even directly targeted advertising. literature for employees isn’t for consumers. When corporate statements reach a nonneglible amount of consumers, someone is spending big chunks of money. In other words, It takes corporate resources to reach it’s consumers. So corporate obsession with towing the line is less true of their internal publication. These laxer standards are especially true for the older literature in question. There was no internet So it’s not a perfect comparison of indicators of contemporary and 60s zeitgeist.

 If I am right about the audience of the temkin printout and the union situation in industrial plants in the Midwest during the 1960s (See disclaimer). If my initial understating was correct, then this templin printout is tame. This wasn’t an advertisement in the National Review, a very conservative newspaper. This is a workplace advertisement. The most anti-union corporation is tame in 1960-something, is tame in 2013. That all communists aren’t loyal to the US, that their among murderers, that they must be immediately reported, these are not what I would expect to be among tame publication. So this templin printout shows, based on the situation it would have been found, how radical the red scare was for america.
 

What changed and stayed the same over 30 years (though maybe just an oscillation)

Disclaimer: The slogan at the bottom of the Timken Guide mentions “right to work”. Either this guide was not for employees, the way I thought it was, or I am very mistaken about the union situation in industrial plants in the Midwest during the 1960s. I would have assumed that that type of mantra wasn't part of the conversation among workers until much later. So, much of my analysis may well be slightly inaccurate. I had pictured the timken guide to have have been posted throughout the steel plants. In the break room. Next to the cigarette vending machine. Next to a circle saw. It would be dusty and faded.

DISCLAIMER #2: I’m realizing now that maybe the guy on the right is calling out the communist, and the communist is the guy on the left (Timken). In that case my argument is that this shows how the vision of communist had changed in 30 years. In Scot Ad, the Bolshevik was wearing a suit. Sure, everyone wore suits in the 30s. You would put on a suit and your hat to go out for a milkshake. But if the guy on the right is the decent hardworking American, his tie and buttoned shirt represent capitalism. He has a piece of paper in his hand. He is a workingman. The guy on the left is having a nice cup of coffee and a sandwich. He is freeloading. And this makes the reader annoyed. I WORK HARD AND YOU DARE TO BENEFIT. FREE MARKET INCENTIVES. RIGHT-TO-WORK WITHOUT UNION LEADERS TAKING AN INDULGENCE. GRRRRR. The guy on the left, the communist, has a scar. Probably because he is a criminal.

The “Spotting a communist” advertisement is a window into the late 60s. The “Is your washroom breeding Bolsheviks” ad is a window into the 30s. Both artifacts do not have modern equivalents, relevant to specifically communism. Though economics has been highly politicized, capitalism is the only economic option taken seriously in the modern world Some may say the red scare is alive and well: “Socialist” is a conservative battle call against the president. While that culture of accusation may be a legacy of the cold war, it is small. Economic politicization is the real legacy.

The inescapable similarity of the two artifacts, despite 30 years of time in between, reminds the modern reader of the Cold War's durable and pervasive role through fifty years of american history. For a frame of reference, think about the change in race relations from 1930 to 1970. Then look at the visual depictions of the two artifacts The cartoonists basically used the same stencil.  40 years worth of change in worker conditions, bargaining power, and societal developments apparently wasn’t enough to overshadow the somewhat constant nature of Russian- United States Relations. 

            The communist in the Timken Guide is wearing a tie and collar. He doesn’t belong among you decent blue collar folk. He is my grandpa- a “colonizer” sent from New York to interfere with the decent, Midwestern (“the most American region”) way of life.  The real American is just trying to eat his lunch, man.

            Due to differences in rhetorical situation, It’s no wonder that the Timken guide left out key points made in the military pamphlet that would inspire a wave of Timken-like guides. 1955 southern army base is more willing to listen to claims about them commies then a unionized, heavy industry, plant in the later 1960s. such claims missing in the Timken ad that were present in the original include: they talk about "McCarthyism," violation of civil rights, racial or religious discrimination, immigration laws, anti-subversive legislation, any legislation concerning labor unions, the military budget, and "peace." All of these issues were clearly more accepted by the later rhetorical situation.

How biases changed and were catered to.

There is a huge difference in logical appeal between the Scot Ad and the Timken Guide. “Breeding” communism is mold. It is a development without agent. This at least credits communism as an ideology people come to on their own. By the 1960s, we view communism as a viral disease. Containment theory brings this about. The geographical nature of the spread had convinced americans to view communism in this way. Finding a communist is like finding a leper, an HIV carrier, (a homosexual in a 1950s spa . The change in logical appeal then, was due to a change in the audiences biases and ways of thinking. Appealing to these biases is the element of these to arguments that are appeals to pathos.

Use of Logos in Dealing with a Communist: It's not Entirely Irrational

Granted, it's pretty irrational. Sure, Russia's goal was world domination, but conquering Eastern Europe and establishing a political presence in China was probably higher on their list of priorities than convincing some random fellas at the bar that hey, maybe that Karl Marx guy had a point. But many of the accusations levied against Communist ideologies in the guide have a factual and logical presence.

For one, the guide does an excellent job distinguishing the ideals of Communism upon which Stalin rose to power and the actual system he put in place. While some may argue that it is somewhat ignorant to define a Communist as someone who buys into Stalin's regime, I would argue that someone actively trying to push a Communist agenda on you at this time probably didn't have the best of intentions. Even if Stalin wasn't actively sponsoring moles to try and turn the American people against their country, there could still be people trying to accomplish that.

The other factual argument the guide makes is its second-to-last point: "no tactics are too low for a Communist: lying, cheating, betrayal, ruin and even murder." Under the assumption established earlier that "Communist" is referring to a Stalin sympathizer, our frustrated unbuttoned-collar-wearing friend on the left is guilty of supporting some pretty horrible things. It's important to remember that while American propaganda against the Soviets was overly exaggerating of the threat they posed, they didn't get their morality wrong. And while the Red Scare certainly set progressiveness back and ruined many people's lives, no one was digging mass graves or deporting people to labor camps in America.

Pathos. Paper towel. Politics

Was Scot Paper Towel being ironic? Did they intend to only get a chuckle? I think so.

Perhaps this advertisement never elicited terror. Perhaps it's intention was to merely elicit a chuckle. Cut off the picture and the title, and we confront a non-political advertisement.

Why do i say it’s lighthearted? Besides that it just seems so? The copy, the slogan, and the caption are entirely non-political. The mention of bolsheviks is just the hook. It is made to be it a fun advertisement to read.

But maybe it had only a hint of humor. At the very least it wasn’t aimed at evoking the same seriousness, fear, and drama as, say, this comic book. Or this poster. Washroom, let's call this advertisement, is at least one tier below that, in terms of graveness.

So what, the red scare wasn't real? Of course it was real. American life revolved around it. But their are other ads that are more likely to be of a genuine, straight-faced appeal to heavy and emotional love of country and democracy. E.G. this and this which are two advertisements that remind me ALOT if typical modern discourse on China.


Of course, Employers are bound to be among the most conservative people. (Unless your jewish: If your jewish you vote puerto rican at every economic strata.) So you might say: We can't look at this period without context. We know the red scare was real. So an advertisement targeted at the group we've established would be among the most conservative of a time-- should be looked at openly, without "this is too ridiculous" goggles. The fact is the most out-there antibolsevism would be found among advertisements to the employer class. For this argument, we have to assume that advertisers knew their audience. Not a massively hurdling assumption- it is their job, after all.

So we won't discredit it's seriousness on the basis of it's over the top-ness. But we should remember that neither of the red scares tend to be depicted as happening during the 1930s. Maybe, though. I'd buy it. Stuff happening in europe. Poor and hungry people at home. I'd buy it

Pathos is a play on biases. The charged language about “awkward, unsanitary”, “harsh” paper towels is about as powerful a play on experiences as the subject of paper towel can get. It’s not the most ripe topic of emotional biases. Lipstick or soul food, for example, would be more ripe for appeals to emotional biases then paper towels.

What about biases that aren’t emotional, you say? The rhetorical situation of a washroom is ripe for that time's common experience of industrial employers.The washroom is the workers safe haven  This is the 1930s. People are unhappy, but they know their lucky to even have a job. The only place managers in the 30s get that feeling that people were just talking about YOU, until you came in, was the washroom. It's where whispers and complaints naturally start.

Otherwise, though, I say this advertisement is less an appeal to pathos then logos. The second paragraphs describes how good toilet paper is just a social science life hack. The third is an argument to get on the bandwagon. To me, that is just good logos. If your a small business, your taking notes out of the books of others. Hell, this advertisement was probably among pages in a managerial trade rag or a professional peer reviewed publication.The fourth paragraph starts out as an appeal to logos: describing just how scientific Scot Paper towel is (In the vein of a Glad Bag Ad)

Sure: next paragraph is in the vein of an appeal to biases. paper towel going to pieces= "The Worst". And we've all seen this in infomercials. But the next (second to last) paragraph, as well as the last paragraph is purely an appeal to the logos belonging to a rational economic actor.

In other words : You’ll save money because it will take less paper towel to clean up your messes? That is literally the argument in every TV advertisement starring a mom and paper towel, or a new kind of magic cloth, that I have ever seen. The first paragraph, the most appealing appeal to emotional biases is pretty much the script for the black and white part of an infomercial. The second paragraph is basically convincing employers to remember to say happy birthday to their employees.  Next we have a corporate argumentum ad populum. The fourth paragraph is an appeal to biases, but it’s just experiences with good an bad paper towel— not the most emotionally charged topic. Then on to two final paragraphs that are purely appeals to logos. 

When broken apart, we see that only the title and just a smidgeon of the, say, 130 words of copy, are  Washrooms appeals to pathos, while most of this advertisement is a mundane appeal to logos. The point is— there is nothing except a shadow of red scare in this advertisement. All the appeals to biases are apolitical. Which is why I think this advertisement is lighthearted and not indicative of the real terror of this time. If I knew nothing in the world, and saw this ad, I would finish reading it thinking that Americans felt secure and unthreatened regarding their national survival, in the face of communism, in the 1930s.

Titles and pictures about the overthrow of western society that are said without an ironic tongue in cheek aren’t followed by six cheery paragraphs and a finishing slogans about their paper towel being "Really Dry!".

Scot paper towel ad is melodramatic from a modern perspective, and perhaps it was melodramatic then too. Or maybe I have an inability to remove my modern bias. However, just because this type of advertisement was a teensy bit melodramatic at the time, doesn’t meant wasn’t rooted in serious paranoia.