Author Bio

Pre-Owned or Preposterous?

posted: 11.3.11 by Jack Solomon

Jay Dolmage’s recent Bits post on double-speak happens to overlap with a popular cultural phenomenon that I have long pondered: namely, the widespread cultural tendency to engage in evasive and euphemistic language.  This tendency is not limited to politicians and celebrities; it is well-nigh universal. When used car dealers find that they have a better chance of selling “pre-owned” cars than the “used” kind, and mass market grocery items are called “Private Selection,” something highly significant is going on.  And that’s yet another place where semiotics comes in.

The range of euphemism in America is vast. Painful subjects, like death and racial conflict, are euphemistically glossed over. No one dies anymore; people “pass.” And rather than refer to race, our common discourse prefers the more comfortable, but much different word, “culture” (I explain to my students that people of different race can share a culture, and that while “race” is a highly contested and problematic demographic category, to argue that it is determinative of cultural consciousness is to trod some very thin ice indeed). At the very least, this tendency to euphemism impedes sound critical thinking (we can hardly think clearly about something when we are unable to clearly identify what we are thinking about: I’m with Orwell). At the worst, it can backfire into backlash and nasty accusations of “political correctness.”

The cultural significance of these sorts of euphemism (there are many more, but the topic is so sensitive that it isn’t wise even to point them out) is fairly straightforward: a fundamentally optimistic people (please read Barbara Ehrenreich’s Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America), Americans are so ill-equipped to face the painful realities of their history and fundamental existence that they turn to euphemistic evasions that solve nothing but do make people feel better.

The tendency to market used and/or mass-market goods under such labels as “pre-owned” and “Private Selection” (I also like the mass-market outerwear line “Members Only”) points to a different significance: namely the fundamental contradiction in American life between our populist egalitarianism and an American dream that urges us to rise above the crowd and stand alone upon the social heights. (I write about this at length in my essay “Masters of Desire: The Culture of American Advertising,” from my books Signs of Life in the U.S.A. and The Signs of Our Time.) Thus, even as we celebrate American democracy, we long for something that isn’t democratic at all: social distinction. And the proof of this lies in our attraction to “pre-owned” and privately selected, Hunt-Club quality, goods.

As a free cycler who just babied my battered old pickup truck through another smog check so I can eke another year’s service out of it, these sorts of appeals don’t work for me (I admit it: I am still attracted to the “inverse snobbery” that was once popular among us baby boomers in the 1960s). But these appeals wouldn’t appear if they weren’t working for masses of consumers. I do wish that people would demand that their used cars be called used cars and that their store brand goods be called store brand goods, but with the increasing fascination with inherited wealth (move over Paris, here come the Kardashians) this is unlikely.


Categories: Popular Culture
You might also like: The Medium Is the (Text) Message
Read All Jack Solomon

2 Responses to “Pre-Owned or Preposterous?”

  1. Eric Dinsmore, Cal State Northridge Says:

    Dr. Solomon,

    I have noticed euphemisms being used as a way to project certain class distinctions that are just not there. (Your pre-owned example is perfect.) What I wonder is why these are used more than ever (or so it seems)? No doubt our consumer-driven, celebrity culture wants us to project an image we will never obtain, and still I find it sad that younger generations who will likely be poorer than their parents (even if accounting for first generation Americans from immigrant families) will not be able to obtain anything greater than an object that could be purchased at Target. This could be a house to a college degree. It seems since Reagan, we Americans want more with less and want the fanciest labels to project a wealth that we can never obtain (let alone fathom as if it were ever so obtainable).

  2. Jack Solomon, CSUN Says:

    It is tempting, Eric, for me to pull a “Michel Foucault” here and simply claim that I am reading the “archive” and am not responsible for explaining causation.


    But I won’t do that.

    The best I can do is look at the underlying foundation of so much of contemporary American culture—what Jeremy Rifkin has called “hypercapitalism.” In hypercapitalist societies all other values wither away before the ascendent value of money. In a consumer culture like ours, money and what money can buy go together, and money can buy both status and products. Thus, the fundamental American contradiction of embracing both populism and elitism simultaneously has been hypercapitalistically weighted heavily towards elitism: an elitism grounded in money, status, and consumption. All classes within society are affected by this. So people prefer “pre-owned.”

    Now, how did we get to hypercapitalism? That is a much bigger question that I cannot answer here. Fredric Jameson’s proposed linkage of “late capitalism” with “postmodernism” offers an interesting perspective. But then we have to ask what brought on postmodernism. And, of course, Jameson’s ideas are tethered to a certain extent to a dialectic that it is not easy to endorse these days.

    So things get more complicated the deeper we go. It’s worth looking into, however.