Representation should never be taken for granted. Representation is a re-presentation, a re-showing of a particular group of people, an issue, an event, a place, and so on. When we see a white person in a media product, we are not actually seeing a white person, or indeed anybody. Since all media is a construct, what we are actually seeing is the producer's re-presentation of a white person (or indeed gay person, black person, Welsh person, disabled person... you get the idea). No matter how bland or boring or conventional the media product, the media student can always discern the ideology of the producer. And this ideology can and will reinforce certain ideologies for the target audience.
The below advert is for Pepsi, this fizzy cola flavoured drink that is almost (but not quite) a brand leader in America. The advert plays on the relationship between Pepsi and it's rival Coca-Cola. It begins by cheekily drawing attention to the fact that most people can't tell the difference between Coca Cola and Pepsi (after all, who the hell cares?), before very loudly and brashly informing the target audience that Pepsi is anything but 'fine'. It does this primarily by drawing a binary opposition between non-white people and white people.
The establishing shot of a stereotypical American diner instantly anchors the audience in to the position of a stereotypical white, working class American. A particularly 'normal' and relatable actor has been selected: white, female, approximately 30 years old, and not particularly attractive for an advert for such a huge budget. Her selection allows the target audience to relate to her, and her plainness forms a hermeneutic code to the Super Bowl audience expecting to see something truly out of the ordinary.
The bland, white working class setting is further reinforced through the casting of the waiter. Much like the woman, he is not particularly attractive (from the hegemonic perspectives of Hollywood film!). If we were being particularly harsh we could even refer to him as 'TV ugly'. He isn't ugly by everyday standards, but he has been selected precisely because or his ordinariness.
Steve Carell's appearance is the target audience's first taste of the big name, big budget Hollywood star that they've been expecting. Steve Carell will particularly resonate with white, working class audiences due to his appearances in popular films and TV shows such as The Office and The 40 Year Old Virgin. Carrell is once again playing a similar character here: over the top, awkward, unnecessarily confident. Audiences can take pleasure at the intertextual reference to their favourite films and TV shows. Additionally, Carrell is (seemingly) working class, middle aged and white, a fact further reinforced by the blandness of the setting.
At this stage in the soundtrack, only diegetic sound has been used. The bland and generic atmos of the diner during the middle of the day has constructed a dull and ordinary setting that the target audience will certainly be aware of. Carell introduces a fourth character, again white, again stereotypically working class. His inclusion is designed to make the sudden shift that is about to occur even more surprising.
A whip pan is used to transition to the next shot. The blur of colour and movement connotes excitement and a sense of the unknown that is a total diametric opposition to the quiet banality of the diner. The whip pan functions as a proairetic code, suggesting to the target audience that exciting things are finally going to happen.
We pan to a mid shot of the rapper Lil John, grinning directly at the camera. The mise-en-scene of his costume (gold chains, sunglasses, grills and dreads) suggests that he is a stereotypical black rapper. He presents an instant and significant binary opposition between the normality of the setting, which is still a stereotypically white working class. The symbolic connotation here is that black people represent excitement, fun, confusion and even potentially danger. This is reinforced by the non-diegetic rap music soundtrack, which is stereotypically associated with black people, and has further connotations of crime and aggression. This sudden shift represents a disruption of the equilibrium for the white, working class audience.
Rapper Cardi B enters through the front door, directly addressing the audience running her tongue over her lips and making a trilling noise. The excitement of her entry is emphasised by the bass drop. Cardi B's more 'obvious' sexual attractiveness forms a binary opposition with the more plain and 'normal' looking white woman she chooses to sit opposite. Her inclusion reinforces a stereotype that non-white women are louder, more exciting and more overtly sexualised than white women.
Finally, the diametrically oppositional nature of the advert is underlined by Carell's stereotypically 'white' and awkward gesture at the two rappers entrances. This reinforces the difference between the white and non-white characters in the advert, and likens the experience of drinking Pepsi to the disruptive thrill of encountering a famous and non-white celebrity in a stereotypical working class setting.
Reinforcing dominant ideological perspectives
On the surface, it could be argued that this advert is prejudiced against white people! After all, white people here are universally represented as being boring, quiet, run-of-the-mill and (hegemonically speaking) unnatractive. Non-white people are represented as being fabulously wealthy, exciting and sexually attractive. So how does such an advert appeal to the Super Bowl's traditional white working class audience?
The answer lies in the function of non-white people in this advert. They exist as cartoonish stereotypes, designed to equate the excitement of drinking Pepsi to the excitement of meeting a non-white celebrity (note that although Carell is undoubtedly the most famous and most highly paid actor in this advert, his appearance is met with confusion as opposed to excitement). Black people here are used as a stereotypical shortcut to sell an exciting lifestyle and therefore a soft drink.
But let's take this further. If non-white people are cool, exciting, rich and sexually attractive, then what does that make white people? The answer is normal. The hegemonically constructed and reinforced norm in this advert is that working class white people are the norm, and that black people are otherworldly strangers who do not belong in stereotypically white settings. Their thrilling inclusion is tolerated, yet ultimately the advert is constructed around a central and overwhelming binary opposition that suggests that black people and white people are completely different.
Does this make the Super Bowl advert racist? Yes and no. All it's doing is reinforcing and repeating dominant hegemonic ideological perspectives that any other number of adverts and music videos present, that white people are the 'default' ideological norm. By itself, it's a little silly (if a little cringy). Yet when the ideology is repeated over and over again, that there are fundamental differences between white people and non-white people, and that white people are the 'dominant' ethnic group, this underlines and reinforces dominant ideological perspectives in America. And when the advert is broadcast in one of the most watched TV shows in the world, the ability to legitimise these ideologies on a mass scale is significant.
