Susan:

> Further, I would say we need to look at how effective the

>>>scare tactics have been for the other campaigns. If you think, for
>>>one moment, that everyone in the US buckles kids in, wears a bike
>>>helmet, and doesn't smoke... you are not living in the same country I
>>>am, that's for sure.
>
>
Katie:

>First of all, educating parents about the proven risks of particular
>behaviors is not a "scare tactic." That is the spin the formula
>companies and their pediatric minions have decided to go with. Their PR
>people have instructed them to "stay on message" every single time this
>issue is discussed in the media by repeatedly referring to "scare
>tactics."
>

I'm sorry, but I *do* think emphasizing the idea that not breastfeeding
causes risks can be defined as scare tactics, because it uses fear as a
motivator for conversion. When I saw "conversion" used in the design
rationale for this campaign, I shivered, personally, having seen what
conversion means in a cultural context. Conversion is even higher on my
hierarchy of repulsive words than compliance. Most attempts to convert
use various linguistic tactics: persuasion often has to be pushed into
coercion in order to ensure that behaviour will change. Fear is a very
prevalent technique, and is so prevalent in our current socio-political
climate (just as it was in discipline techniques and moral education up
until a few decades ago) that we have to work hard to even be conscious
of it, let alone avoid it or eliminate it from our rhetoric.

How shall we the rhetoric and use of discourse in the idea that
breastfeeding is normal -- not breastfeeding causes harm to your child?

The quote above (viz "education parents... risks") suggests that the
statements in the ads -- which I haven't seen -- are being given as
information. We all agree that the information is accurate and
significant. Informative or expository language uses factual,
evidence-based information conveyed through straightforward, calm,
rational, helpful statements. Often, scientific sources, references,
statistics, etc. are related, in language appropriate to the audience.
There are no graphic representations of potential consequences (I use
consequences rather than outcomes intentionally) for the purpose of
making a point because the only point is providing the information. This
(providing information) is *not* what the anti-smoking, pro-helmet,
pro-seatbelt etc. ads are doing, and Susan (I think) was asking about
whether we had evidence that what they *are* doing -- using scare
tactics ("see what a victim looks like") -- is effective.

With Susan's post, a debate has been launched. I, too, looking for
studies to show that it is the ads rather than other factors that have
caused some change in behaviour at a societal level. (I've been very
interested in demographic trends in terms of public policy, etc.)
Correlation is not the same as cause. On the other hand, to make the
statement that "talking about the benefits of breastfeeding hasn't got
us anywhere," is, in my opinion, very difficult to prove, given the
increase in breastfeeding rates. More importantly, as far as I'm
concerned, is that it vastly undermines the great work we have been
doing so far.

I also wonder whether particular populations -- what Katie is suggesting
are exceptions to a societal tendancy to "comply" and vaccinate, etc. --
are not actually the ones that should be our target audience. Who are
the minority of women who are not initiating breastfeeding? If, indeed,
they are the same ones who are not putting helmuts on their children or
smoking during the pregnancy, why would these approaches be more
effective when breastfeeding is involved? And before assuming it is
because they don't care enough to do these things because they don't
think it is important, I think we should all consider where we get our
information and whether they have access to the same level of education,
health care, family support, services in their first language,
culturally-sensitive materials, financial resources to make choices,
freedom from violence and abuse as we do. Breastfeeding is a rich,
multidisciplinary area of study.

I would argue that that providing information is not the primary purpose
of the ad campaign discussed here, and that it is debatable whether any
ad campaign or marketing technique is simply informative. There is a
purpose. The underlying message is that women *should* breastfeed. We
are developing an argument. We care about whether the mothers listening
choose to breastfeed or not. And, in many ways, we are tending to "stay
on message" by having a consistent response each time the word "guilt"
or "choice" or "formula" is mentioned. I think we need to be conscious
of this. We, too, have a position, and that position is dictating our
choice of language. However, language is also received in a way that
entrenches a position, and it is often a narrower view than what we were
presenting. This is what happens when people here us as being fanatics,
etc. If this is what they are hearing, they aren't hearing the
information, the good intent, etc.

Obviously, all information and language is selected in a particular way,
according to attitudes, opinions, and goals. These are connected to yet
deeper levels of meaning, a larger worldview etc. So while we may be
more objective than our dissenters, we are still trying to get specific
things across, are just as convinced as they that we are right and feel
just as entitled to appeal to emotions. This is not a bad thing, but it
should give us pause. What is the deeper message? How do we choose to
express it?

I would much rather see us appeal to the higher self and positive
emotions -- consider doing this because you want to do the right thing;
we know you are generous and unselfish; do the healthy thing, the most
loving thing; you can make a real contribution to the humanity, to
community, to society, to the planet etc. etc.

Jo-Anne Elder-Gomes, with a PhD that contained very little flameproof
material, but much food for the heart.

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html