Laissez-FAIR

LAST WEEK, Jean kilbourne brought her now-famous slide show "The Naked Truth: Advertising's Image of Women" back to Harvard. In it, she shows how advertising's sexist imagery systematically dehumanizes women.

What may be more disturbing than the content of the advertisements themselves is what Kilbourne describes as the typical audience's response. "It is terrible, but what can we do about it?" members of the audience ask. "Advertising is simply part of our free market economy."

On the face of the matter, these arguments have some merit. Advertisers want to sell products, and therefore they perpetuate the myth that women can achieve happiness only by being objects of beauty, by adorning themselves with every type of jewelry, clothing and make-up imaginable. As long as the thirst for the almighty buck remains unquenched, this sexist treatment will continue.

If so, capitalism faces a devastating problem. If businessmen are motivated simply by the pursuit of profit and are willing to use any means at their disposal, then perhaps the free market ought to be abolished.

IT SEEMS SAFE to say, however, that Kilbourne's audience, and most other Americans for that matter, do not want to do away with capitalism. What's disturbing about this attitude is not that Americans are capitalists, but that they equate capitalism with a laissez-faire economy.

It is this attitude that prevented child labor restrictions and minimum wage laws from being established for a long time since they were considered antithetical to the free market. And it is this attitude that still haunts America today, as evident from the fact that the United States lags way behind her Western European counterparts in areas such as childcare reform, as well as in maternity and paternity leave.

Nevertheless, some people respond, it is much easier to combat child labor problems than it is to fight sexism in advertising. The only real way to end such portrayals is to censor the advertisers, which, in the opinion of some, violates free speech, and, in the opinion of others, is too dangerous because of its potential for abuse.

This argument betrays the same foolish attitude that it is impossible to interfere with capitalism constructively, that we must choose between censorship and indifference. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact that Swedish workers are granted family allowances while Americans are not, in no way indicates that Swedish businessmen like money less than their American counterparts. Rather, it demonstrates that Swedish workers have organized politically to ensure that their demands will be met.

IN FACT, these methods are the tools of all political protest. Divestment activists hope to convince companies that it is not in their economic interest to remain in South Africa. In the process, perhaps they also can change the opinions of the companies' stockholders, can convince them that it is morally unacceptable to do business there. Recognition of this possibility is recognition that the market is not composed simply of supply and demand curves, but of people with political beliefs, beliefs that can be changed.

The same is true of advertising. If protest is mounted, advertisers will recognize that it is not good business to portray women in a degrading fashion. With a little luck, they may start to develop attitudes that would prevent them from doing so in the first place.

Already, Boston has seen the removal of one shoe advertisement that shows a dead woman next to a pair of shoes. The caption reads "We killed for these." Similarly, some television stations have been convinced to set up a board that screens advertisements for sexism.

Protest thus far has been limited so that only the most offensive advertisements have been removed. Whether more sustained political activity will come about remains to be seen, but it surely doesn't seem imminent. Part and parcel of Americans' laissez-faire attitude is a political apathy that is unrivaled in the western world. While the French hit the streets because of slight cuts in education, Americans seem reticent to protest even the most monstrous atrocities.

If sexist advertising, or any other problem facing capitalism, is to be combated, Americans must become more committed to political activism. Surely the first step is to recognize that indifference, not big government, is society's greatest economic enemy.