Pluralistic Family Structure

Oswald Article: This article describes how today’s family structure is increasingly different than the stereotypical family consisting of two parents two children. Oswald discusses changing roles in the household, and how pluralistic structures of family are replacing monolithic ones. This is reflected in advertising, which increasingly caters to a fragmented family with more individualized adds. Oswald discusses changes in the workforce that support the idea of a pluralistic family structure. With more women working overtime, and men working part time, a variety of role compositions can be taken on at home. She explains that the connections and desire for togetherness is being satisfied through individual needs met within a community.

Paulson and O’guinn Article: This article discusses trends in advertising, specifically the
focus on upper and middle class families, and under-representation of working class and poor families. The authors liken United States advertising to Soviet art which had to portray a certain lifestyle. People in ads tend to represent a stereotyped version of the population. The authors point to the working class population which is rarely depicted in advertising, and when it is, the portrayal is a happy serving role. One that supports the middle or upper class target audience of the ad. The authors note the decrease in working class jobs, which is not depicted in advertising. They criticize the formation of a separate world in advertising that isn’t representative of reality, and that defends the mythologies of social structure.

Both of these articles discuss advertising though each takes on a very different narrative.
The Oswald article suggests that advertising is changing and evolving to reflect a variety of different family structures, and individualized needs. However, the Oswald article doesn’t address issues and disparities between classes as the Paulson and O’guinn article does. Their focus is on the political nature of advertising and the social class structure favoring the wealthy.
These differences lead each piece to adopt a certain tone. The Oswald article portrays an image of the advertising world as different than it was, but good. It points to changes in family structure, and attempts to disprove the notion that western civilization is on the verge of collapse. The language here creates a reassuring and positive tone. The Paulson and O’guinn article seems to suggest otherwise. While they do not criticize family structure in their article, they do highlight how advertising is misrepresenting the population.The language creates a clearly negative tone. The message here is that class divisions are becoming worse, and the media is supposedly denying
it. While I agree that representations of poor and working class citizens may be misleading, I can’t help but wonder, what is it the authors are hoping to achieve in the Paulson and O’guinn piece? Can advertising and marketing succeed if it caters to a population that is less economically well off? Can advertising even be held to the same standards as other forms of media?