The link below directs you to a copy of my workshop draft in GoogleDocs with peer commentary in the right margins.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/187_1ox8cSqX8ExuFhJcNbhnie2vZBqNTh7rENEkbNcQ/edit?usp=sharing

Below is the actual workshop draft.

Peer Review Draft

In the 2011 Super Bowl ad “Born of Fire”, Chrysler advocates its interest in preserving local regionalism by proudly featuring Detroit’s renewed qualities through powerful images of architectural splendor, Eminem’s refreshing presence and a luxurious tagline. While Chrysler does succeed in presenting Detroit’s rebirth to the country in a noble light, the advertisement’s paradoxical attempts to accentuate both local and universal qualities of a region actually causes unnecessary conflict. In other words, Chrysler’s zealous commitment to critical regionalist technique undermines its empowering presentation of cultural identity as a social invention, revealing the inherent contradictions within the critical regionalism rhetoric that Powell and Eggener warn against.

Through patriotic images and icons that are so uniquely Detroit, the advertisement without a doubt supports promoting local regionalism. However, in its quest to prove that Detroit and the automobile industry still have a unique place in the world without conforming to universal stereotypes, Chrysler overemphasizes certain themes and elements to a degree that breeds defiant regionalism. For example, the narrator aggressively questions the audience’s knowledge of Detroit, particularly from “folks who have never even been here” (Born of Fire), and fiercely stands by the city’s underdog story of rebirth. By utilizing edgy rhetorical questions and answering with a matter-of-factedly “Well I’ll tell you”, the advertisement advances its belief that Detroit’s “hard work and conviction” leads to luxury (Born of Fire). The sheer defiance against the rest of the world serves to reclaim the idea that Detroit has made it “to hell and back” with better, more resilient ideas and challenges the ignorant “folks” who question otherwise (Born of Fire). Indeed, in the last scene of the advertisement, Eminem stares defiantly at the camera and points his right index finger for emphasis, finishing with the challenging statement “This is what we do” (Born of Fire). This underlying aggression in a way bolsters support from local regions, but is alienating to outside audiences. The result of this conflict is not only cultural segregation, but a misunderstanding between the center and peripheral populations caused by “impulsiveness and lack of analysis or reflection” (Eggener 232). In addition, the narrator adopts a resisting critical regionalist attitude in asserting “this isn’t New York City. Or the Windy City. Or Sin City”. In this case, resistance is negatively implied as a marginal practice, again alienating Detroit from the country by criticizing those who categorize the city carelessly. As Eggener notes, resistance should not be seen as a rejection of modern universal themes, but rather, as an “affirmation of local culture within the general movement of history” and should be used with less intention to fight and more to teach (233). Ironically, however, despite the focus on asserting proudly defiant regionalism, it took a merger with Fiat, a European company, to help tackle Chrysler’s problems and yet there is no recognition of Fiat in the advertisement. In addition, not all of the magic in making Chrysler cars happen in Detroit, but the advertisement and the “Imported from Detroit” movement promote it as such. These subtle details question the entire validity of Chrysler’s regional message, taking away from the affirmation of local culture.

On one hand, Chrysler emphasizes critical regionalist techniques to a point that promotes defiant regionalism and generates tension between a central and its periphery. On the other hand, while striving to highlight local culture, identity and the means of resistance to achieve these native states, Chrysler romanticizes almost primitive qualities of Detroit. In doing so, the advertisement overlooks the current social, economic and cultural structures of the region it is advocating and causes unnecessary conflict between people’s views of the region. In particular, the retreat back to compelling, nostalgic cultural history produces a “totalizing view…which is likely to be at odds with the meanings which the inhabitants” place on the region themselves (235). The underlying motive to display Detroit as strong and unique while still a universal role model for the rest of the world serves as an example of how the critical regionalist theory may devalue its own significance. By seeking to be both general and particular, the advertisement is unable to choose one as an ultimate motive, and thus, cannot engender change effectively as a “social invention” as Powell suggests (8). This can be seen from research that shows that although subjectively, the advertisement resonated with its audience, Chrysler’s sales did not objectively increase by much immediately after the ad was shown. The declarative statement “And we’re certainly no one’s Emerald City” goes further to suggest that Detroit is not owned by anyone or anything. It is an entity separate from modern uniform qualities, a prideful “state of mind” that utilizes slightly idyllic and nostalgic images to qualify its own regionalism (233). Indeed, this value is what Eggener preaches- by heeding the particular voices of those who help build a culture we may better understand the richness and complexity of local discourse. However, Powell cautions on just listening to a particular set of voices, instead recognizing that a conflicting discourse is essential for change and advocating numerous diverse perspectives to “self-consciously shape” an understanding of cultural, political and social history.

        Although the advertisement itself is part of the bigger “Imported from Detroit” movement, Chrysler’s decision to promote change in Detroit through a video commercial is nevertheless impactful. Through a video lens, Detroit’s regionalism is promoted through local forms of images, words, music and lighting, directly avoiding universal modernism. Using an image as a base form, each subsequential element adds another layer of complexity and distinction to the depiction of Detroit. For example, the video montage features a bleak but not altogether discouraging montage of automobile factories and industrial murals. Although the images don’t portray the vibrant city that once was, the images coupled with a rhythmic background beat and gritty voice gives off a foreboding sense of regional change about to occur. Indeed, the images are reinforced by the narrator’s words, unique to Detroit. Phrases such as “the hottest fires that make the hardest steel” are suggestive to Detroit’s cultural history and promotes its unique regional image. If just local scenery is not enough, the appearance of post-recovery Eminem, Detroit’s prodigal son, next to a brightly-lit marquee that reads “Keep Detroit Beautiful” and the juxtaposition of the Grammy Award-winning rapper with an all-black gospel choir further supports Powell’s critical regionalist theory tensions between perspectives lead to change. As Powell notes, instead of overlooking current social, economic and cultural structures of a region, recognizing and embracing the struggle between a region’s inhabitants is the first step towards richness and complexity. Furthermore, the fact that Chrysler used a video commercial rather than a poster or another static medium serves to remind the audience that a region is defined by its “dynamic, evolving and rhetorical qualities” (Powell 14) and delivers a “cumulative generative effect” (Powell 5) of a variety of competing, local interpretations through time. These details yet again bolster Powell’s theory that a region is fluid and always changing.

        As Powell and Eggener affirm, critical regionalism is a dynamic construct built upon conflicting perspectives. Chrysler’s advertisement depicting Detroit’s revival certainly hits the spot on affirming the resistance and fluidity of critical regionalism; however, its tendency to rely underlying nostalgia, a particular set of voices as Eggener advocates, is a hidden loophole in the system. Although the patriotic images highlight Detroit at its finest, they walk a thin line between just enough representation of a region to irrational nostalgia that points to an ideal future without considering social, political and economic consequences. Built long on a conflict between race, class and cultures, Detroit’s regional comeback cannot be manifested as easily with just sheer willpower. Rather, as Powell notes, the conflict between locals to overcome racial tensions and blue-collar culture serves as a starting point towards generating change that will embrace the richness and complexity of the city.

Below are Professor Van Kley’s comment regarding this workshop draft.