7 October 2016 Rhetorical Analysis "Made in Bangladesh"

If there is one clothing company that is capable of repulsing me more than Urban Outfitters, it’s American Apparel. Aside from their astronomical prices for ridiculously simple articles of clothing, their advertising strategies have resulted in multiple bans in countries like the UK and France, and they have been accused of picturing underage models in sexually explicit positions as part of their advertisements. A Google search of American Apparel turns up some repulsive instances of female models being exploited—all in the name of advertising.

            What is even more appalling about American Apparel is that it brands itself as fair trade, claiming proudly that all its products are made in America and have no involvement with the suffering caused by sweatshops in other countries. American Apparel takes pride in its efforts to promote fair wages, avoid environmental impact, and give jobs back to citizens in the good ole’ USA. And in order to promote its resistance to this issue, the company has taken to human rights violations of a different kind.

            One ad in particular really drives this point home—it depicts a young woman wearing unbuttoned jeans and nothing else. The words “Made in Bangladesh” are strategically placed over her naked breasts in order to conceal what would be otherwise inappropriate for a magazine. In the description on the bottom of the ad, the reader discovers that it is not the clothing that has been made in Bangladesh, but instead is the woman. It’s a clever way to promote the “America” in American Apparel while also selling its clothing.

And it’s also a clever way to capture American Apparel’s audience. Environmental concerns and the welfare of women in sweatshops is a sexy issue—and this ad is evidence of that in more ways than one.

The most concerning part about this advertisement is that it is one of the tamest American Apparel ads that I have seen. The woman is naked, sure, but she looks old enough to make that decision for herself. She looks strong, proud to represent her heritage for a company that values her country as much as it values its own. There is no man next to her, holding her legs open (an actual ad American Apparel has done), and this ad is none the lesser for it. If you can understand one thing from this advertisement, it’s that American Apparel is open-minded and respectful of all cultures.

This is what makes this ad so rhetorically effective. In other ads I have seen from this company, women are blatantly depicted as sexual objects that just so happen to be helpful in selling clothes. They’re obviously being exploited—anyone could see that. And perhaps if I had no other knowledge about American Apparel’s checkered advertising history, I would see this ad as representation of a company with good values. But alas, it is nothing of the kind. A topless woman proudly displaying her heritage in this instance is nothing more than an advertising object for a company with a set of hypocritical values.

I think that both ethos and pathos are at work in this ad. Interestingly enough, logos is not really present here. Obviously the image is meant to shock—it entices the reader to question what she thinks is right, and to wonder about the values she looks for in a clothing company. What person in American Apparel’s audience hasn’t heard of sweatshops? And what human being can look at such an instance of inequality and not feel a tug on the heartstrings? This advertisement rests on two important assertions about the human race—that we value helping others, and that we hate feeling guilty.

The ethos is fairly easy to pick out as well—this woman is from Bangladesh and therefore has every right to fight against the inequality of sweatshops there. Similarly, American Apparel has really increased its credibility by being open-minded enough to use a Bangladeshi woman as a model—and as a strong representation of power—rather than as a tool in a sweatshop.

This ad uses an interesting mix of quality and policy in regards to stasis theory. Quality asserts how important the issue of sweatshops really is. It makes the claim that women from all countries should not have to deal with a life of such hard work and suffering. Policy furthers these two points, but adds that the solution to solving such a prevalent issue lies in the purchase of American Apparel’s product. What better way to support humanity and quell feelings of guilt than to buy clothing that is made fairly by humans who desire to make it?

I wish I could say that all American Apparel ads have such positive messages. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In the quest to become a cool, hip, ecologically friendly brand, American Apparel has lost sight of the fact that human rights extend further along the chain of product making—from the women in the sweatshops to the models in the advertisements. It’s frightening to think that this company finds it so unrealistic to tackle more than one issue at once.