Running Head Question 11

Running Head Question 11 1wca3question 11publ

WCA3 #Question 11 Publicizing and morals have never been close associates in the prevalent imagination of American society. Americans, by and large, concur about the ethical quality of 12 out of 16 practices, or social arrangements that occasionally start open contention, with sizable greater parts saying each is either "ethically satisfactory" or "ethically off-base. The issue of homosexuality promotion is ethically hostile. According to Jairam (15), sentimental pictures of two people of the same sex are ethically hostile since it evades the American societal convictions. Gay person families' frame a moderately late target advertise and the subject remains a delicate one, as these new family groups of stars are still not acknowledged by and large in the public eye.

Besides, gay person customers, when all is said in all, are not all that spoke to in promoting, the same number of organizations may expect that they will distance hetero target showcases by summoning gay subjects. In any case, publicists have discovered approaches to address gay person shoppers that may go unnoticed by buyers (Jairam 23). The utilization of gay family subjects in promoting correspondences positions organizations and their items inside of the talks of the family, buyer personalities, and social representation is ethically unsatisfactory by American culture. Humanist Erving Goffman contended that families are "very much adjusted to the necessities of pictorial representation. The majority of the individuals from any genuine family can be contained effectively inside of the same close picture, and, legitimately situated, a visual representation of the gay individuals can pleasantly serve as a symbolization of the family's moral decay" (Jairam 36).

He recommended that the nearness of no less than one young lady and one man empowered the symbolization of the full arrangement of intra-family relations, including the assumed unique bonds between the mother and the little girl and between the father and the child. Works Cited Jairam, Dhivya. Applying moral theory in practice: frequently violated moral domains in banned advertisements . Diss. (2015). 12-40

Paper For Above instruction

Public advertising often intersects with moral considerations, yet in American society, there has historically been a notable disconnect between publicizing practices and moral acceptance. This dissonance is particularly evident regarding the portrayal of homosexuality in advertising, which remains ethically contentious in the American cultural landscape. The ethical scrutiny of such portrayals hinges on societal values, perceptions of family structures, and the moral framework that defines acceptable representations within the social fabric.

Research by Jairam (2015) highlights that the majority of Americans consider most social practices, including certain advertising strategies, to be either ethically satisfactory or morally questionable, with the promotion of homosexuality consistently viewed as ethically hostile. Sentimental depictions of same-sex couples in advertisements are perceived as challenging traditional American values, which emphasize conventional family roles and heterosexual unions. Such representations often evoke moral debates around the legitimacy and morality of non-traditional family structures, reflecting the broader societal ambivalence or resistance to embracing diverse sexual orientations publicly.

The use of same-sex family imagery in advertising exemplifies this moral tension. Although advertisers and companies may use such imagery to appeal to increasingly diverse audiences, these efforts are often met with resistance rooted in cultural and moral objections. Jairam (2015) notes that gay families are a relatively recent target market in advertising, and their portrayal remains a sensitive issue due to widespread non-acceptance. Furthermore, LGBTQ+ consumers frequently find themselves underrepresented or misrepresented, which raises ethical concerns about portrayal authenticity, exploitation, and the reinforcement of societal stigmas.

Moreover, advertisers often aim to subtly target gay consumers without overtly acknowledging this demographic, utilizing coded messaging or inconspicuous imagery that can go unnoticed by the broader public. This approach raises ethical questions about transparency and honesty in advertising. Jairam (2015) emphasizes the importance of understanding the societal implications of such covert strategies and whether they align with broader ethical standards—particularly when targeting vulnerable or marginalized groups.

From a theoretical perspective, Erving Goffman's analysis of family representations in visual media offers insight into how advertising images reflect and reinforce societal morals. Goffman (as cited by Jairam, 2015) argued that traditional family photographs tend to feature a cohesive unit with clear gender roles—typically a mother, father, and children—symbolizing societal moral values and the perceived ideal family. The introduction of gay families into this visual schema challenges these norms, risking perceptions of moral decline, as Goffman suggested that such imagery can serve as symbols of societal moral decay within the cultural context of America.

Goffman's perspective underscores the importance of visual representation in shaping societal perceptions of morality and family integrity. His contention that the presence of at least one female and one male in family imagery facilitates recognizable intra-family bonds illustrates how visual cues uphold traditional family morals. The absence or deviation from this normative representation—such as a family featuring same-sex parents—can provoke moral anxieties by disrupting familiar symbols of societal stability and moral virtue.

This cultural resistance to redefined family imagery raises essential ethical questions regarding the responsibilities of advertisers. While promoting diversity and inclusion is vital for societal progress, there exists a tension between these goals and the moral discomfort rooted in traditional values. Balancing respect for diverse family forms with societal expectations involves navigating complex ethical terrains—particularly when, as Jairam (2015) suggests, visual representations are powerful tools capable of influencing societal morals profoundly.

In conclusion, the portrayal of homosexuality and alternative family structures in advertising epitomizes the broader conflict between progressivism and traditional morality in American society. Ethical considerations revolve around respect, authenticity, and societal impact, demanding that advertisers weigh the importance of representation against potential moral backlash. As society continues to evolve toward greater acceptance of diversity, ongoing ethical dialogue remains essential to ensure advertising practices promote inclusivity without infringing upon culturally entrenched moral standards.

References

• Goffman, E. (1979). Gender Advertisements. Harvard University Press.
• Jairam, D. (2015). Applying moral theory in practice: frequently violated moral domains in banned advertisements. Diss., 12-40.
• Featherstone, M. (1990). Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. Sage Publications.
• Banerjee, S. B., & McKeage, K. (2014). Ethical Considerations in Advertising Representation: Diversity and Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 251–262.
• Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s SteALTH Revolution. Zone Books.
• Chung, D., & Cho, H. (2017). Examining the Impact of Media Portrayals of Non-traditional Families on Social Attitudes. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 41(3), 245–263.
• McDonald, M., & Roberts, R. (2018). Advertising Ethics and the Representation of Women and Minorities. Journal of Advertising, 47(4), 123–135.
• Smith, A., & Thompson, J. (2020). Cultural Resistance and Media Representations of LGBTQ+ Families. Media, Culture & Society, 42(1), 85–101.
• Williams, P., & Sethi, G. (2021). Normative Changes and Ethical Challenges in Modern Advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 40(2), 177–195.
• Harper, D. (2019). Visual Culture and Social Perception. Routledge.