AMALIA ELEFTHERIADOU, AND THE QUESTION OF ADVERTIZING, 1950’s -1970’s

TO INVESTIGATE

Our purpose here is to investigate the discourse of advertizing in the 1950’s-1970’s period. We shall attempt to come up with some sort of typology of such discourse, and draw conclusions as to the implications of such typology with respect to Greek youth in the period, and especially as regards Greek female youth in the 1960’s. Throughout this paper, we shall try to examine the relation that pertained between advertizing discourse and a Greek female working youth such as Amalia Eleftheriadou, the White-Collar employee (“Clerk”) at the A&M Mill at Aliarto, whose life we are investigating both as employee and as youth in the 1960’s-early-1970’s socio-cultural milieu. To the extent that Amalia is representative of a “type” of person in the period under discussion (the “Amalia-type”), we shall try to understand how such type “lived” her relationship to the advertizing discourse that bombarded her.

We know that Amalia lived at Aliarto and worked at the A&M Mill from 1966 and through to the fall of the Military Dictatorship, a period of time when, as we shall see, advertizing in Greece blossomed. A number of basic questions shall inevitably arise: for instance, how did such a young female youth, living in a semi-rural area outside Athens, respond to the “global” messages that many advertisements carried, and with which she had direct contact through mass popular periodicals such as the  Romantso [Ρομάντσο]? Alternatively, one needs to also investigate the extent to which advertisements published in such popular magazines or presented at the Aliarto local cinema were in fact permeated by international “stereotypes” and the extent to which they also projected “national/“localist”/ “traditional discourse. To the extent that such latter discourse was itself present in advertisements, we shall need to here again investigate how the “Amalia-type” would respond to such “Greekness” in the discourse.

In coming up with some sort of typology of Greek advertizing discourse, we shall try to identify degrees of “provocative-interventionism” in particular advertisements, whereby their discourse would try to impose “stereotypes” on consumers in manners which fully disregarded the pre-existing cultural practices and traditional values of Greeks at the time (e.g. the so-called “Americanization” of life). Similarly, we shall try to identify degrees of “compromising adjustment” in yet other advertisements, whereby, in this case, their discourse would try to take into consideration the pre-existing cultural practices/values of consumers, and thus presuppose some kind of active interaction between consumer and advertizing company.

The structure of the text that follows will be organized around two central axes: we shall categorize advertisements in terms of the degree of “balances” they maintained (or did not maintain) between “provocative-interventionism” and “compromising adjustment” in their discourse and, further, we shall try to identify the specific “cultural content” of each such advertisement. We shall also examine what we call the “positive material content” of all advertizing discourse. Of course, before we even attempt such a methodology in dealing with the phenomenon of advertizing, we shall have to consider the manner in which Greek “intellectuals” at the time themselves dealt with the phenomenon (itself closely related to the phenomenon of consumerism in the 1960’s-1970’s) – and we shall have to do this because such “intellectuals” were to themselves play some role in determining how people viewed/related to advertisements. Both the discourse of advertisements and the theoretical discourse that unfolded in trying to position itself with respect to the phenomenon of advertizing, shall here be approached as more or less objective historical phenomena of the past that now await to be explained from a somewhat ‘neutral’ distance.

Such ‘neutral’ historicist distance cannot of course apply to present-day theoretical attempts at explaining what happened then. We have found some such attempts both useful in the hard facts they have come up with but also thoroughly disappointing in that their angle is either helplessly oversimplistic or still burdened with the ideological biases of the 1960’s-1970’s period. As to the problem of oversimplicity, we may very briefly consider here a text, entitled «Η Διαφήμιση στην Ελλάδα από το 1940 έως το 1990» (cf. “diafimisi” – http://diafimisi .wiki spaces.com), and which draws the following conclusions as regards the 1960’s-1980’s period:

«Η συλλογικότητα του ’60 και η εσωτερικότητα του ’70 δίνουν [in the 1980’s] τη θέση τους στη φιλάρεσκη αυτάρκεια του ατομισμού – του νέου εγωισμού» (p. 5).

Even at mere face value, such an observation is an obviously oversimplified periodization of the “common nous, and covers a span of thirty years wherein the so-called social psyche cannot possibly be reduced to all-inclusive abstractions such as «συλλογικότητα», etc. Yet still, one needs to admit that such observation does point to possible dominant tendencies within the 30-year period.

A contemporary theoretical attempt dealing with the question of advertizing and which remains burdened with the ideological biases of the 1960’s-1970’s, is that of E. Roupa (cf. Ευφροσύνη Ρούπα, «Η κατανάλωση στην Ελλάδα κατά τη μεταπολεμική εικοσαετία 1945-1967: «πατριωτική πράξη», «ξενική επίδραση» ή εθνικό «χαρακτηριστικό»;…», Ελληνική Ιστορική Εταιρεία, histsociety.web.auth.gr/Ρούπα-praktika%202011.pdf). We have here, yet another attempt at a periodization of the phenomenon of consumerism in Greece – though it too is based on conceptual tools that remain highly problematic. Consider the following quote:

«Μέχρι τα μέσα της δεκαετίας του 1950 η κατοχή
υλικών αγαθών ερμηνεύονταν ως τεκμήριο
ανάπτυξης και ευημερίας. Από τα μέσα της δεκαετίας
του 1950 η κατανάλωση θεωρήθηκε ως η μόνη εγγύηση
ευτυχίας στη ζωή, το σημαντικότερο μέσο προσωπικής
ικανοποίησης καθώς και κοινωνικής καταξίωσης και
ανέλιξης. Στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1960 άρχισε να
αναδύεται το ερώτημα αν η κατοχή των υλικών αγαθών
είχε σχέση με την πνευματική ανάπτυξη» (p. 255).

Roupa’s “periodization” as to the consumption of goods in Greece comes down to three different ways in which the act of consumption had been seen through the years: firstly, it had been seen as a criterion of “development”; but then, secondly, it was considered to be a guarantee of “happiness”; and then, finally, as something which had raised doubts as to what constituted “spiritual development”. The writer of course implies that such different manners of interpreting consumerism constituted the discourse of “dominant” ideology, and as that was inscribed in advertizing discourse itself, bar the third and final interpretation of consumerism, which itself expressed the critique of “Left” thinkers. Now, such an attempt to periodize the phenomenon of consumerism – as also the interpretations that went with it – is of course of importance to social history, to the extent that it identifies ruptures in the continuity of advertizing discourse in Greece, or ruptures in the interpretation of it. But terms such as «ανάπτυξη», «ευτυχία» and «πνευματικό» are so abstract, so subjective and so vague, that they cannot possibly be used as tools of any periodization whatsoever. Even if they were to be accepted as “tools”, they would have to be explained in sociological terms and without passing any “ethical” judgment on them. For our purposes, no general periodization will be attempted, it being beyond our limits. But we may keep Roupa’s descriptive subjectivity in mind, as we try to understand how the “Amalia-type” of the 1960’s related to advertisements, and as we shall try at the same time to understand how Greek “intellectuals” of the period themselves saw such relationship.

GLOSSARY OF GREEK TERMS

● «ανάπτυξη», «ευτυχία», «πνευματικό»: development, happiness, the spiritual
● «αυτάρκεια του ατομισμού»: individualistic self-sufficiency
● «εσωτερικότητα»: esoteric consciousness
● «Η Διαφήμιση στην Ελλάδα από το 1940 έως το 1990»: “Advertizing in Greece from 1940 to 1990”.
● «συλλογικότητα»: collective consciousness

SOME BRIEF NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF ADVERTIZING IN GREECE

As regards the period prior to the 1940’s, we know that Greek advertisements lacked any “structured” discourse meant to coax consumers into buying the particular product – all they did was to simply make a reference to the object advertized (and cf. A. Altiparmakidou, «Το ραδιόφωνο στην Ελλάδα», eureka.lib.teithe.gr.8080/bitstream/.../Altiparmakidou, 2010, p. 2). But this must be taken to apply only generally to the quality of advertisements at the time, and with special reference to the pre-War period. Writing of the late-1940’s, this is what Menis Koumandareas has to say of the Athens city-centre at the time:

«Κέντρο ήταν η Σταδίου και Πανεπιστημίου, όπου μόνον
εκεί  υπήρχαν μαγαζιά … και ρεκλάμες πολύχρωμες».
(cf. Menis Koumandareas, Σεραφείμ και Χερουβείμ [Seraphim and Cherubim], Κέδρος 1981, p. 95).
Most probably, Koumandareas is pointing to the very first of multi-coloured bill-boards to ever appear in Greece, and which could only have happened in the heart of central Athens, or only thereabouts.

By the early 1950’s, we have the first rudiments of the spread of the advertizing phenomenon around Athens, and which was to take a very special form – Koumandareas describes the matter as follows:

«Υστερότερα, τον πήραν [i.e. someone trying to land a
job in Athens] σ’ ένα γραφείο στην Κάνιγκος τοιχοκολλητή,
του ’διναν μια δέσμη, έναν κουβά κόλλα και γύριζε την
Αθήνα νύχτα … κόλλησε στους τοίχους από οδοντόπαστες και
σουτιέν μέχρι …[etc.]» (Koumandareas, op. cit., p. 216).

The reference to «τοιχοκολλητές» working the streets of night-time Athens, and putting up street posters in the early 1950’s, certainly conjures up an image of cheap and primitive promotion techniques – and yet Altiparmakidou (ibid.) observes that the “structured” message in Greek advertisements had already made its appearance within the decade of the 1950’s.

The appearance of “structured” discourse in the period of the 1950’s is verified – at least as a programmed intention in the process of being researched – by the periodical Παραγωγικότης – Όργανον του Ελληνικού Κέντρου Παραγωγικότητος (έτος Δ’ – αρ. 28 – Αθήναι, Απρίλιος 1958). This organ of the historically important “ΕΛ.ΚΕ.ΠΑ”, which functioned «μέ τήν συμπαράστασιν τής ενταύθα Αμερικανικής Αποστολής», and in cooperation with ΣΕΒ (according to an insert of the periodical), had this to say as regards the development of technical methods for the promotion of products and how this needed to be researched:

«Εταιρία πρός βελτίωσιν τών μεθόδων εμπορίας…
Είς τό Ελληνικόν Κέντρον Παραγωγικότητος συνεκροτήθη
τελευταίως σύσκεψις εκπροσώπων διαφόρων εμπορικών,
διαφημιστικών κ.λ. επιχειρήσεων, κατά τήν οποίαν συνεζητήθη
τό θέμα τής σκοπιμότητος ιδρύσεως εταιρίας, διά την βελτίωσιν
των μεθόδων εμπορίας (Greek marketing Association).
Απεφασίσθη δέ, κατ’ αρχήν, η σύστασης τοιαύτης εταιρίας. Αί
σχετικαί  λεπτομέρειαι θά ρυθμισθούν είς προσεχή
συνεδρίασιν» (p. 209).

The quote clearly shows that, by the late 1950’s, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ was already undertaking initiatives for the establishment of formal organizational structures whose purpose it would be to produce better, more “structured” advertizing discourse – at this point, methods of promotion were to be researched («μεθόδων εμπoρίας»). As we shall further see below, such methods would also include attempts at “compromising” with the Greek consumer in manners which would take into account the socio-cultural and economic reality of the popular masses – in that sense, the sheer presence of the latter would itself function in ways which determined the content of advertizing discourse.

It was of course the decade of the 1960’s that was to bring about truly radical changes in the field of the Greek advertizing sector. Contrasting the pre-World War II period to that of the 1960’s, Roupa (op. cit., p. 262) observes:

«Προπολεμικά λειτουργούσαν στη χώρα τέσσερις
διαφημιστικές εταιρείες. Στα μέσα της δεκαετίας
του 1960 ασχολούνταν άμεσα ή έμμεσα με τη
διαφήμιση 170 επιχειρήσεις».

Similarly, Altiparmakidou (ibid.) has observed that the 1960’s period, characterized by a variety of ‘revolutionary’ changes, was marked by the rise of consumerism and thus also by a focus on advertizing as a marketing technique – so much so that such technique/s actually advertized themselves (obviously to producers of products – for instance, an advertizing company by the name of “SERVIS” would promote its all-new marketing techniques to manufacturers and commercial outlets in an advertisement placed in the daily newspaper Ακρόπολις, 28.1.1966, p. 7). Altiparmakidou further verifies the existence of important indigenous Greek marketing companies operating at the time.

As regards the rise of consumerism and the related development of advertizing techniques in the 1960’s, A.G. has observed (in unpublished research notes) the pioneering usage of advertizing in the promotion of “ION” («σοκολάτα γάλακτος με αμύγδαλα»). She notes:

«Στις δεκαετίες του 1960 [and then on to the 1970’s],
η ΙΟΝ ήταν από τις πρώτες εταιρείες στην Ελλάδα που
χρησιμοποίησαν ενεργά τη διαφήμιση, πρώτα την
έντυπη και αργότερα με την εξάπλωση της τηλεόρασης
τα διαφημιστικά σποτ».

According to A.G., advertizing techniques in the 1960’s were first mainly in printed form, appearing in magazines and newspapers. She goes on to observe (accurately or not remains to be verified) that advertisements then gradually were to be relayed through the radio, and then later, especially by the 1970’s, we had the use of advertizing spots on TV. While such observations may not be accurate as regards the general history of advertizing in Greece, they seem to somehow apply to the particular ION product.

Wolfgang Koeppen, the German writer who travelled around Greece in 1961, noted the sheer ubiquity of advertisements, especially in Athens. In his excellent little book, Οι απόγονοι της Σαλαμίνας ή Οι βαρύθυμοι Έλληνες (University Studio Press, Salonika, 2009), he observed at the time:

«Σ’ όλες τις στέγες φεγγοβολούν ρεκλάμες…
Μια διψασμένη καταβόθρα διαφημίζει τη
μπίρα του Γερμανού ζυθοποιού Φιξ» (p. 16).

A bit further in that same book, he again refers to the ubiquity of advertisements and alludes to the up-and-coming dominance of advertizing, even since 1961 – as he so eloquently puts it:

«Η Ακρόπολη κρέμεται μετέωρη στον ουρανό,
υποστηριγμένη από το φως των διαφημίσεων
σαν εμπορικό σήμα κατατεθέν» (p. 38).

And yet, and having said all this, we still need to emphasize that in the decade of the 1960’s, the Greek advertizing sector remained relatively atrophic in contrast to what was to come later, in the 1970’s (let alone the 1980’s). Perhaps this is why the http://diafimisi source cited above insists as follows with respect to the 1960’s advertizing sector in Greece:

«Παρόλα αυτά ο κλάδος είναι ακόμα στο
περιθώριο» (p. 3).

As for the 1970’s, Altiparmakidou (ibid.) notes that it is then that the first important American and European advertizing companies establish themselves in the country (though this too awaits its verification by the historian). All we need say at this point is that in the early 1970’s we have clear evidence that advertizing techniques are being further promulgated and the advertizing sector is presented as a field of “creativity”, meant to attract both the manufacturers and young candidate careerists in the sector of professional advertizing creation. In 1974, for instance, the periodical  Epikaira [Επίκαιρα] (3-9 October, No. 322) presented advertizing as follows:

«Τί προσφέρει η διαφήμισις…
Η πρωταρχική… γοητεία της διαφημίσεως είναι
η παντελής έλλειψις ανίας. Η διαρκής αίσθησις
της  προσωπικής δημιουργίας…» (p. 47).

GLOSSARY

● «ΕΛ.ΚΕ.ΠΑ.»: Greek Productivity Centre (ELKEPA)
● «με την συμπαράστασιν της… Αμερικανικής Αποστολής»: with the support of the American Economic Mission to Greece (commencing 1947)
● «Οι απόγονοι της Σαλαμίνας ή Οι βαρύθυμοι Ελληνες»: “The descendants of Salamis or the brooding Greeks”.
● «ΣΕΒ»: The Federation of Greek Industries
● «σοκολάτα γάλακτος με αμύγδαλα»: milk chocolate with almonds – and cf. www.ion.gr/en/history.html
● «Το ραδιόφωνο στην Ελλάδα»: “The radio in Greece”.
● «τοιχοκολλητές»: workers doing poster sniping

BROAD DISSEMINATION OF ADVERTIZING THROUGH POPULAR PERIODICALS AND THE RADIO

Because our central focus is on the “Amalia-type” person, residing outside Athens at Aliarto, it is of interest to us to confirm the extent to which such a young female was exposed to the advertizing discourse of the period. We have elsewhere dealt with the complex relationship between the “cultural centre” of Athens and “cultural peripheries” such as Boeotia. Here, we may simply note that the popular periodicals of the time – major disseminators of advertizing discourse such as the Romantso – were especially popular in the rural or semi-rural areas of Greece. And especially as regards the Romantso itself, Roupa has very usefully discovered through her research work that this particular periodical was the first in terms of circulation numbers in the 1960’s. Such “discovery”, of course, is well known to whoever lived the period of the sixties, but it is of importance nonetheless to simply record the matter as a historical fact. She writes:

«…το Δεκέμβριο του 1964 το ‘Ρομάντσο’ πούλησε
94.750 αντίτυπα…» (p. 263).

No other periodical would sell as much. But generally all Athens-based popular periodicals such as the Romantso would be shared by readers in the “peripheries”, given the relative dearth of other reading material in such areas (the sharing would take place amongst family members, neighbours, shop clients, in coffee shops, etc.). The implication is that advertisements carried by such periodicals would bring the “Amalia-type” into direct contact with the type of advertizing discourse circulating around Athens itself (we may note here in passing that local newspapers circulating within Boeotia, such as the Aliartian-based Voiotike Floga[Βοιωτική Φλόγα] published in the 1960’s, were characterized by too “conservative” an outlook to effect such a contact with the “centre”). With reference to the Athens popular periodicals of the time, Roupa summarizes her findings as follows:

«Ας σημειωθεί ότι τα εν λόγω περιοδικά είχαν
ιδιαίτερη ζήτηση στην ελληνική περιφέρεια, όπου
οι ευκαιρίες ψυχαγωγίας ήταν λιγότερες από
την πρωτεύουσα» (ibid., my emph.).

The quote above certainly reinforces what we have observed elsewhere as to the role of popular periodicals in the “cultural peripheries” of 1960’s Greece (but which is not meant to suggest that periodicals were the one and only source of contact between “centre” and “periphery”). Further and as already suggested, the quote implies that the “Amalia-type” would “live” cultural events and trends taking place in the “centre” via such periodicals. Finally, we should note that Roupa supports her findings by making use of source material available in «Ελληνική ζωή και ξένη οικονομία: Εβδομαδιαία», in Viomichaniki Epitheorisis [transl.: Industrial Review –  Βιομηχανική Επιθεώρησις], No. 32 (April 1965), p. 253.

Apart from the popular periodicals circulating around Aliarto week in and week out, the “Amalia-type” would of course also have daily access to the radio (cf. our paper examining the role of the radio in the 1960’s-1970’s period). Making use of information provided by Theofilakto Papakonstandinou in 1963, Roupa has observed that Greek people in the 1960’s actively sought to be informed of new products in the market-place and did so by making use of the radio. With reference to the popular masses of the 1960’s and using data provided by Papakonstandinou, Roupa writes:

«Ήταν βέβαια περισσότερο “ακουστικός τύπος,
προτιμούσε το ακρόαμα από την ανάγνωση”.
Σύμφωνα με τα κριτήρια που οριοθέτησε η UNESCO
σε έρευνά της σχετικά με το επίπεδο ενημέρωσης
της κοινής γνώμης μίας χώρας, στην Ελλάδα …
το ποσοστό κατοχής δέκτη ραδιοφώνου ήταν
ιδιαίτερα ικανοποιητικό» (p. 263).

Perhaps we should point out here that it was not only listening that the popular masses would resort to so as to inform themselves – they would as much resort to seeing both for their entertainment and their information: hence the dominantly pictorial nature of the popular periodicals and hence also the popularity of the cinema (as also at Aliarto, especially amongst youth of both sexes).

Generally speaking, and as regards the relationship between advertizing, mass consumerism and the role of the radio as a means of consumer information, John Kenneth Galbraith had made the following observation in 1967:

“Coincidentally with rising mass incomes came
first radio and then television” (cf. The New
Industrial State, Penguin, first published 1967,
p. 213).

The very important question of ‘mass incomes’ in the case of 1960’s-1970’s Greece shall be dealt with below (but cf., inter alia, our paper on the “Samandoura Case”, as also our analyses of wage-scales at the A&M Mill from the 1950’s and through to the early 1980’s).We shall end these brief ‘historical’ notes by simply citing the views of an “average” Greek of the 1960’s on the question of the quality of radio commercials at the time, and whose views are perhaps expressive of the idea that radio listeners/consumers could themselves be highly critical of what they heard (or saw). In a ‘Letter to the Editor’ published in Ta Nea [Τα Νέα] (Thurs. 12.11.1964, p. 6, entitled «Οι ραδιοσταθμοί μας», and available in the Α&Μ Archives), the letter-writer had this to say about radio commercials:

«…Όσο για την ποιότητα των διαφημίσεων –
τα κείμενά τους δηλαδή – καλύτερα να μην
τα χαρακτηρίσουμε. Φαίνεται πως δεν το πήραμε
ακόμα είδηση ότι το ραδιόφωνο είναι σχολείο.
Και ότι στο σχολείο δεν επιτρέπεται η αρλούμπα».

GLOSSARY

●«Οι ραδιοσταθμοί μας»: “Our radio stations”.

GREEK INTELLECTUALS ON THE QUESTION OF ADVERTIZING/CONSUMERISM, 1960’s-1970’s

To begin with, we shall have to emphasize that whatever examination of the theoretical discourse on the discourse of advertizing/the practice of consumerism that unfolded in the 1960’s-1970’s amongst Greek intellectuals at the time, cannot possibly make sense unless one also takes into consideration the dominant trends of thinking amongst foreign intellectuals. If it is true that foreign advertizing stereotypes were imported and adopted by the Greek advertizing sector, it is also as true that those who were highly critical of advertizing were themselves making use of ideas – at times stereotypical themselves – which were being clearly imported from overseas, such ideas most often being borrowed   from the Continental “Left” (or from ‘radical’ theoretical discourse hailing from the USA). Thus, the importation of foreign theories on the part of Greek “intellectuals” and their imposition onto the Greek reality was something that went hand-in-hand with the influx of foreign advertizing discourse. But while, as we shall try to show, the latter discourse had to willy-nilly adjust to the Greek reality, the borrowed theoretical discourse, handicapped by an incipient political dogmatism, made no such corresponding adjustment.

Perhaps one of the most important foreign intellectuals to have had a major influence on Greek thinkers at the time – especially in the early-1970’s – was Erich Fromm. In his The Sane Society, translated in Greek in 1973 (Η υγιής κοινωνία, Εκδόσεις Μπουκουμάνη), Fromm summarizes his position on advertizing very succinctly – he says:

«Πίνουμε ετικέτες…» (p. 170).

This statement, for Erich Fromm, is generally expressive of the age of the 1960’s and the 1970’s. In some sense, he means to suggest that the ‘modern’ post-war man is so alienated from himself and from his own body that he does not truly savour, does not authentically relish and experience the act of drinking whatever liquid: the body is somewhat excluded from such act – what we have here is a victim-consumer whose act of drinking is ‘mediated’ by an imposed trade-mark. We may contrast the implications of such an approach to the realities of the “Amalia-type”: we could say that, after a hard day’s work at the Headquarters of the A&M Mill, Amalia Eleftheriadou had to do some washing. By 1970, let us say, she could do this, not by using her fairly delicate hands, but by using her newly-bought IZOLA washing machine. Would her washing in this case not be “authentically real” but an act ‘mediated’ by the IZOLA trade-mark? Could we here say that Amalia would now be “washing trade-marks”? Alternatively, we may ask ourselves: what, in the case of the “Amalia-type”, was more important to her: the brand-name itself or the practical amenity?

For Fromm, as also for Greek “intellectuals”, the post-World War II socio-cultural milieu was
such as to swallow up everything and everyone within its all-inclusive and all-powerful new means of domination, that of the brand-name. Such an approach, while definitely originating from the thinking of the New Left, had become so dominant amongst writers and commentators in Greece, that even non-“Left intellectuals” would uncritically adopt it as their own. Consider, for instance, how Menis Koumandareas would describe the ‘new age’ sprouting in Greece and with specific reference to 1963 – he writes:

«H μισή πόλη χτιζόταν με αντιπαροχές, όπως η
μισή άδειαζε από σαβούρα – δηλαδή κονσόλες,
βιενέζικες καρέκλες και μπουφέδες – για να γεμίσει
με φορμάικες και νάυλον» (cf. M. Koumandareas,
Ο ωραίος λοχαγός[The Handsome Captain], Κέδρος, Οct. 1982, p. 70).

Now, such a description of the state of affairs in 1963 Greece is not in fact inaccurate – the 1960’s was the period of time in which the age of the Formica and of Nylon (and the brand names that went with these) was being ushered in. But what Koumandareas does not tell us is what a set of Formica table and chairs or what a Nylon pair of stockings would have meant to the “Amalia-type” (consider, for instance, that quite a number of Aliartian families in the early 1960’s had their meals on the floor or used tree-trunks for chairs – but we shall have to come back to this further below). It is not only that a writer such as Koumandareas fails to pose and deal with such a pertinent question – in fact, his position is highly reminiscent of that of Fromm’s when he comes to speak of the ‘plastic age’ of the early-1970’s. In his  Βιοτεχνία Υαλικών [Glass Factory,  Κέδρος, 1975, 1st edition), he presents the ‘plastic age’ as a period of time wherein everything loses its ‘authenticity’ (people included) – this is how he puts it:

«Έτσι ανακάλυψα τα πλαστικά. Πλαστικές
οι καρέκλες που καθόμαστε, πλαστικά τα ποτήρια
που πίνουμε, οι τσάντες που κρατάμε, τα
ραδιόφωνα, τα τηλέφωνα – πλαστικές ακόμα
 και οι γυναίκες» (p. 99, my emph.).

For the vast majority of Greek “intellectuals” at the time, such age of the Formica, of Nylon and of Plastic, is in essence the age of manipulation. In 1972, the writer Marios Hakkas would present life in Athens as follows:

«Αθήνα, η αρμονία σου είναι να ψωνίζεις και
ταυτόχρονα να ψωνίζεσαι» (cf. Marios Hakkas,
Το κοινόβιο [The Commune], Κέδρος, 1972, p. 116).

For Hakkas, the dominant practice amongst Athenians in the early-1970’s – that which maintains, ironically, their «αρμονία» – is the act of buying. But while so buying, they are being manipulated (the term «ψωνίζεσαι» suggesting precisely that).

The manipulative function of advertizing bill-boards – especially – is brought about through the sheer effect they have on the circumscribing atmosphere within which the person finds himself. In 1973, Glafki Daskalopoulou would describe such atmospheric effect as follows:

«Απέναντι στο βάθος, στερεωμένες στην ταράτσα
κάποιου κτιρίου, οι δυο πρώτες λέξεις μιας
διαφημιστικής επιγραφής: Η ΠΙΟ ΣΙΓ… Το υπόλοιπο
βρίσκεται έξω από τ’ οπτικό μου πεδίο. Χωρίς
αμφιβολία, Η ΠΙΟ ΣΙΓΟΥΡΗ ΤΟΠΟΘΕΤΗΣΗ, ή
ΕΞΑΣΦΑΛΙΣΗ, ή ΕΠΙΤΥΧΙΑ. Όταν ανάβουν τα φώτα,
οι λέξεις αναβοσβήνουν σε χρώμα παπαγαλί και
η ατμόσφαιρα γύρω πρασινίζει» (cf. G. Daskalopoulou,
 Ένοπλη Ξενάγηση, Κέδρος, 1973, p. 20).

The manipulative automaticity involved in the act of buying (implied by Hakka) and the very atmosphere which envelopes the buyer (as described by Daskalopoulou), have the effect of making the consumer purchase things for reasons outside his intentions: what one buys is all a question of how the thing is advertized. Satirizing the practices of advertisers in 1974, Nikos Tsiforos would make this point as follows:

«Μόνον το απορρυπαντικό ΖΘΕ πλένει βιολογικά …
[and yet] … Το απορρυπαντικό ΖΘΕ δεν πλένει
βιολογικά, … αλλά ρεκλαμάρει, γιατί το παν είναι
να βρεις έναν ορισμό… Πλένω βιολογικά. Οδοντόκρεμα
με γκαρντόλ… [etc.]» (cf. Nikos Tsiforos, Άνθρωποι
 και ανθρωπάκια[Men and Little Men], Ερμής, 1974, p. 133, my emph.).

We shall elsewhere see that Tsiforos himself will go on to also satirize – and thus criticize –the idea that people simply do what advertizing slogans/jingoes ask them to do. But here, and in keeping with the general ideological sway of the 1970’s, he suggests that a product does not “do” things – it just «ρεκλαμάρει» (i.e. it merely promotes itself and nothing more). In the same text, he will stress the manipulative nature of advertizing discourse by maintaining that such discourse can usually play on personal weaknesses, thus making people swallow the line – he writes:

«… “Αγνά γαλακτοκομικά προϊόντα” …  Η αλήθεια είναι,
ότι η λέξη “αγνός” τραβάει πάντα όλον τον κόσμο,
γιατί κανείς σε όλον τον κόσμο δεν είναι αγνός» (op. cit.
p. 213).

For the “intellectual” I.M. Panagiotopoulos, all advertizing discourse in the decade of the 1970’s is reduced to (manipulative) propaganda, its single object being to impose whatever product on the public. While, as we shall see below, Panagiotopoulos had held a radically different view on the question of advertizing and consumerism in the decade of the 1950’s, by 1977 – and again given the dominant anti-consumerist ideological trend of the “Left” at the time – he would reduce whatever promotional campaign in the advertizing sector to what he would call a «σκληρό σφυροκόπημα» of the Greek popular masses. He would, in 1977, write:

«…Η προπαγάνδα είναι … σκληρό σφυροκόπημα
που επιδιώκει να επιβάλει ένα προϊόν οποιασδήποτε
μορφής. Αυτό το προϊόν μπορεί να είναι …
ένα είδος της καθημερινής χρήσης»(cf. I.M.
Panagiotopoulοs, O σύγχρονος άνθρωπος [The Modern Man], Εκδόσεις των
Φίλων, Athens, 1977, p. 70, my emph.).

Similarly, Rea Galanaki, writing in 1982 but with specific reference to the 1967-1974 period (i.e. the years of the Military Dictatorship), would point to the psychological effect that advertizing had on Greeks and on the creation of “false hopes” – and she would continue as follows:

«Τα δούρεια βήματα μες στο μικρό δωμάτιό της
εκ των προτέρων εκπορθούν την πρόφαση του
πρωινού για ελπίδα… εκ των προτέρων εκπορθούν
… το άρωμα της οδοντόκρεμας» (cf. Rea Galanaki, Πού ζει ο λύκος;
[Where does the wolf live?], Εκδόσεις Άγρα, Athens, 1982,
p. 46).

Of course, the whole idea that many of the goods sold in the market-place were meant to satisfy “false needs” manipulatively created by the advertizing industry, was already in circulation following the work of John Kenneth Galbraith in the 1960’s, especially with his classic masterpiece, The Affluent Society (Penguin, 1969), and which itself was highly influential in Greece. The crux of Galbraith’s argument had raised questions such as the following:

“Why worship work and productivity if many
of the goods we produce are superfluous-
artificial ‘needs’ created by high-pressure
advertising?” (cf. John Kenneth Galbraith,
 The New Industrial State, op. cit., p. 416,
wherein The Affluent Society is introduced).

Very many Greek “intellectuals” had been directly influenced by the work of Galbraith (for instance, Christos Malevitsis, to whom we shall have to return). One could very simply say here that Galbraith’s analyses may have quite accurately applied to the truly “affluent”, highly industrialized capitalist world that his work was focusing on (though, even within such world, such “affluence” had never been a linear upward movement for all of society, but rather a definitely uneven distribution of wealth which could at times include the vast majority of its citizens, but could also exclude portions of them depending on the economic conjuncture). But the point here is that the “affluent society” Galbraith was referring to – and the consumer habits that went with it – could not possibly be mechanically transferred to the reality of Greece in the 1960’s. Put otherwise, whatever forms of ‘manipulation’ had applied to the USA of the 1960’s, could not possibly have applied to the Greek social formation at the time (which was just rearing its head above the poverty that had for so long beset it). We shall come back to the analyses of Galbraith vis-à-vis the Greek case below, and with special reference to the rise of the Greek middle classes in the period under discussion.

We have thus far suggested that, for the Greek “intellectuals” of the 1960’s-1970’s, advertizing basically constituted a manipulation of consumers meant to simply make them consume whatever was promoted. However, and especially as regards the highly vocal Greek “Left”, things went much further than that. For them, the age was not simply characterized by consumer manipulation meant to maximize company profits: all this went hand-in-hand with politico-ideological domination – this being the real essence of such age. Yet again, it was the Continental “Left” – and especially the “ultra-Left” philosophical discourse of the Frankfurtians – that would be the source of near-fanatical inspiration in Greece.

Writing as early as 1944-1947, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer would argue in their Dialectic of Enlightenment (re-issued 1969) that both consumerism and advertizing constituted a total system of politico-ideological domination, yielding a “false identity” amongst the dominated subjects – yielding, that is –

«την ψευδή ταυτότητα του γενικού
και του μερικού» (cf. Horkheimer & Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment
greek edition: Διαλεκτική του Διαφωτισμού,  Νήσος,
Athens, 1996, p. 202).

Above all, and even since the early-1940’s, Adorno and Horkheimer would come up with a highly ‘radical’ – but excruciatingly simplistic – equation, i.e. that THE SYSTEM = ADVERTIZING / ADVERTIZING = THE SYSTEM. They were basically arguing that advertizing reinforces the dominance of the capitalist system – they would put it in as straight-forward a manner as possible:

«η κυριαρχία του συστήματος οχυρώνεται
στη διαφήμιση» (op. cit., p. 268).

The system of mass production and advertizing is so powerful that it actually determines the very “identity” of people – it does, in fact, “make” them – Adorno and Horkheimer are crystal-clear on this:

«Η εξουσία της βιομηχανικής κοινωνίας
έχει καταλάβει τους ανθρώπους μια για πάντα
… Κάθε επιμέρους εκδήλωση της πολιτιστικής
βιομηχανίας αναπαράγει αναντίρρητα τους
ανθρώπους έτσι όπως τους έχει κάνει η
βιομηχανία στο σύνολό τους» (op. cit., p. 212).

Such an approach, of course, seems to question the very field of social history itself: here, one need not at all bother with either the real person Amalia Eleftheriadou or with the “Amalia-type” itself and the manner/s in which either the person or that type of person would try to forge relationships with the phenomenon of advertizing – one need simply examine ‘the system’ and how it churns out robot-like stereotypes. Of course, the idea that industry “makes” people carries some definite truth in it. But accepting such truth at face value would mean leaving a number of absolutely crucial questions – crucial at least for social history – completely unanswered. Such questions would include the following: firstly, to what extent does industry “make” people? – This surely is a question that only a historian could answer. Secondly, to what extent did people at the time themselves want to be so “made”? – Consider, for instance, that syndicalist/worker movements at the time actually fought specifically for wage raises, and therefore for a greater consumer power. And thirdly, to what extent did industry have not much choice but to yield to the consumer needs, tastes and styles of the people themselves? – Here, the content of advertizing discourse is, again, a field for historical research.

Neither Adorno/Horkheimer nor the vast majority of “Left”/Marxist-inspired Greek “intellectuals” in the 1960’s or 1970’s (as also later) would actually stoop down and quite ‘humbly’ delve into the complex minds and as complex everyday lives of young working people such as Amalia Eleftheriadou at Aliarto. In fact, and at least as regards the Greek “Left”, we may make the general observation that very many of its “theoreticians” and “activists” were characterized by an all-knowing arrogance that made them look down on the Amalias of the day – even since the 1920’s/1930’s, Asimakis Panselinos would himself observe such aloofness amongst his fairly well-educated comrades – he writes:

«Ετούτη πάλι η Σίτσα Καραϊσκάκη ήταν ένα
περίεργο ψυχολογικό χαρμάνι… Ήταν αριστερή
και μιλούσε πάντα από περιωπής!» (cf. A. Panselinos,
  Τότε που ζούσαμε [When we were really alive], Κέδρος, 1974, p. 112).

The all-knowing arrogance of the “Left”, especially in Greece, is certainly explainable (the absence of a mass industrial proletariat, as also the absence of any well-established Marxian tradition in Greek thought, would mean the relative isolation of “Left-wing intellectuals” from the Greek reality) – but what really concerns us here is to show how such a mentality mingled with the writings of an Adorno and yielded a completely distorted view both of the “Amalia-type” and of how such “type” would relate to the world of advertizing. If, for the Frankfurtians, people were robot-like stereotypes mechanically reproduced by the industrial system, for I. N. Xirotyris, writing in 1965, the Greek people were suffering a complete loss of freedom due to the “hypnotic” effects of advertizing – this is how he would express such a position in his Επίκαιρα κοινωνικά προβλήματα (Salonika, 1965):

«Η διαφήμιση αποπλανά και διαφθείρει
… Η διαφήμιση, γέννημα του βιομηχανικού
πνεύματος, καταντά με τα μέσα που διαθέτει
και τον ασυνείδητο τρόπο που καλλιεργείται,
να φτάνει ως την αρπαγή της ελευθερίας των
 ατόμων. Την αρπάζει η διαφήμιση με τη
σύγχυση που προκαλεί στα άτομα, σύγχυση
που φτάνει ως τον υπνωτισμό, με αποτέλεσμα
να κάνει το άτομο ανίκανο να σκεφθεί, να
κρίνει» (pp. 103-106, his emph.).

The question raised is obvious: if it is true that the popular masses in Greece in the 1960’s – such as the “Amalia-type” – were «ανίκανα», what would be the object of any social history? Alternatively, why take at all seriously the stories of dumb, hypnotized “robots”? Logically speaking, such an approach would reject all history bar that of the so-called ‘dominant’ ruling classes. This of course raises further problems of methodology both for the historian and the sociologist (and which we shall have to deal with below).

The idea of a total politico-ideological domination imposed on a helpless people would also be adopted by a non-Marxist such as Koumandareas in 1975 – as he writes in his Βιοτεχνία υαλικών (op. cit.):

«Μας καταντήσανε σκουλήκια, φάνηκε
να της ψιθυρίζει, κι άφησε το κεφάλι του
να πέσει…» (p. 69).

Yet another overseas thinker who had had a major influence on Greek “intellectuals”, especially in the 1970’s, was the Frenchman Henri Lefebvre, perhaps the most prolific of “New Left” intellectuals whose “Marxist Humanism” and his “critique of everyday life” had, at least up until the 1980’s, constituted a major criticism of the “Stalinist Left”. And while such “Stalinism” would continue to dominate in the political thinking of the Greek “Left”, the thinking of Lefebvre would nonetheless be used – most often very crudely – to link the phenomenon of advertizing to the ideological domination of the Greek capitalist “system”.

In his work, Everyday Life in the Modern World (translated in Greek in 1972, Εκδόσεις Μπουκουμάνη, Athens), Lefebvre would write:

«Στο δεύτερο μισό του 20ού αιώνα στην Ευρώπη
…, το καθετί (ένα αντικείμενο, ένα άτομο, μια
κοινωνική ομάδα) παίρνει αξία μόνο χάρη στο
είδωλό του: τη διαφημιστική εικόνα του που το
περιβάλλει μ’ ένα φωτοστέφανο» (cf. pp. 157-160).

And further:

«Η Διαφήμιση αποκτά τη σημασία μιας ιδεολογίας.
Είναι η ιδεολογία του εμπορεύματος» (ibid.).

Such a position is quite reminiscent of that of Adorno’s and his partner, in that it reduces a person’s “identity” to “idols”, and as such “idols” are themselves expressions of some «διαφημιστική εικόνα» – and all of which come to constitute the dominant ideology. All we may briefly say here – and if we are to truly understand the socio-cultural practices of the “Amalia-type” – is that one needs to re-define the very concept of “ideology” if one wants to research social history – i.e. to examine empirically how ideological practices exist in the real world and without reducing such practices to a mere “false consciousness” imposed from the “top”. Now, while Lefebvre’s overall theoretical project could somehow make allowances for such a re-definition of ideology (he could, for example, see everyday life as some kind of an intersection between “illusion” and “truth” or an intersection of “sectors” controlled/not controlled by an “Amalia-type’), the adoption of his thinking by Greek “intellectuals” in the 1970’s could not make such amends at all.

In 1970, the writer Lea Megalou, in a short story entitled «Ο Wernher von Braun φερ’ ειπείν θα γέλαγε μαζί μας» [“For instance, Wernher von Braun would laugh with us”], directly relates the whole of the political system to the world of advertizing – she writes:

«Το παν … δεν είναι άλλο από το σύστημα.
ΤΟ ΣΥΣΤΗΜΑ [sic]. Ενιαίο, οικουμενικό… Όσο
πιο γενναιόδωρο, πίνετε Coca-Cola για να
πάνε όλα καλύτερα… Όσο πιο γενναιόδωρο,
ομαδικοί οι τάφοι» (in  Διήγημα ’70 [Short story  ’70] ,
Κάλβος, Αθήνα, 1971, p. 107).

We need note here the protest tone of the text, such protest being both against the political and the advertizing “system” at the same time. Thus, in the selfsame short story, the writer will further down continue as follows:

«ΑΓΟΡΑΣΤΕ ΚΙ ΕΣΕΙΣ
ΑΠΟΚΤΗΣΤΕ ΚΙ ΕΣΕΙΣ» (ibid., p. 110).

We thus here have a critique of the advertizing industry as part and parcel of political protest. Similarly, in 1971, the important writer Alexandros Kotzias would in his own way suggest that ‘yielding’ to the message of an advertisement would be tantamount to ‘yielding’ to the then rule of the Military Dictatorship – this is how he puts it in his short story, «Ο Γενναίος Τηλέμαχος» [“Brave Telemachos”]:

«Ε, λοιπόν, εγώ δε θέλω να ανανήψω, θέλω
να είμαι ο Πέτρος θέλω να είμαι ο Πέτρος και
δεν αποκηρύσσω τίποτα – είναι τόσο
εξευτελιστικό μοιάζει με τη διαφήμιση ΟΛΟΙ
ΟΙ ΕΠΙΤΥΧΗΜΕΝΟΙ ΞΥΡΙΖΟΝΤΑΙ ΜΕ ΑΦΡΟΚΡΕΜ.
Σκατά! Εγώ θέλω ν’ αγνοώ την ΑΦΡΟΚΡΕΜ
και με ποιο δικαίωμα η ΑΦΡΟΚΡΕΜ υποβάλλει
στον Πέτρο την παρουσία της, ναι, μοιάζει
με το θάνατο» (in Νέα κείμενα 2 [New Texts 2]], Κέδρος,
1971, p. 195).

In the Greek political tradition of the 1950’s and the 1960’s – as also in the period of the military regime – words like «ανανήψω» and «αποκηρύσσω» carried a very heavy political content, whereby “communists” were forced to confess to and publicly renounce their allegiance to the “Left” – and Kotzias here uses such terms in relation to an advertisement. Further, and very much like Xyrotyris referred to above – who suggests that advertizing leads to a loss of personal freedom and thus to a loss of self – Kotzias equates the ΑΦΡΟΚΡΕΜ advertisement to “death” itself. Yielding to the message of an advertisement is yielding to the ‘establishment’, and thus Kotzias’ rejection of the advertizing industry is a deeply political stance, presumably for “life”.

In 1972, Petros Ampatzoglou, in his book Η γέννηση του Σούπερμαν [The Birth of Superman,] Κέδρος, 1972), would in his own way be insinuating that advertisements are in fact a manifestation of a totalitarian society wherein everyone is a victim of an advertizing company, and is destined to die as such (we notice, yet again, the theme of “death”). He would write:

«Χάσαμε τον προσανατολισμό μας. Από πού
βγαίνει ο ήλιος και πού βασιλεύει κανείς μας
δεν ξέρει πια. Είμαστε θύματα διαφημιστικής
εταιρίας και θα πεθάνουμε θύματα
διαφημίσεως» (p. 93).

In 1973, Daskalopoulou (op. cit.), would herself write of the ‘establishment’ and its advertizing:

«…αντιπρόσωποι του κατεστημένου
που περιφέρουν πλακάτ μ’ επιγραφές:
«’Επισκεφθείτε…» «Προτιμήστε…»
«Διαλέξτε…» «Καταναλίσκετε…» (cf.
 Ένοπλη ξενάγηση, p. 15).

Interestingly, there would be times when the “Left” discourse would want to more discreetly differentiate between the capitalist system as a whole and the endogenous/national Greek economy: in this case – and as a tactical response to current anti-American public opinion – it would focus its attack on the advertizing campaigns of foreign multi-national corporations and the disastrous effect these would have on local products. George Koumandos, himself not by any means a “Left-winger”, but in some ways certainly influenced by the dominant ideological currents of his day, would deal with the phenomenon of advertizing in Greece as follows:

«Τα πολυεθνικά μονοπώλια των απορρυπαντικών
με τη διαφήμιση κατάφεραν  να εκτοπίσουν το
σαπούνι από την πλύση (εις βάρος και της εθνικής
μας οικονομίας…) και με τη διαφήμιση προσπαθούν
να μας πείσουν για τις ολοένα καινούργιες και
ολοένα πιο μαγικές ιδιότητες των παντοδύναμων,
βιολογικών, ενζυματούχων προϊόντων τους» (cf.
www.aristoteleio.net/docs/Voithimata.thematon.
Pdf).

Such an approach may be taken to be superior to what has thus far been presented as the standard “Left” positions of both Greek and Continental thinkers – and it is certainly superior in two distinct ways: firstly, it is capable of distinguishing between different (and at times contradictory) sectors of so-called Capital-as-a-Whole. Secondly, and as importantly, it avoids drawing general, almost ‘metaphysical’ conclusions as to what advertizing can do to people at an abstract, ahistorically ‘existential’ level. Yet still, and while pointing to the highly significant clash that would certainly ensue between a product such as local Greek soap and US detergents, it nonetheless takes a number of pertinent questions for granted. One could, for instance, begin by posing the following question: Do multi-national corporations ‘dislocate’ the local Greek soap from the market because of the power of their advertizing campaigns, or was their product in fact more practically useful for the Greek housewife herself? Such a question would of course raise further questions regarding consumer practical judgment and the capacities of such popular judgment, and which is above all a historical question to be empirically verified. It is quite possible, in other words, that Greek housewives in the 1960’s-1970’s may have come to their own decision that the Greek bar of soap was simply and practically inferior to the more technologically advanced American detergent – but, we repeat, such questions cannot be answered seriously unless one undertakes detailed research around the history of washing in Greece (and/or around other such related socio-cultural mass practices). Related to this, and which again Koumandos takes for granted, is the question of the content of advertizing discourse produced by the multi-national corporations: the question remains open as to whether it was the “manipulative” or “provocative-interventionist” manner of their discourse which had a persuasive effect on Greek women or whether such discourse actually responded to their real needs – or, further, if there was some sort of combination between manipulation and real needs which had had the effect that such advertisements did (it shall be precisely such types of questions that we shall try to deal with below). Koumandos, finally, takes for granted (or rather superficially accepts) the absolute dominance of multi-national corporation advertizing: what we shall need to do is to examine the balance of forces that were continually in operation and that were to determine, this way or that, the real conflict that had unfolded between “global” advertizing discourse and local Greek advertizing discourse (the latter being expressive of the interests of Greek endogenous non-monopoly capital).

But the Koumandos position, and the truly important questions it raises, cannot be taken as representative of the thinking of the Greek “Left” (Koumandos himself belonging to the liberal “Centre” and with a well-trained legal mind) – and which of course explains why the questions it had unconsciously raised were never at all really dealt with at the time. That which truly dominated the “Left”, then, was the wish to reject whatever had to do with the “capitalist system” as a whole and to posit in its place what was – at least for the Greek case – a rather utopian “socialist model”. In a book entitled  Η γυναίκα & τα Μέσα Μαζικής Ενημέρωσης[Woman and the Mass Media], published by the “Democratic Union of Young Women” [Δημοκρατική Ένωση Νέων Γυναικών] (Πύλη, Αθήνα, 1979), and which is fully representative of the ‘Orthodox Left’ at the time, we read (inter alia):

«Η διαφήμιση κατ’ αρχήν προέρχεται από
τις βάσεις του οικονομικού μας συστήματος,
καπιταλιστικού, που προκαλεί την ανάγκη για
όσο το δυνατόν μεγαλύτερα κέρδη και επομένως
για όσο το δυνατόν μεγαλύτερες πωλήσεις» (p. 47).

It was such «βάσεις» that had to be destroyed and whatever “superstructure” (such as advertizing) that went with these. At this point, we may simply contrast such dogmatic wishful thinking to what the communist historian, Eric Hobsbawm, has to say of the 20th century capitalist world and its 1960’s “Golden Age”, and which was of course also dominated by the advertizing sector – comparing such world to the possibilities of socialism, he writes:

«Το να δείξει … κανείς ότι μια … σοσιαλιστική
οικονομία είναι εφικτή, δεν ισοδυναμεί με
το να δείξει ότι είναι αναγκαστικά ανώτερη,
ας πούμε σε σύγκριση με μια κοινωνικά πιο
δίκαιη εκδοχή της μικτής οικονομίας της
Χρυσής Εποχής, κι ακόμα λιγότερο ότι ο κόσμος
θα την προτιμούσε» (cf. Eric Hobsbawm,
The Age of Extremes, greek edition: Η εποχή των άκρων, Θεμέλιο, 2004,
p. 633).

The fact is that Amalia Eleftheriadou, as also quite a number of even “Blue-Collar” employees at the A&M Mill, would actually experience at least the rudiments of the Greek-version of the “Golden Age” of the 1960’s and through to the 1970’s, etc. Not all employees at the Maraki Mill and not all the residents of Aliarto could be said to have climbed the social ladder of “success” (Nikos Troughas, for instance, did not) – but such “success” was both relatively feasible and, above all, a common popular wish (such wish encompassing both “Left-wing” and “Right-wing” residents of the area). In direct contrast to the real will of the popular masses, Greek “intellectuals”, having related advertizing to politico-ideological domination, would also see the “models of success” that such advertizing carried, as part and parcel of such politico-ideological domination. In fact, whatever form of “social success” within the capitalist “system” would be rejected. Yet again, such a theoretical tendency amongst Greek “Left-wing” thinkers would be directly borrowed from overseas and mechanically applied to the Greek case. Horkheimer and Adorno, in their Dialectic of Enlightenment (greek edition, op. cit.), would approach the issue of “success” – and how that was being promoted via the advertizing industry – as follows:

«…οι εξαπατημένες μάζες καταλαμβάνονται από
το μύθο της επιτυχίας πιο πολύ απ’ ό,τι οι
επιτυχημένοι. Έχουν τις επιθυμίες τους και
εμμένουν αμετακίνητες στην ιδεολογία με την
οποία τις υποδουλώνουν» (pp. 222-223).

We may briefly comment at this point that, for the Greeks of the 1960’s and 1970’s, “success” was both a “myth” and a reality (or a potential reality). Possessing one’s own house, furnishing and decorating it, having a steady job and with some possibilities of an annual wage raise, buying a car, and so on, were undreamt of material conditions for the vast majority of the popular masses prior to World War II. As we shall further see below, the “Amalia-type” was to consciously pursue a “myth” which could and did turn into a reality. It was not merely the industrialization of the period which would help her ‘cause’: mass populist movements such as those of George Papandreou’s EK (cf., for instance, Nikos Mouzelis, Politics in the Semi-Periphery: Early Parliamentarism and Late Industrialization in the Balkans and Latin America [greek edition: Κοινοβουλευτισμός και εκβιομηχάνιση στην ημι-περιφέρεια, Θεμέλιο, 1987], esp. chapter 2), as also that of the “Left-wing” ΕΔΑ would struggle for such better material conditions. Thus, that the “Amalia-type” would insist on such “myth-reality” («εμμένουν αμετακίνητες»), is historically and quite logically explainable. But neither an Adorno nor the Greek “activists”/”theoreticians” – supposedly representing the popular masses – would ever admit to themselves that what people such as Amalia Eleftheriadou truly wished for was some rudiment of “success” within “capitalist” society, and which would not, for such people, necessarily constitute any acceptance of “ideological domination”.

The Frankfurtian rejection of “success”, we are suggesting, had deeply permeated the thinking of Greek “intellectuals” at the time – consider the irony of a Marios Hakkas as regards “success” and how it was being promoted by advertizing in 1970:

«Οι πετυχημένοι χτενίζονται με μπρηλκρήμ.
Μπρηλκρήμ. Μπρηλκρήμ. –  Δεν ήμασταν
πετυχημένοι και καθόλου της σήμερον. Κι
αυτό φάνηκε» (cf. Marios Hakkas, Ο μπιντές [The Bidet],
Κέδρος, 1970, p. 17).

We have here a radical rejection of the whole gamut of commodities such as ‘Brylcreem’ – extremely popular amongst young men in the 1960’s and early-1970’s in the Western world – , as also of the numerous advertisements that promoted them, as also of the whole idea of being “in”. What was being rejected here was not merely the “social success” of the well-to-do “squares”, but even that of the Elvis Presley ‘wet look’ popular amongst youth but also much promoted by the international advertizing industry. There is no denying, of course, that such trendy youth of the 1960’s and 1970’s – itself the subject of the socio-cultural/sexual ‘revolution’ of the 1960’s/1970’s (cf. our paper on such ‘revolution’ in Greece) –  was to itself later on join the ranks of the Greek middle-classes: hence Hakka’s rejection both of the ‘Brylcreemed’ Greek youth and of the latter’s later turn towards the more ‘conventional’, materially-boosted “social success”. That, however, was the history of those generations.

The connection between ‘Brylcreem’ and the “image” of “success” and “power” had, interestingly, also been commented on by Nikos Tsiforos in 1974 – he would write of:

«Ένας δυνατός με το μαλλί  γεμάτο
Μπρίλ Κρήμ, με μπλε ρούχα και με
μαντηλάκι των έξι δοντιών» (cf. Άνθρωποι
 και ανθρωπάκια, op. cit., p. 235).

As with Daskalopoulou (op. cit.), Kotzias (op. cit), and as also with Hakkas and Tsiforos just quoted, so also would Mikhail Mitras, in 1972, sarcastically relate advertizing and its products to the question of “social success” – in his «φανταστική νουβέλα» (Athens, Private Edition, 1972), he would write:

«Το μυστικό λοιπόν της επιτυχίας είναι
βέβαια και τα κατάλευκα δόντια της
διαφημίσεως» (p. 24).

We present such kaleidoscope of Greek writers of the period – certainly not all of them necessarily “Left-wing” – to simply show how widespread the rejection was of consumerism, advertizing and material “success”. In fact, one may even go on to argue that there was some sort of a ‘consensus’ between “Left-wing” thought and some important “Right-wing”  thought as regards the ‘evils’ of consumerism: both would counterpose the practice of consumerism to that of ‘culture’ and the manifestations of the so-called ‘Human Spirit’.

Perhaps the most important critique of consumerism/advertizing coming from the quasi-“Right-wing” flank – and which showed an emphatic concern for ‘The Spirit’ – was expressed by Andreas Karandonis as early as 1960, and who was himself a sympathizer of Venizelos and could therefore be said to have belonged to the “Centre-Right”. Very much reminiscent of the ‘aloofness’ and ‘arrogance’ of “Left-wing” thinkers – vis-à-vis the popular masses –, and to which we have referred to above, Karandonis would literally scold and insult the Greek people for their all-too-easy ‘materialist’ concerns. For him, it was not only a question of “manipulation” coming from the “top” (the advertizing companies), but also – and mainly – a question of a self-imposed “mental laziness” coming from the “bottom” (the popular masses). In an article entitled «Η σύγχρονη έννοια της διασημότητος», and published in Nea Hestia [Νέα Εστία], No 792, Athens, July 1st, 1960, he would refer to mass popular discourse as follows:

«το ψωμοτύρι της καθημερινής κουβέντας
του μέσου ανθρωπάκου» (cf. pp. 856-857).

And this is how he would ‘evaluate’ such «ψωμοτύρι»:

«…το μεγάλο πλήθος ενδιαφέρεται μονάχα
για ό,τι εμπίπτει με τρόπο άμεσο στις αισθήσεις
του, στις συνήθειές του και, κυρίως, στην
χωρίς απαιτήσεις διανοητική του καλλιέργεια.
Το μεγάλο πλήθος … δεν ενδιαφέρεται παρά για
ό,τι άμεσα το τέρπει. Άμεσα, πρόχειρα, φθηνά
και φευγαλέα. Προ παντός όχι κούραση, όχι
προσπάθεια, όχι αποταμιευμένη σοφία…
Προς το παρόν, το μέγα πλήθος … παραμένει
… έξω από το Πνεύμα» (ibid.).

What we have here is a strain of thinking which – unwittingly – comes down to operating as do communicating vessels between “Left” and “Right” ideology: while Karandonis wants to “pull” the Greek popular masses towards his “Spirit”, the “Left” wishes to “pull” those same masses towards their own understanding of “Spirit” (and which was some utopian belief in the eschatological, millenarian capacities of the ‘proletariat’). In that sense, both Karandonis and the “Left” were rejecting the socio-cultural practices of the popular masses – and the manner in which such masses related to advertisements/consumerism – from an essentially idealistic understanding of history (and that, despite the ideology of “historical materialism” that the Greek “Left” espoused but had hardly digested). Naturally, it would be precisely such an understanding of things that would inevitably lead both sides to their “intellectualist arrogance” already referred to – such “arrogance” meaning that both sides would choose to ignore the real material conditions of people at the time and the real needs and as real wishes which such conditions would provoke (such needs having been neither ‘maximalist’ and ‘revolutionary’ nor ‘spiritualist’ in the Karandonis sense). Thus, we may conclude that both approaches had failed to examine, analyze and ultimately explain the “values” of the popular masses – both simply “evaluated’ them and did so highly subjectively. Further, there is no reason why we should as simply assume that the ‘theoretical knowledge’ of a Karandonis or that of the “Left” must necessarily be seen as superior to the ‘empirical knowledge’ of the “Amalia-type”. The knowledge of the latter cannot but constitute the object of a historical sociology and/or of a social history: both such latter disciplines ‘escaped’ the idealism of the theoretical discourses we are considering.

Now, it is quite true that, at times, some “intellectuals” of the “Left” would try their very best to be as ‘understanding’ as possible as regards the ignoble habits of the masses – i.e. the tendency of the latter to be consumer-prone: in such cases, the superior intellect of such “intellectuals” would fully expose its own idealism. Consider how Rosa Imvrioti would try to deal with that supposedly near-irreconcilable contradiction between consumerism, on the one hand, and “culture” or “The Spirit”, on the other – she would, in 1972, write:

«Έστω κι αν δεχτούμε, ότι οι άνθρωποι έχουν
έμφυτη κλίση προς τα υλικά αγαθά κι η
θεωρία, ότι κυριαρχεί ο καταναλωτής, το
απαιτεί, πρέπει όμως να ενθαρρύνεται κι η
τάση για διάδοση της κουλτούρας» (cf. Το
 κατηγορώ της νεολαίας», Διογένης, 1972,
p. 140, my emph.).

Here, we have the selfsame Karandonis-like elitist understanding of “culture” – as also the need on the part of the “intellectuals” to “intervene” so as to salvage the masses from their ‘lower instincts’ and thus help them discover their pre-ordained mission on earth.

And again very much like Karandonis, Dido Sotiriou – who was to also work as journalist for the organ of the Greek Communist Party, Rizospastis [Ριζοσπάστης] – would comment as follows with respect to the spread of advertizing/consumption in the 1960’s:

«Οι φωτεινές ρεκλάμες αναβοσβήνουνε
τα πονηρά τους μάτια. Ευημερία! Ευ-η-με-
ρί-α [sic) … Μπύρες, Ασφάλειες, Ακτοπλοΐες,
οικόπεδα με δόσεις, θεάματα, σεξ, σεξ,
λάσο στο λαιμό του εικοστού αιώνα.
 Πνίξτε το πνεύμα. Απάνω του, όλοι μαζί»
(cf. Dido Sotiriou, Κατεδαφιζόμεθα[We Are Being Demolished],
Κέδρος, 1982, p. 187, my emph.).

Both Imvrioti’s «οι άνθρωποι έχουν έμφυτη κλίση προς» and Sotiriou’s «όλοι μαζί», does point to some degree of ‘disappointment’, on the part of the “Left”, with the Greek popular masses and their insistence (that «εμμένουν αμετακίνητες», as Horkheimer & Adorno had put it) on consumerist behaviour.

Finally, and with specific reference to the consumerism-versus-culture/spirituality debate, Roupa (op. cit.) would generalize the situation in the 1960’s as characterized by an –

«…αμφισβήτηση της αξίας της
κατανάλωσης» (p. 267).

Judging by what we have presented above, her statement is quite accurate: especially by the early-1970’s, both Continental and Greek writers, philosophers, etc., would unleash an anti-consumerist discourse which would dominate the whole of European thought (something also discussed in Hobsbawm’s work, op. cit.). But when one speaks of «αμφισβήτηση», one would naturally have to ask who it was that voiced such dissent. Was there, apart from marginal groups perhaps, any particular segment of Greek society which rejected the idea of buying, say, a fridge or Brylcreem or some detergent? Did the “Left-wing” popular masses not buy themselves fridges or detergents?  Did devotees of the Greek Orthodox Church see the use of a fridge as ‘sinful’? We all very well know that by the 1970’s (at least), the vast majority of Greek homes owned – or prepared themselves so as to own – appliances of the sort. In that sense, the dogmatic critique of consumerism by “Left-wing” thinkers did not express any category of society. And one certainly wonders if what such “intellectuals” said and wrote actually reflected their own style of living (we shall return to this when we come to examine the Papanoutsos approach). And we in any case know that one basic demand of ΕΔΑ was to raise the standard of living of the Greek popular masses, fighting thereby for better material conditions, and which meant strengthening the consumer capacity of those popular masses.

Now, having said all this – and especially as regards the ‘communicating vessels’ of thinking between anti-consumerist “Left” and “Right” theoretical discourse – we shall also have to point out that, within the period we are discussing, there was in fact also a clash of discourses on the issue of consumerism and advertizing. One may begin here by citing a rather controversial “intellectual” of the 1970’s, Nikos Dimou – whose  Η δυστυχία του να είσαι Έλληνας [On the Unhappiness of Being Greek] was to become a best-seller in 1975 – and who was to finally reject all Greek “intellectuals” as “idiots” (cf. Kathimerini [Η Καθημερινή, Τέχνες & Γράμματα], 6.4.2014, p. 8). Writing in the periodical Efthini [Ευθύνη] (issue no. 78, date unknown), this is what Dimou would have to say of all advertizing:

«…Στη διαφήμιση δε λέμε ψέματα …
Στη διαφήμιση (… σε σύγκριση με την
προπαγάνδα) η κατευθυνόμενη πληροφόρηση
είναι λιγότερο επικίνδυνη. Όχι μόνο
γιατί η διαφήμιση φαίνεται πως είναι
διαφήμιση, αλλά γιατί στη διαφήμιση
υπάρχει ανταγωνισμός ... Ο έξυπνος μπορεί
να συγκρίνει, να κρίνει…» (pp. 339-341).

Apart from the reference to “competition” (and which can certainly apply to the conflict of interests between multi-national cooperation advertizing and that of Greek endogenous non-monopoly capital, and which Koumandos (op. cit.) had himself not seriously dealt with), the rest of the Dimou text can quite easily be rejected, if only because it limits itself to that part of the population which Dimou very subjectively calls “clever”. Perhaps more seriously, Aristotelis Nikolaidis, a “Left-winger” who was to be finally disappointed with the “Dream” of the Greek “Left”, would go on to emphasize the ‘respect’ one should show to the so-called “average person”, and thus to a ‘respect’ of the “decisions” such person ultimately comes to make as regards his style of life. In his 1975 book, Η εξαφάνιση[Vanishing-Point, Κέδρος], he would put the matter very simply and clearly:

«Ο μέσος άνθρωπος – και όλοι ως ένα
σημείο είμαστε μέσοι άνθρωποι –
φαίνεται πως ήδη παίρνει τις αποφάσεις
του» (p. 217).

Such a simple statement nonetheless encapsulates the work of any historiography: to the extent that the popular masses were to be involved in their own “decision-making”, that was their very history, and such history has to be accepted and explained as such. The implication is that people – such as Nikolaidis – who ignored “Left-wing Dreams” and finally accepted to enter the world of consumption were in fact deciding for themselves as subjects in history. And a further, and as important, implication is that the “false consciousness” was not theirs, but rather characterized those others who continued to live in their other-worldly “Dream”.

Why was it that ex-“Leftists” such as Nikolaidis would accept the experience of ‘enjoying’ – or of trying to ‘enjoy’ – the ‘fruits’ of the “Golden Age”? For one thing, the vast majority of those who had come to believe in the “Dream” could not possibly waste their lives weeping over a “Utopia” which, as things showed, was not to materialize anywhere in the world, let alone in Greece. And their ability to share in the ‘fruits’ of the modern world – an ability which we do not take for granted but shall examine further below – did certainly attract them to consumerism. On the other hand, this did not at all mean that both ex-“Leftists” and the rest of the Greek population would not, at least by the early-1980’s, feel despondent as they started realizing how over-consumption was beginning to yield its own rather ugly effects on their socio-cultural environment. It would be, amongst others, E.P. Papanoutsos who, in 1984, would speak of an “epidemic” of pessimism amongst Greeks. He would observe:

«Τα τελευταία χρόνια έχει πάρει μορφήν
επιδημίας (με τις ανοδικές και τις καθοδικές
φάσεις της καμπύλης της) η τάση όλα να τα
βλέπουμε γύρω μας μαύρα και να δηλώνουμε
κατηγορηματικά και ανεπιφύλακτα ότι το πάν
έχει για τον ταλαίπωρο άνθρωπο χαθεί,
οριστικά και ανεπανόρθωτα» (cf. E.P.
Papanoutsos, Πρακτική φιλοσοφία,
Δωδώνη, 1984, p. 220).

Such feelings, according to Papanoutsos, were due to the technological developments taking place all over the world (and which included a Greece which was only just beginning to see its own local industries being destroyed by the European Community – cf. our papers on the effects of the E.C. on the functioning of the A&M Mill). And yet, and unlike the vast majority of “intellectuals” we have been discussing above, Papanoutsos would go on to explain that such technological developments had provided the post-War Greek people with ‘fruits’ completely undreamt of by the majority of their parents. Such technological developments, he would point out, had provided for –

«ευκολίες ζωής, άνεση και ψυχαγωγία» (ibid.).

While Papanoutsos has little to say about the relatively uneven distribution of wealth, especially in the 1960’s, and as little about the role of social pressure exerted by the popular masses so as to provide themselves with such new-found ‘luxuries’, his position nonetheless constitutes a major theoretical attack on all critics of consumerism and the advertizing that went with it. In his Πρακτική φιλοσοφία , Papanoutsos would clash with the anti-consumerists with argumentation that went as follows:

«…είναι πλάνη να υποθέτουμε ότι οι
εκπληκτικές κατακτήσεις της επιστήμης
και της τεχνικής, για τις οποίες δικαιολογημένα
υπερηφανεύεται ο πολιτισμός μας, δεν έχουν
καμιάν ουσιαστικήν  αξία, επειδή τάχα δεν
έκαναν “ευτυχέστερο” τον άνθρωπο – άρα
δεν αποτελούν “πρόοδο”. “Αχ! Τι ωραία
που ζούσαν άλλοτε οι άνθρωποι στις πρωτόγονες
κοινωνίες τους, χωρίς το τηλέφωνο, το
ραδιόφωνο, το αυτοκίνητο, το αεροπλάνο”…
Δεν πρέπει, νομίζω, να παίρνομε στα σοβαρά
αυτό τον ψευτορομαντισμό της υποκριτικής
νοσταλγίας του παρελθόντος. Πρώτα-πρώτα
γιατί δογματίζει “εκ του ασφαλούς” και
“με το αζημίωτο”: δεν εγνώρισα ακόμη κανένα
οπαδό του δόγματος να διακόψει το ηλεκτρικό
ρεύμα στο σπίτι του για να ζήσει ευτυχέστερος»
(op. cit., pp. 306-307).

This, basically, is the way that Papanoutsos would see “developments” in the 1960’s and on, and which is supposedly the point of view of a “conservative intellectual”. For one thing, it is difficult to see how he may be labeled a “conservative” when he is so much for technological “progress”. But, and much more importantly so, we should have to add that the “Amalia-type” would have fully understood and agreed with this manner of thinking: Amalia Eleftheriadou “lived” it so.

Of course, and as we have tried to show above, “Left-wing intellectuals” of the 1960’s-1970’s would have examined the ‘Amalia-type” by placing her in their “Orthodox” laboratory (but a laboratory gone wrong in terms of their dreams and expectations), and would inevitably have come to the conclusion that such “type” was a “victim” of the ideological “system” of advertizing (and its “bourgeois” technology).

And yet, objective history would speak – and did so speak – otherwise. Even “Left-wingers” who had consciously felt the “ethical” burden of their “defeat” in the 1940’s, would finally come to accept exactly that style of life adopted by the “Amalia-type” and supported by the “conservative” Papanoutsos. Take, for instance, George Panagoulopoulos’ tellingly entitled book, Μετατόπιση (Κέδρος, 1972), where one such “defeated” “Leftist” tells his past comrades:

«…φύγετε όλοι σας και φωλιάστε στο
ζεστό σας σπιτάκι για ν’ απολαύσετε
τις ανέσεις του πολιτισμού μας.
Πηγαίνετε στο καλό» (p. 111).

And the narrator ends, referring to his past comrades as follows:

«Βρίσκονται συνήθως στο ζεστό τους
σπιτάκι» (p. 114).

It was not just that even “Left-wingers” would ultimately and almost inevitably come to live with the ‘fruits’ of a Greek capitalist development (albeit a rather dependent development). Things would go further – let us take, for instance, the case of a Giannis Kakoulidis. This was a man who, prior to the establishment of the Military Dictatorship in 1967, had belonged to the «Νεολαία Λαμπράκη» and who would with consistency continue his political activism as a high executive of ΕΔΑ. As a “Left intellectual”, he had made his debut as a poet in 1971, and had already been the writer of song lyrics since the 1960’s. The interesting thing about his case is that his profession was that of a «κειμενο-γράφος» (copywriter) for advertisements – thus, this man, rightly or wrongly is here beside the point, not only ‘enjoyed’ the ‘fruits’ of consumerism, he in fact as much participated in “creating” the advertizing discourse of such consumerism. His talents as a poet must have surely helped him in his profession. To put it mildly, it seems as if the Greek “Left” relished its own “alienation”.

Of course, the case of a Kakoulidis is definitely no exception at all. Simply for the sake of interest, we may cite a passage from George Mihailidis’, Τα φονικά[The Murders,  Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, Αθήνα, 1991), and which is a serious study of the typical “Left-wing intellectual” of the 1960’s-1970’s. In a dialogue expressive of the personal lives of such “intellectuals”, we read:

«…Κι είναι ακόμα συγγραφέας;…»
«Ακόμα»…
«…Είναι καλός;»
«Καλός… Δουλεύει σε μια διαφημιστική
εταιρεία» (p. 117).

We have referred to the then on-going clash between pro-consumerist and anti-consumerist ideologists. But here, in the case of people such as Kakoulidis and his likes, we actually have a clash within their own minds: the story of the “Left-wing copywriter” constitutes a highly interesting case – if, as Lefebvre had argued, advertizing discourse is the dominant ideology, then what these “Left-wing copywriters” were doing was to articulate precisely such dominant ideology, while at the same time, in their political discourse proper, they would be articulating an anti-consumerist/anti-advertizing ideology. The glaring contradiction is fairly easily explainable: they simply could not possibly escape the realities of an objectively measurable and qualitatively experienced technological “progress”. Now, this may seem like a rather controversial point to make, but consider what one of the most vociferous of “Leftist intellectuals”, a lady who had opted to call herself Alkis Thrilos, had to say of “progress” as early as 1961:

«Πολλά και ποικίλα είναι τα ευεργετήματα
του πολιτισμού. Δεν είμαι καθόλου από κείνους
που ωραιοποιούν τα γνώριμα, δοκιμασμένα …
και ξεπερασμένα, που αρέσκονται να τα φαντάζονται
παραδεισένια, που νοσταλγούν τον “παλιό καλό
καιρό”, που επιθυμούν χάριν μιας ουτοπίας –
γιατί οι επιστροφές είναι ανέφικτες – να ανακοπεί
 ή και να αντιστραφεί η εξέλιξη» (cf. Alkis Thrilos,
 Συζητήσεις με τον εαυτό μου, Δίφρος, Αθήνα,
1961, p. 175, my emph.).

In the last instance, both the “Leftwing copywriters” and the “Amalia-type” were children of the Greek “Golden Age” – it just seems as if there was much more internal “ideological” coherence/cohesion within an Eleftheriadou than there was within a Kakoulidis.

GLOSSARY

NOTES:
● «αμφισβήτηση»: doubting, disputing or questioning something
● «ανανήψω»: recover, in a figurative sense
● «ανίκανο να σκεφθεί»/ «ανίκανα»: incapable of thinking
● «αποκηρύσσω»: reject, recant, renounce
● «αρμονία»: harmony
● «ΑΦΡΟΚΡΕΜ»: foam cream
● «βάσεις»: bases/base (of the economic system – in the sense traditionally used in Marxist literature)
● «διαφημιστική εικόνα»: advertizing image
● «ΕΚ» : The Centre Union, Greek political party established in 1961.
● «εμμένουν αμετακίνητες»: insist on their fixed beliefs
● «Επίκαιρα κοινωνικά προβλήματα»: “Current social issues”.
● «Η σύγχρονη έννοια της διασημότητος»: “The modern sense of fame”.
● «Μετατόπιση»: “Displacement”.
● «Νεολαία Λαμπράκη»: the Leftwing Lambrakis Youth Movement, founded in 1963 following the assassination of the Leftwing MP, Grigoris Lambrakis.
● «οι άνθρωποι έχουν έμφυτη κλίση προς…»: humans/people have an inherent inclination for (material goods)
● «όλοι μαζί»: all of us together
● «Πίνουμε ετικέτες»: “We drink labels” – Fromm was referring to Coca-Cola.
● «Πρακτική φιλοσοφία»: “Practical philosophy”.
● «ρεκλαμάρει»: from the noun «ρεκλάμα», which means advertisement; here used as a verb.
● «σκληρό σφυροκόπημα»: hard onslaught or pounding of the consumer by advertizing campaigns.
● «Συζητήσεις με τον εαυτό μου»: “Discussions with myself”.
● «Το κατηγορώ της νεολαίας»: “The accusations of youth”.
● «φανταστική νουβέλα»: fictitious novel
● «ψωμοτύρι»: literally meaning ‘bread and cheese’, but suggesting that something is a very common, everyday practice
● «ψωνίζεσαι»: the word «ψωνίζω» means ‘I buy’; used in its passive form, it suggests that you are ‘being bought’ (which is what is alluded to in the text). But it could also mean that you ‘prostitute yourself’.

METHODOLOGICAL POINTERS TOWARDS AN EXAMINATION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE

Our purpose is to of course move beyond an exposition of the ideological discourses of the 1960’s or 1970’s on the issue of advertizing. Further, the ad hoc critique of such discourses which we have attempted above is obviously not enough in trying to understand how an Amalia Eleftheriadou would have responded to the phenomenon of advertisements. To achieve some understanding of this historical reality, we shall have to approach the matter from the vantage point of a historical sociology. The latter discipline can make use of a wide variety of methodologies, all of which have their pros and cons and none of which can easily be rejected out of hand. Here, we shall briefly stipulate the methodological pointers we shall be employing for our purposes – and we have chosen such methods because it seems to suit the particular object we are here researching: the end-product of our findings remains to be either further verified, or amended, or of course rejected.

Firstly, throughout what follows, we shall have to reject the idea that whatever “system” – such as that of the world of advertisements – can be taken to be a “monolithic authority”. In fact, the very idea of any “totalitarianism” in describing “systems” – so easily thrown about when discussing various social formations – needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. For instance, in discussing the history of the USSR – a society often labeled “totalitarian” – Hobsbawm would comment:

«Όσο κτηνώδες και δικτατορικό κι αν ήταν
το σοβιετικό καθεστώς, δεν ήταν “ολοκληρωτικό”
… Για την πλειοψηφία των σοβιετικών πολιτών
οι περισσότερες δημόσιες δηλώσεις για την
πολιτική και την ιδεολογία που προέρχονταν
από την κομματική ηγεσία, πιθανότατα δεν
 περνούσαν καν στη συνείδησή τους, εκτός κι αν
 είχαν κάποια σχέση με τα καθημερινά τους
 προβλήματα – πράγμα σπάνιο» (E. Hobsbawm,
op. cit., pp.503-504, my emph.).

We do not at all wish to argue that if the citizens of Stalin’s “brutal dictatorship” could somehow dodge the doings of such regime and “live” their own everyday lives, how much more so could an Amalia Eleftheriadou escape the intentions of a ‘Colgate’ advertisement meant to ”reproduce” her identity into one of its “successful stereotypes”, and so on. That is not our point at all – rather, what concerns us here is Hobsbawm’s socio-historical method – i.e. the refusal to examine “authority” as if that is absolutely “monolithic” and capable of reducing everyone to “hypnotized” objects. Such a reduction would necessarily come down to a de facto rejection of whatever “forms of life” were to ensue in the post-war modern world. And that was exactly what was to happen in the theoretical work of the Frankfurtian Marxists. But it was one of the representatives of that same School of Thought, Jϋrgen Habermas, who would, by 1985, undertake a radical critique of the theoretical implications of such School. In his important boofk, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity [greek edition: O φιλοσοφικός λόγος της νεωτερικότητας, Αλεξάνδρεια, 1993], Habermas would go on to summarize the implications of such philosophical thinking, and perhaps especially that of Adorno, as succinctly as possible – he would describe such implications as the –

«… ολικευτική απόρριψη των νεωτερικών
μορφών ζωής…» (p. 415, my emph.).

Thus, it was now not simply a question of rejecting – on the part of Habermas in 1985 – forms of philosophical thinking which had themselves holistically rejected “the system” as that had been shaped (or was being shaped) after World War II in Europe – it was also a question of now taking seriously all “forms of life” that manifested themselves within civil society. The “Amalia-type” was such a “form of life” which had to be analyzed objectively and in all its contradictions. (One central question which shall arise when we analyze such “type” will be the extent to which, given the material conditions of the post-war period, it constituted a somewhat “new type” of person.)

It was not only a matter of having to reject the idea that the post-war “system” (or “systems” and “sub-systems”) was an all-powerful “monolithic authority”, or of having to re-consider the multi-dimensionality of the different “forms of life” – now, and naturally following from such a new approach, special emphasis had to be placed on an examination of the internal contradictions, differences, nuances, etc., of all “forms of life”, be that, say, of the phenomenon of advertizing, or that of the “Amalia-type” (both being “forms of life”). Such thinking was of course well beyond Adorno et al. Now, anyone even slightly acquainted with the thinking of Habermas will most probably protest that we are not doing him much justice as regards his much more complex relationship with the old Frankfurtians – and yet this is how he would evaluate the theoretical results of the old Frankfurt School in his 1985 work:

«Οι διαφορές και αντιθέσεις έχουν …
υπονομευθεί, και μάλιστα καταρρεύσει,
ώστε η κριτική δεν μπορεί πια να διακρίνει
χρωματικές αντιθέσεις, αποχρώσεις και
διφορούμενους τόνους μέσα στο επίπεδο
και άχρωμο τοπίο ενός πλήρως διοικούμενου,
υπολογιζόμενου και εξουσιαζόμενου
κόσμου» (ibid).

Were one, in other words, to have accepted the overall logic of the old Frankfurtians, one could only but have come up with conclusions such as those enumerated above and now fully rejected by Habermas.

In examining the advertizing sector in Greece and how the “Amalia-type” responded to it, we too shall absolutely steer clear of whatever could possibly suggest any form of such a «πλήρως διοικούμενου, υπολογιζόμενου και εξουσιαζόμενου κόσμου»: any such ‘theoretical’ slip would blind us to whatever possible contradictions a) within the advertizing discourse per se, b) within the “Amalia-type” per se, and c) between the advertizing discourse and the “Amalia-type” (as relationship) – all three nexuses ought not to lose that contradictory vitality which makes of them true “life-forms”. This shall be one of our singularly most important methodological targets.

So that we may further clarify such a methodological target, we may contrast it directly to the theoretical orientation of Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment  (op. cit.) – they write:

«Η διαφήμιση σήμερα είναι μια αρνητική
αρχή, ένας μηχανισμός αποκλεισμού: ό,τι
δεν φέρει τη σφραγίδα της είναι οικονομικά
ύποπτο» (p. 269).

Tentatively, our methodological approach would critically examine such an observation by positing questions such as the following: Firstly, is it accurate to say that advertizing is merely a “single mechanism” («έναςμηχανισμός»)? Is it not maybe a series of mechanisms or maybe a series of discourses which could possibly stand in contradiction to one another? Is it not possible that in 1960’s-1970’s Greece there were mechanisms and discourses which related conflictually/competitively to one another given, inter alia, that some were promoting technologically superior ‘global’ products whereas others struggled to survive as good-old/familiar ‘local’ products? And, secondly, if there was such an internal contradiction within advertizing-discourse-as-a-whole, what effect would this have had on an “Amalia-type”? Is it not possible that an Amalia Eleftheriadou could have found herself within a contradiction-riddled dilemma whereby she could have asked herself whether she would prefer products expressive of a new-found “internationalism” or products expressive of a familiar/habitual “traditionalism”? And thirdly, and as regards the relationship between an advertisement and an Amalia Eleftheriadou, is it not possible that, given her own contradictory social reality (young and fairly well-educated but also fairly badly-remunerated and “despotically” repressed by her boss at the A&M Mill, etc.), she could have doubted or even rejected the “exclusion” suggested by an advertisement, or ignored “suspicions” raised by a product not bearing a particular brand-name? The question here is to what extent the “Amalia-type” would have accepted, compromised with, or rejected the “provocative-interventionist” messages which some “global” advertizing discourse carried. Is it not possible that advertisements which would try to raise fears of “exclusion” could themselves be excluded by an Amalia herself? Or, alternatively, is it not possible that advertisements which provoked whatever “suspicions” could themselves be suspected by the receptor? Now, in trying to answer such latter types of questions, we are able to employ two different types of methods: firstly, we could try to surmise how the “Amalia-type” would have most probably responded given her very specific socio-economic and other personal circumstances (age and sex, of course, included). But secondly, and more importantly, we shall use a method of argumentation that had been well employed by Nikos Poulantzas himself.

To understand such argumentation – and which constituted a method of seeing ‘simple’ and ‘hard’ facts in all their complexity – we shall have to digress slightly and very briefly refer to the history of its development. In the 1960’s-1970’s period, Poulantzas was struggling to come up with some theory of the capitalist State which would be capable of explaining the endless paradoxes of its own practices within society (and for him, this State would include both “public” and “private” apparatuses such as organizational structures producing the discourse of advertizing). In his attempts to develop such a theory, he was confronted with conceptions of the State very much similar to the type we have been referring to above in examining the “Left intellectuals” and their interpretation of consumerism/advertizing. Poulantzas would confront such conceptions in a variety of ways – for instance, in his article, «Οι σημερινοί μετασχηματισμοί του Κράτους…» (in The Crisis of the State [greek edition: Η κρίση του Κράτους, Διεύθυνση: Ν. Πουλαντζάς, Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, [no date]), he would write:

«… ένας θεσμός, το Κράτος, … δεν είναι και δεν
μπορεί να είναι, όπως θεωρούν οι αντιλήψεις
του Κράτους ως Πράγματος και του Κράτους ως
Υποκειμένου, ένα άρρηκτο μονολιθικό
 συγκρότημα, αλλά αντίθετα είναι από την ίδια
τη δομή του διαιρεμένο» (p. 38, my emph.).

And further, in his Για τον Γκράμσι… (Εκδόσεις Πολύτυπο, Αθήνα, 1984), he would attack the Frankfurtians as follows:

«… αυτή η αμετάβλητη σχέση ιδεολογίας -αλλοτρίωσης-πραγματικότητας είναι
φανερή σ’ όλες τις “υποκειμενιστικές”
μαρξίζουσες αντιλήψεις απ’ τον Γκολντμάν
μέχρι τον Αντόρνο και τον Μαρκούζε, που
ερμηνεύουν τις σημερινές κοινωνικές
εξελίξεις σύμφωνα με το σχήμα μιας ολικής
πραγμοποίησης-αλλοτρίωσης του υποκειμένου
μέσα στο πραγματικό, καταλήγοντας στο
συμπέρασμα της “απορρόφησης της ιδεολογίας
μέσα στην πραγματικότητα”…» (p. 60, his emph.).

We have, of course, already come across the idea that ‘ideology’ had been “absorbed” within ‘reality’ when referring to Fromm’s suggestion that we “drink brand-names”, etc. Now, Poulantzas would continue his theoretical struggles up until 1978, with his final and truly brilliant State, Power, Socialism – but, even by that time, the idea that the State (and all its Dominant Discourse, and especially, as we have seen, its advertizing/consumerist discourse) was a simple instrument of Capital imposing itself on blinded and alienated masses of people, would continue to dominate “Left-wing” thinking, especially in Europe – the sheer simplicity of the idea would suit the ‘radical’ fashions of the day. In his State, Power, Socialism (published by Θεμέλιο in Greece in June 2008), Poulantzas would make his final attempt to convince people that neither the State nor whatever of its discourses were mere “instruments” of the “system” – the method he would here use is of major interest to us in that it would help us measure the extent to which an “Amalia-type” would herself play her own role in determining the content of advertizing discourse. With reference to the form of State in capitalist societies, Poulantzas would pose the following question:

«… γιατί η αστική τάξη, για να εξασφαλίσει
την κυριαρχία της, προσφεύγει σε τούτο
το εθνικό-λαϊκό Κράτος, σε τούτο το
σύγχρονο αντιπροσωπευτικό Κράτος με
τους ιδιαίτερους θεσμούς του, και όχι
σ’ ένα άλλο; Διότι δεν είναι καθόλου
 πρόδηλο – κάθε άλλο – πως αν η αστική
 τάξη μπορούσε να συγκροτήσει το Κράτος
 από το Α ως το Ω, και όπως της ταιριάζει,
 θα διάλεγε τούτο εδώ το Κράτος. Αν
 από τούτο το Κράτος αποκόμισε και
 εξακολουθεί να αποκομίζει πολλά οφέλη,
 απέχει ωστόσο πολύ, σήμερα όπως και στο
 παρελθόν, από το να είναι πάντα ικανοποιημένη
 απ’ αυτό» (p. 15, my emph.).

The implications of such method of thinking – which of course suggests that the State was never an “instrument” or a “making” of any one class but is rather a relationship of social forces and discourses within its own multifarious structures – were quite indigestible for the dogmatic “Left”. For our purposes, we have here a terrain of social participation on the part of the popular masses and within whatever ideological discourse, which calls for hard empirical research. If the form of capitalist State was not wholly of the making of the capitalist class, then neither was the discourse/s of such State, and which therefore means that the discourse of advertizing was itself never fully of the making of any «Εξουσίας-Κενταύρου, μισής-ανθρώπου, μισής-κτήνους» (as Poulantzas describes such understanding of the State, ibid.). Now, it is that extent of State practices and discourses which was not of the making of the ruling classes – that remaining “space” – which points to the presence of an “Amalia-type” in the ultimate forging of ideology as inscribed in advertizing discourse. Our purpose here therefore, practically and methodologically speaking, is to examine concrete examples of advertizing in the 1960’s-1970’s and to identify traces of discourse left behind by the wishes, the tastes, the prejudices, etc., of an “Amalia-type” – i.e., to find samples of advertizing discourse which the advertizing sector would not have been «πάντα ικανοποιημένη απ’ αυτό», or to at least identify traces of that remaining “space” in advertizing discourse which had to take into account the pulls and pushes exerted on it by the sheer presence of the thousands of Amalias that lived and worked in Greece at the time.

We may put the matter slightly otherwise: if and only if we do identify such traces of the “Amalia-presence” within advertizing discourse of the period, shall we be able to verify, not only the general political philosophy of Poulantzas himself (but whose thought too must also be seen as a product of his age), but the more specific position that Amalia Eleftheriadou was never herself a victim of any “false consciousness” imposed on her by an all-powerful “System”. And if we do find cases of advertizing discourse which suggest that that discourse had to adjust to the whims of an “Amalia-type”, we shall also be able to identify elements of the thinking and habits of an Amalia Eleftheriadou (as a specific “form of life”), and delineate how that constituted her response to the world of advertizing. The enterprise before us, then, stands or falls according to our empirical findings and as these are interpreted by us. On the other hand, and whatever our findings, we already know that the “private” ideological apparatuses of the Greek State – i.e. the structures set up by the advertizing industry to produce advertizing discourse – included the presence of elements of Greek society which had adopted an oppositional stance to the Greek State as a whole (we are obviously referring here to the “Left-wing-Kakoulidis-type” discussed above). Thus, we have here a case (one of those many apparent “paradoxes” of the capitalist State we frequently bump into as we observe everyday life) which verifies the position that the Greek State apparatuses – and especially those which supposedly produced advertizing discourse as an ideology of socio-political domination – were never a monolithic «Εξουσία-Κένταυρος», but were complex and contradictory enough to include the presence of the “Left-wing intellectual” as copywriter within their structures. But while the “Kakoulidis-type” was present within such structures, this was obviously not the case as regards a “Clerk” working in the Headquarters of an Aliartian Mill: what we shall try to show below is the extent to which the “Amalia-type” (her own specific “common nous”) was “present” in the discourse of advertizing, but “from a distance”.

Adopting the type of methodological approach we have pointed to above, we shall very naturally have to be quite critical of any concepts relating to the idea of “manipulation”. Our intention is surely not to reject the idea that advertisements may very well have attempted to “manipulate” an “Amalia-type” – on the other hand, we shall steer clear of taking whatever possibility of “manipulation” for granted. To give us an idea of precisely what needs to be avoided, let us take a sample passage from the Roupa study (op. cit.), where she speaks of the role of the Americans in the field of Greek advertizing in the 1960’s – she writes:

«Σχετικά με την κυριαρχία των αμερικανικών
προτύπων να σημειωθεί ότι η διαφημιστική
εταιρεία “Μίνως” είχε ως σύμβουλο τον Αμερικανό
Dr. Ernest Dichter (1907-1991), που ήταν γνωστός
για τη μέθοδο χειραγώγησης του καταναλωτή
“Motivational Research” (1946) και είχε ιδρύσει
το “Ινστιτούτο Μελέτης Ψυχολογικών Κινήτρων”
(Institute of Motivational Research)» (p. 263).

Firstly, in terms of our methodological approach, the idea of a «κυριαρχία … προτύπων» could not be seen as an absolute dominance – but, further, even a possibly relative dominance of American prototypes and methods tells us, in itself, very little about the extent to which such prototypes and methods had – or did not have – to be adjusted to the Greek reality (and in manners which could qualify whatever degree of intended “manipulation”). As happens throughout the Roupa study, any references to “motivation” are automatically translated into “manipulation”. In fact, one could argue that it would be impossible to “motivate” anyone to do anything unless one takes into consideration what it is that “motivates” the other. The person’s particular needs, based on objective class position, cultural context, etc., will inevitably have to be considered. To the extent that they are taken into account, the “motivator”/potential “manipulator” (the advertiser) becomes himself “motivated” (by the consumer, who delimits the advertiser’s field of manoeuvre, and thus “motivates” the advertiser to stick to such field). But this, then, comes to constitute a veritable arena of strugglebetween different socio-cultural/ideological practices, as also economic interests. And, of course, this is all in keeping with the manner Poulantzas has presented the idea of the capitalist State-as-a-Whole.

All this now allows us to stipulate our central methodological tool, and which will be practically applied as we examine each advertisement separately – in his State, Power, Socialism (op. cit.), as also elsewhere in his work (and always deeply influenced by Gramsci), Poulantzas has presented the so-called “dominant discourse” in capitalist society, in the latter’s various forms,  as follows:

 «[It is a] πεδίο μιας ασταθούς ισορροπίας
 συμβιβασμών» (op. cit., p.43).

These “compromises” take place between those who “control” – relatively speaking – the means of production of discourse (here, the advertizing companies) and those who are meant to “receive” such discourse (inter alia, the “Amalia-type”). Each and every sample of an advertisement can only but be analyzed by placing it within the context of this “terrain” wherein we have a continually unsteady balance of on-going “compromises” between the advertizing companies and the consuming masses. Being an on-going ideological/cultural struggle, there can be times when the one side will triumph wholly over the other, but such “imbalance” cannot last for too long, and a new “balance” will have to be found and various “compromises” have to be made, and on like that. Speaking of such types of on-going struggles, one should not at all imagine masses of people taking to the streets and burning down the headquarters of some advertizing company – things could happen like that but most unusually so: rather, and which is (or was, for our purposes) an on-going daily practice amongst consumers, one could observe an Amalia Eleftheriadou dropping the idea of buying a ‘Kelvinator’ and opting for an ‘Izola’ product instead, depending on what she read, saw or heard about such products. Very simply, consumers can and do show their teeth by buying or not buying particular things, and this is not necessarily a mere “passive” form of “resistance” on the part of the popular masses.

Making use of such methodological tools, we shall attempt to interpret the very specific advertizing discourse in Greece in the 1950’s-1970’s period – and the relationships that were articulated between such discourse and the “Amalia-type” – by placing the matter within an as specific socio-historical framework. We may very briefly outline such framework as follows:

1. Especially as regards the 1950’s and 1960’s, Greek society as a whole was characterized by a deep socio-cultural clash between what we may call the “residual element” (“localism”/”traditionalism”) and the “modern element” (the influx of the “foreign”/”overseas” socio-cultural paradigm). Very schematically, we could say that the “residual element” was predominantly expressive of the older generations, all of whom carried the highly traumatic war-memories of their very recent past (both the German Occupation and the Civil War). Again very schematically, we could say that the “modern element” was predominantly expressive of the younger generations, all of whom were children of what seemed to be – and in fact was – a permanent peace-time. (We are fully aware of the dangers of over-simplification here, but we shall not bother with these at this point, as they do not seriously affect the overall conceptualization of our framework).

2. Highly symptomatic of this major socio-cultural clash is what Thrilos (op. cit., p. 296) would call the syndrome of a «ψυχική αστάθεια» and which would envelope (in varying degrees of intensity) the whole of Greek society – in fact, and as we shall see in the sub-section that immediately follows, the Thrilos observation would be repeated in a variety of different ways by an array of Greek writers and other commentators (including the local newspapers of Boeotia, as also the local paper of Aliarto itself).

3. Within such a context of (mass psychic) “instability”, the ideological discourses of the period – while deeply contradictory within themselves (and in fact highly conflictual at the political level) – would attempt to maintain a balance of compromises at the level of socio-cultural practices: such an attempt at a balance of compromises would inevitably be most apparent within the field of advertizing discourse (the need to sell products and the need to buy them would ‘lock’ the parties, involved in such transactions, in a two-way discourse). Put otherwise, and specifically as regards socio-cultural practices/paradigms, there was a need to maintain balances in a world of objective imbalances and essentially transitional instabilities.

4. But given such objective world,  the on-going attempts at maintaining whatever ideological balances would yield a thoroughly vacillating advertizing discourse (the objective instabilities would be reflected in the unstable balances of advertizing discourse): we shall come across advertisements which displayed varying degrees of ‘compromising balances’ and degrees of ‘non-compromising imbalances’, and such degrees would, to some extent, be determined by the consumer reactions of an “Amalia-type” (this constituting her own “space” of intervention whichwe have spoken of above).

5. Thus, and given such vacillation, the general ‘body’ of advertizing discourse at the time would vary between two extremes: on the one hand, a discourse of “compromise” and “adjustment” with respect to the realities of an “Amalia-type” and, right at the other end of the scale, a discourse of “provocative-interventionism” which could ignore or even insult the tastes and world-view of an Amalia Eleftheriadou.  As a ‘body’ in toto, the advertizing discourse of the period, and given the need to maintain precisely the balances we have been referring to, would include a wide range of advertisements which would fall in-between these two extremes. Such in-between advertisement-types would fulfill the function of what Gramsci had once identified as the “law of determined proportionality” activated between and within the structures of social discourse so as to help maintain the overall reproduction of a social formation. (cf. A. Gramsci, «Ο σύγχρονος ηγεμόνας», in Για την πολιτική και για το σύγχρονο κράτος, ΗΜΕΡΗΣΙΑ Α.Ε.Ε., 2010, pp. 166-167).

Before we undertake an examination of the advertisements themselves, and in keeping with the framework outlined, we shall have to dwell on the historical context of the period.

GLOSSARY

NOTES

● «Για τον Γράμσι…»: “For Gramsci…”
● «Εξουσίας-Κενταύρου, μισής-ανθρώπου, μισής-κτήνους»: “Centaur-Power, half-man, half-beast”.
● «κυριαρχία… προτύπων»: dominance of… models/prototypes
● «Ο σύγχρονος ηγεμόνας»; «Για την πολιτική και για το σύγχρονο κράτος»: “The modern prince”; “On politics and the modern state”.
● «Οι σημερινοί μετασχηματισμοί του Κράτους»: “The current transformations of the State”.
● «πάντα ικανοποιημένη απ’ αυτό»: always satisfied with it
● «πλήρως διοικούμενου, υπολογιζόμενου και εξουσιαζόμενου κόσμου»: fully managed, calculated and dominated world
● «ψυχική αστάθεια»: mental instability

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, ESPECIALLY THE 1950’s-1960’s PERIOD

By the late 1950’s, we may say – descriptively speaking – that Greece had already undergone some ‘great change’. Writing in 1959, Nikos Tsiforos, in his Ελληνική κρουαζιέρα [Greek Cruise, Ερμής, 1975], would point to the dramatic changes that had taken place by describing the reactions of a Greek on returning to his homeland – we read:

«Παλιοχώρι την θυμότανε την Ελλάδα,
τώρα άνοιξε τα μάτια. “Μπας κι’ έκανα
λάθος;… Τούτη η λεωφόρος, τούτα τα
φώτα, τούτα τα χτίρια!... ρε πώς άλλαξαν
έτσι!”… και έτριβε τα μάτια του» (p. 50).

But these great changes happening by the late-1950’s were accompanied by a generalized confusion, amounting to a mass psychological clash of “values” (we may remember the Thrilos observation mentioned above): flux characterized the period. And the radical transformations that were underway in Greece meant, not only an influx of the “Western” style of life, but also an anxiety (cf. the observations of Vasos Varikas, in his Συγγραφείς και κείμενα, 1955-1959 [Writers and Texts, 1955-1959, Ερμής, Αθήνα, 2003], p. 21, p. 67, p. 86, pp. 165-166, et al) on the part of the popular masses to digest such new “values” and to try to “evaluate” them in their own terms. Of course, following the destructions of World War II, such “Western values” were also being critically questioned by the Europeans themselves (hence the impact of an Adorno et al), and which would add to the generalized confusion within Greece at the time. “Modernity”, in other words, was banging on the door of the Greek people, and was doing so all too abruptly, all too provocatively, and just a bit too violently. All this would, of course, appeal to – and challenge – the younger generations, though these too would find themselves locked in clashes with the Patriarchal Family Unit to which they all belonged, or even with clashes over “ethical” matters with their own boss if they happened to be employed (cf. our paper on 28 year-old Ekaterini Douka, who worked as a “Chemist” for the A&M Mill in 1961-1962, and had frequently been involved in such “ethical clashes” with her as-“Patriarchal” boss, Maraki).

Such generalized confusion within Greece was very accurately captured in 1957 by an otherwise mediocre “intellectual”, Petros Haris, whose long-time service as Editor of the periodical Nea Hestia (1933-1987) would at times enable him to “read” – but not at all explain –  the situation quite perceptively. In an article entitled «Έπειτ’ από τα τριάντα χρόνια» (cf. Nea Hestia, No 720 – Athens, July 1st 1957), he would make observations with respect to the late-1950’s such as the following:

• «γενική σύγχυση» (p. 890)
• «το σχήμα της ρευστής εποχής μας» (ibid.)
• «τι είναι αυτός ο “δυτικός κόσμος”, τι αξίζει … έπειτ’ από τόσες ριζικές μεταβολές, τι μπορεί να προσφέρει στο μεταπολεμικό άτομο…;» (p. 891)
• «… προβλήματα, που έχουν γίνει πύρινοι κύκλοι…» (ibid.)…[etc.].

Especially his phrase «πύρινοι κύκλοι» would perhaps most accurately describe the vicious circle of contradictions that Greek society had found itself caught up in, especially at the level of socio-cultural practices, and which would involve the whole of the population, with the “Amalia-type” certainly included (the political contradictions, as intense, would only directly involve a fraction of the population, and even such fraction would have no choice but retreat from political activity following the seizure of power by the Colonels in 1967).

We have already pointed to the clash between the “residual” and the “modern” – it was this that would galvanize such «πύρινους κύκλους», and such clash would take a variety of forms. In 1961, Koeppen (op. cit.) would himself observe the general contradiction as follows:

 «Η Αθήνα είναι σταυροδρόμι του αέρα.
Φαρδείς δρόμοι, σκόνη, αμερικάνικα
αυτοκίνητα, πού και πού ένα κάρο που
το σέρνει γάιδαρος» (p. 13, my emph.).

Imported technology, here represented by the American automobile, would be accompanied by the “primitive technology” of rooted tradition, here represented by the use of the donkey as a means of transport. We shall have to see how such «σταυροδρόμι του αέρα» would have an impact on the socio-cultural discourse of the popular masses, and especially as that would permeate into and structure advertizing discourse – as suggested above, the latter would often have to somehow try to achieve some sort of “balance” between the “world” of the American automobile and that of the Greek donkey, both such “worlds” carrying their own sets of “values”.

This clash of “values” and incompatible “realities” would at the same time mean that we had the sudden advent of “modernity” being confronted by the reality of a widespread impoverishment which lurked on from the past – such impoverishment, while most pronounced in the rural “periphery”, was actually also quite evident in the “cultural centre” of Greece, in Athens, and even in the central Square of such “cultural centre”, at ‘Πλατεία Συντάγματος’ – this is how Koeppen describes his impressions of the city’s Constitution Square in 1961:

«…να κοιτάς από το παράθυρο του
μοναδικού παλιού εστιατορίου την
εγκαταλειμμένη πλατεία, περιτριγυρισμένος
από μύγες…» (p. 14).

In the early-1960’s, the “cultural centre” of Greece, and even its central squares – while being the very first recipients of “modernity”, and as also the very first to display «ρεκλάμες  πολύχρωμες» (Koumandareas, op. cit.) – was still an area teeming with flies and mosquitoes. Elsewhere, Koeppen would continue:

«Η Αθήνα μοσχοβολούσε … ψημένο
καλαμπόκι, σαφώς αντικουνουπικό…»
(pp. 17-18).

Flies and mosquitoes, as is obvious, are symptomatic of unhygienic material conditions and thus of poverty: especially as regards the problem of mosquitoes, we know that the area of Aliarto itself had always been plagued by it given the presence of the drained lake of «Κωπαΐδα» in the region (cf., for instance, V. Katsifi-Zota, Η λίμνη της Κωπαΐδας, [Lake Copais], Αθήνα, Ιούλιος 2005). Thus, whatever rudiments of “modernity” were to filter through to Amalia Eleftheriadou’s place of residence in the 1950’s-1960’s (and on), these were to be ‘accompanied’ by the swarms of mosquitoes that continued to survive years after the drainage of the lake. Such ‘natural’ phenomena, therefore – but which were also as much ‘social’, given the underdeveloped economic infrastructure of the country at least up until the early 1950’s – must themselves be seen as part and parcel of the clash between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ which we are here describing.

That such clash of “values” and “realities” was conducive to a state of anxiety amongst the popular masses – i.e. that uncomfortable balance in the minds of people between foreign technology/”modernity”, on the one hand, and local “primitiveness”/”Greekness”, on the other – was most succinctly expressed by that major Greek poet, George Seferis, and which shows that he had fully understood and empathized with the Greek “common nous” (and there was such relative commonality of feeling amongst the various social strata when it came to the clash we are describing here). It was in 1967 that he would write:

«… με δυσκολεύει η βιομηχανία των
ξένων» (cf. Ignatis Trelos (G. Seferis),
 Οι ώρες της κυρίας Έρσης [The Hours of Mrs Erse Ερμής,
Αθήνα, 1973 (first published 15.4.1967),
p. 45, my emph.).

This “difficulty”, reflective of socio-cultural discourse at the time (and, as we shall see, as much present in advertizing discourse), often appeared as a dominant theme in the writings of people who had lived, and lived intensely, the turbulent transition from pre- to post-war Greece. And excellent example of this, coming from an as excellent a writer, is the work of Asimakis Panselinos’ Τότε που ζούσαμε (op. cit.). Even the very title of his book, published in 1974, obviously suggests his ‘preference’ for 1930’s Greece: for him, it was then that the Greek people truly “lived”. Of course, this is quite reminiscent of the “Left-wing” thinking we have been discussing above, in that it implies the one-dimensionalist “alienation” of the person in post-war “modern times”, and we do know that Panselinos was himself a “Left-winger” (dogmatic and uninformed ‘Stalinist’ in his student days but not at all so in later years). But Panselinos was not to really dwell on whatever “alienation” in his work – what concerned him was to above all describe the “old” style of life in Greece, to at times compare that with the “new”, and to somehow try and understand both. In so doing, however, he could be said to be a bit ‘guilty’ of that ‘nostalgic romanticism’ that Alkis Thrilos had referred to (cf. above) – but such  ‘romanticism’, on the part of Panselinos, was simply a symptom of that on-going clash of “values” and of “realities” that had made Seferis himself say, «με δυσκολεύει». The “difficulties” expressed both by Seferis and by Panselinos would definitely also have been of concern to the fathers and mothers of an “Amalia-type”, and this was precisely what was causing that clash and confusion – that complex of «πύρινοι κύκλοι» – which Haris had written of.

Having clarified the case of Panselinos, we may here very briefly present samples of his work which express this difference between the “old” and the “new”. Writing in the early 1970’s, he would ‘travel’ back to the Athens of 1929-1930 and comment:

«Συλλογιέμαι την Αθήνα τα χρόνια εκείνα
που ήταν φτωχιά και γιόρταζε ακόμα στις
στήλες του Ολύμπιου Δία τα κούλουμα με
ταραμά, χαλβά και λατέρνα. Φαίνεται τότε
να είχαν τα σπίτια της ψυχή πιο βαθιά»
(p. 168, my emph.).

There was, in the ‘atmosphere’ of 1930’s Athens, a deeper “spiritual” element that Panselinos could see in contrast to that of the 1970’s – such “spirituality”, of course, had nothing to do either with the “intellectualist” “Spirit” of a Karandonis or with the “proletarian” “Spirit” of a Sotiriou. He would see such «ψυχή» in the popular everyday socio-cultural practices of the period and which, at least by the 1970’s when he was writing his book, had become “residual” (to the extent that some traces of it had then still survived – we note that Panselinos adopts a relativistic position, speaking of «πιο βαθιά»).

Related to this “spiritual” element in the ‘atmosphere’ of the 1930’s, Panselinos would also speak of a “mystical” atmosphere in the streets of late night-time Athens – we read:

«Γυρνούσαμε αργά… Τα ανάρια φώτα από
τους φανοστάτες φωτίζαν τους δρόμους
μ’ ένα φως μυστικιστικό» (p. 171, my emph.).

One may feel rather dubious as regards Panselinos’ descriptive/subjective terms such as «μυστικιστικό» when describing the pre-war years. And yet, one could argue that what he is describing here is in fact an ‘objective reality’ and which was to stand in stark contrast to the “new” that was coming. Such stark difference in ‘atmosphere’ is clearly explainable in terms of the technological infrastructures available in Greece before and after the war, and here specifically as regards the quality of electrification. The dim lights Panselinos speaks of («ανάρια φώτα») were a product of the then relatively “primitive” technology of the time (albeit provided by the Ελληνική Ηλεκτρική Εταιρία, itself established by the US-based Thompson-Houston), and could and did create an ‘atmosphere’ of the “mystical” (or, depending on one’s mood, could even provoke a state of ‘misery’). Anyone who has happened to walk around the little villages near Thiva – even as late as the 1970’s – would know exactly what we are talking about here. Now, such «ανάρια φώτα» (and the “mystical” that went with these) were to be ultimately replaced by the ‘bright lights” of ΔΕΗ, which was established in August 1950. It was precisely such “modernized” electrification network that would provide the essential infrastructure for the electrified advertisements we have spoken of above, and which would radically transform the whole ‘atmosphere’ of Greek cities and towns (and which would definitely include Thiva and Levadia, both of which constituted centers of entertainment for the “Amalia-type”). Panselinos’ «φως μυστικιστικό» must be directly contrasted to the “atmospheric effects” of advertizing in the early 1970’s, and as such “effects” were described by Daskalopoulou above (as quoted: «Όταν ανάβουν τα φώτα, οι λέξεις αναβοσβήνουν σε χρώμα παπαγαλί κι η ατμόσφαιρα γύρω πρασινίζει»). This violent clash between the ‘dim lights’ of the past and the ‘bright lights” of the post-war period – and especially as such multi-coloured ‘brightness’ was used in promoting new products – would also mean as violent a clash between different ‘psychologies’: the up-and-coming younger generations, born in “modernity” and within such ‘bright lights’, would relate to such ‘world’ in a manner one might describe as ‘natural’ (for want of a better word) and would definitely feel ‘miserable’ whenever confronted by any residual «ανάρια φώτα» around them (and much of such lighting would persist in the Aliarto of the 1950’s and 1960’s). In contrast, the older generations, having grown up in the «φως μυστικιστικό» as described by Panselinos, would, in some sense, be ‘blinded’ – not to say ‘shocked’ – by this radically new phenomenon (and the advertizing that went with it).

It must have been, surely, this sheer blinding ‘rawness’ of such ‘new world’ which seemed prepared to ‘expose’ everything – as opposed to the ‘mystical spirituality’ of the ‘old’, and which itself had never dared reveal the naked truths of its own reality under any spot-lights of electricity – which would cause Panselinos to at times adopt some degree of that ‘nostalgic romanticism’ we have alluded to above. He would thus willingly acknowledge his rather idyllic stance as regards the pre-war years:

«Η αλήθεια είναι πως τα χρόνια εκείνα,
λίγο πριν από το 1930 και λίγο μετά,
η Αθήνα για μας φαινόταν ειδυλλιακή».
(p. 173).

Panselinos would go on to point to the sharp contrast that marked that old Athens in relation to what he was seeing around him in the early 1970’s. He would note the dominance of “modernity”, especially amongst the new generations, and how such “modernity” had meant an influx of its ‘fashions’ within Greece. His language shows the difficulty he feels in trying to digest the ‘new’, and yet he certainly tries to explain what was happening in his own way – for instance, he writes:

«… σήμερα πάλι, οι άνθρωποι θρέφουν
μαλλούρα και γένια, φορούν απίθανα
ρούχα, γυρνάν ξυπόλυτοι, ξετραχηλισμένοι,
για να αλλάξουν σουλούπι, και να μη
μοιάζουν με τους καλοντυμένους
ευπαρουσίαστους φιλισταίους, που ρίξαν
την ανθρωπότητα στον όλεθρο του
πολέμου» (p. 158).

We may say that both Seferis and Panselinos, and at least based on the particular quotes presented, would see the clash of “values” going on at the time and sense what we have referred to as that “uncomfortable balance” in the minds of people between foreign “modernity” and local “traditionalism”. To some extent, therefore, their thought reflected that of the “average Greeks” (and especially but not exclusively the older generations) who were still trying to come to terms with the onslaught of the “foreign element” – and while the latter would itself try to “adjust” to local conditions (and as that especially happened, as we shall try to show, in the discourse of advertisements). And it could only but take time before that turbulence of the transitional period would ebb and the tide of socio-cultural contradictions fall. There were, of course, many Greek “intellectuals” who had long since already accepted some ‘bond’ and/or some ‘cultural commerce’ between “Greekness” and “foreignness” – one such case being that of Giannis Psiharis. Even as early as at the turn of the century, an “intellectual” such as him would be able to weave some kind of delicate balance between his “Greekness” and his “Frenchness” – as Panselinos would himself describe the case of Psiharis and the «λόγος» of the latter:

«Ήταν μια τέχνη πολύτροπη. Μια
φινέτσα φραντσέζικη και μια γουστόζικη
ρωμαίικη τσαχπινιά» (op. cit., p. 133).

But the likes of a Psiharis were in no way representative of Greek society as a whole – in any case, Psiharis was himself something of  an eccentric who resided in France and whose own identity was divided between that of “Greekness” and “Frenchness”. That «τέχνη πολύτροπη» – whereby the “foreign” would articulate with, combine and be assimilated into the “local” – would, for the popular masses, constitute a traumatic historical process which would perhaps reach some apex only by the 1980’s. What concerns us here was how the “Amalia-type” would develop its very own «τέχνη» – itself as highly «πολύτροπη» – to both assimilate the “foreign” and maintain its essential “Greekness”.

The contradictory traumas of such historical process are most evident when one comes to consider how the “new” would try to ‘gate-crash’ into that more specific “arena of conflict” which was to unfold within the “peripheries” all over the rural or semi-rural regions of the country (Aliarto of course included). Such socio-cultural ‘gate-crashing’, especially within the Greek villages of the 1950’s, had deeply concerned, inter alia, a gentleman by the name of George P. Kanellakis, who happened to be an anti-communist as well as a monarchist. While one would expect such a person to be proud of the ‘fruits’ of the anti-communist “West”, and be appreciative of Marshall’s programme (AMAG) meant to reconstruct the Greek economy, he would nonetheless fully reject whatever “modernism” as destructive of Greek “traditionality” (and would therefore – oh so paradoxically – not have much disagreed with the “alienating” effects of Western consumerism that his communist enemies were to themselves talk about).

In Kanellakis’ book, published in Athens in 1955, entitled Επιστροφή εις το χωριό [Return to the village] and dedicated «Εις την Α.Μ. τον Βασιλέα ημών Παύλον – τον εμψυχωτήν και προστάτην του χωριού…[etc.]», we read:

«… το χωριό αντιμετωπίζει σήμερον … μεγάλον
… εχθρόν. Ο εχθρός αυτός είναι η πόλις. Μέχρι
προ ολίγων ετών, μόνο το χωριό μετεκινείτο
προς την πόλιν. Με την πύκνωσιν όμως της
συγκοινωνίας και με την διάδοσιν του
ραδιοφώνου και η πόλις μετακινείται, ολονέν
περισσότερον προς το χωριό» (p. 72).

For the “Right-wing” Mr. Kanellakis, the “enemy” threatening the traditional way of life of the “periphery” was of course “materialism” itself – though this was not at all that particular “dialectical materialism” hailing from Stalinist Moscow, but that other type, the one offered by the ‘Free World’, and which would ultimately enable Kanellakis’ peasant compatriots to make use of things such as fridges and indoor toilet basins. Kanellakis continues as follows:

«Προ του αυτοκινήτου και του ραδιοφώνου
[elsewhere K. also refers to the press and the
cinema – cf. p.55], το χωριό έζη ήρεμον με
τας συνηθείας του, τα ήθη και έθιμά του, τας
παραδόσεις του. Τώρα όμως ο υλισμός των
 πόλεων εισέρχεται, με την ταχύτητα και την
ευκολίαν που του παρέχουν τα σημερινά
μέσα του τεχνικού πολιτισμού, εις την ζωήν
του χωριού» (ibid., my emph.).

Both the “dialectical materialism” of communists and the US materialism of the anti-communists would be utterly rejected by a “Right-winger” such as Kanellakis: the former “materialism” (if he would at all have heard of it) would be rejected out of hand for solidly ‘political’ reasons; the latter would be as much rejected for as solidly ‘socio-cultural’ and/or ‘nationalist’ reasons. Here, in fact, we have a case whereby all forms of “technological civilization” are rejected as threats to the traditional “values” of an authentically Greek, rural lifestyle (and as such threat was coming in from an already ‘poisoned’ “cultural centre”). The key word here is ‘threat’ – it would be quite inevitable that both a Panselinos and a Kanellakis would not have wished to see their “idyllic” worlds be so violently and so swiftly threatened by unknown technological forces barging in from the outside and with unknown consequences. That both a “Left-wing” Panselinos and a monarchist such as Kanellakis would more or less feel the same way is not surprising at all – such emotional response was a generalized phenomenon amongst the Greek popular masses at the time, especially as regards the older generations (though the young as well, growing up as they did with their parents, could – but to a much lesser degree – also have shared elements of such emotional response in the 1950’s-1960’s). Unlike the inflexible monarchist, however, large sections of the population would also – and right at the same time – see such ‘threat’ as a luring challenge for personal material ‘progress’ – and which would further add to the confusion we have been referring to. Kanellakis would himself notice such proclivity for material progress amongst his compatriots and link it automatically to the “new” and “unethical” habits especially rampant amongst youth – he writes:

«Η υλιστική ζωή, το πνεύμα του μοντερνισμού,
η διάδοσις των προϊόντων του βιομηχανικού
πολιτισμού, ο κοσμοπολιτισμός μεταφυτεύονται
ταχύτατα εις το χωριό με το πιστοποιητικόν
μάλιστα της “προόδου” και της “εξελίξεως”.
Επίσης πολλά έντυπα με “επιστημονικάς”
δημαγωγίας και με ερωτικούς αισθησιασμούς
κυκλοφορούν, ολονέν περισσότερον, μεταξύ
της νεολαίας του χωριού, μεταφέροντας τας
ανωτέρω ιδέας της πόλεως. Τας παλαιάς αρχάς
και πεποιθήσεις, τα αγνά ήθη και έθιμα του
χωριού, αντικαθιστούν νέαι συνήθειαι και
τρόποι τελείως ασυμβίβαστοι με το πρώην
παρθένον περιβάλλον της υπαίθρου» (pp.
72-73).

Kanellakis would be most critical of those «νέαι συνήθειαι» especially being adopted by two particular categories of the Greek population living in the “periphery”: the females (more or less approximating the “Amalia-type”) and the young males (someone more or less like a Vasilis Damokas, a young “Blue-Collar” worker at the A&M Mill – cf. our paper investigating the case of this rather ‘ill-disciplined’ employee at the Mill, hired in 1962). As regards the females, Kanellakis would write:

«Η απλή λαϊκή ενδυμασία από υφάσματα,
κατά το πλείστον, επεξειργασμένα από τα
χέρια των γυναικών του χωριού, παραμερίζεται
από την επιδεικτικήν τουαλέτταν…» (p. 73).

As regards youth generally and more specifically the young males, he would go on:

«Η νεολαία, εξ άλλου, επηρεασμένη από
τας νέας αντιλήψεις αισθάνεται περιφρόνησιν
δια τας αγροτικάς ασχολίας και μόνον ιδανικόν
έχει την εγκατάστασίν της εις την Πρωτεύουσαν»
(p. 74).

This clash of “values” between old and young would of course also be as marked at Aliarto – a semi-rural/semi-urban area – and would not at all (or at least not only) come from the quarters of  so-called “conservative” “Right-wingers” and/or “monarchists”. And we need to emphasize here that neither the “emotional” responses of the old nor the “emotional” counter-responses of the young at Aliarto (and its environs), should be considered as “irrational” (in the specific Pareto sense, as discussed by Raymond Aron, in his Main Currents in Sociological Thought [greek edition: Η εξέλιξη της κοινωνιολογικής σκέψης, Εκδόσεις Γνώση, 1984, pp. 166-178): we shall have to return to this important methodological approach a bit further below.

Οn Saturday, December 30, 1961, Aliarto would see the launching of its own local newspaper, the Voiotike Floga – its front page would carry a «Στήλη των νέων» and therein an article would be published entitled «Η κραυγή του Αλέκου». This hypothetical “Alekos” represented the youth of the area and it is highly symptomatic of the ‘youth problem’ at the time that the Aliartian newspaper would decide to establish a permanent column in its front page dealing with the problems of that age category. In this first article on youth, Alekos would be presented as a very angry young man announcing his violent “arrival” to the older generations – signed by certain S. Damianos, part of the text reads as follows:

«…Να φωνάξω έτσι: Παπάδες, Δάσκαλοι,
ασπρομάλληδες, εργοδότες… Είμαστε οι
νέοι που μας σπείρατε με επιπολαιότητα…
Υποψιαστήκατε την παρουσία μας… δεν
αισθανθήκατε τον ερχομό μας;… Προβλήματα
πυρακτωμένα μας καίνε: ο πόλεμος, η πείνα,
η αδικία, … το επάγγελμά μας (το ψωμί μας),
η ψυχαγωγία μας,… ο έρωτας, η ζωή, το
χωριό… οι γροθιές μας σφίχτηκαν και
μετά από λίγο… θα είναι αργά…». (cf.
 Voiotike Floga, 30.12.1961 – No 1, p. 1).

It is most probable that this text does not in fact express the authentic “voice” (or «κραυγή») of Aliartian youth – it must, rather, be seen as an attempt on the part of the Editors of the paper to make their readers aware of how intense the youth problem really is. Still, at least what they write (as opposed to how) must be fairly accurate, based as it is on empirical – though not unbiased – observation. But if in this text the Editors were perhaps putting words in the mouths of youngsters, they would, in June 1962, be directly voicing their own thoughts on the burning issue – in an article entitled «Απολογία στα νειάτα» (and as part of that «Στήλη» already mentioned), they would be apologetic towards youth in general for the situation in which such youngsters were finding themselves in, and yet the paper would also at the same time go on and throw adjectives amounting to hubris right in the face of these new generations. This extreme hubristic discourse essentially degrading Greek youth as a whole must be seen as expressive of the intensity of the clash of “values” generally and of the young-old clash in particular. The «Απολογία», written by Argyris Ioannis («Καθηγητής Φυσικός»), and fully expressive of overall Editorial policy, would go as follows:

«Τελευταία, με τις εκδηλώσεις τεντυμποϊσμού,
το πράγμα έχει προσεχθή … από αρμόδιους και
μη … Η νομοθεσία αντέδρασε αρνητικά. Ο νόμος
4000 καταδικάζει τους παρεκτρεπομένους νέους
εις δημοσίαν διαπόμπευσιν και κατεξευτιλισμόν
με ποινικά επακόλουθα!... Με οργή και
αγανάκτησι “οι σοβαροί” άνθρωποι της κοινωνίας
χαρακτηρίζουν με τις πιο βαρειές φράσεις τους
νέους για τον κατήφορο που έχουν πάρει:
Άγριοι, εγωιστικοί, ατίθασοι, εξωφρενικοί,
απειθάρχητοι, ρέμπελοι, ανήθικοι, αυθάδεις,
αναίσχυντοι… Γιατί οι νέοι έφτασαν σε τέτοιο σημείο
 εκτροπής, που εγγίζει πολλάκις τα όρια της
 διαστροφής;… Γιατί δεν λειτουργούν οι ηθικές
 αντιστάσεις και η προσφερομένη αγωγή δεν
 αναχαιτίζει τις εκρήξεις των ενστίκτων τους;… Όταν
πρόσωπα της κοινωνίας … κρύβουν υποκρισία και
ψευτιά, τότε επόμενον είναι [for a youngster] να
πέση στην απογοήτευση, στον κυνισμό, στην
αναίδεια, ή την απελπισία…» (cf. Voiotike Floga, 26.6.1962,
No 7, p. 2, my emph.).

In the issue of  Voiotike Floga immediately following that of June 1962, the local paper would openly and directly relate that youthful behaviour «που εγγίζει … τα όρια της διαστροφής» to the element of “foreignness”. Now, unlike the monarchist Kanellakis, the Editors of  Voiotike Floga (K. Gelis and N. Kollias, who were both rather well-educated professionals, with the former also running a private school at Aliarto, while the latter was a medical doctor) were definitely for material and technological “progress” and would have rejected Kanellakis’ position as anachronistic ravings (their own political position amounting to something like a pro-“modernistic” “Right-wingness”). And yet, somewhat like the monarchist, they would reject at least certain socio-cultural “values” of the “West”, and especially as such “values” were being adopted by the Greek youth. How it was possible for “organic intellectuals” (educationalists/newsmen) such as Gelis and Kollias to combine both an acceptance of “Western” technology and a rejection of the socio-cultural practices related to such technology, is difficult – though not impossible – to fathom at a theoretical level. But what is of importance here is that such complex combinatories of ideological thinking were characteristic of the period, reflecting as they did the traumas of the transitional period we are examining. Put otherwise: the «γενική σύγχυση» that Petros Haris had spoken of had to be, and ultimately was, “ordered” by various ideological paradigms – the problem was that such “ordering” was done by different and conflicting paradigms (by the “Left”, the “Right”, the young “Amalia-type/s”, the peasants, etc.), and it could only but lead to a fusion of contradictions. Thus, the apparently contradictory paradigm of an organ such as  Voiotike Floga would clash – and it would be a tenacious clash – with the as apparently contradictory socio-cultural paradigms of Greek youth, and especially when such paradigms seemed to take on the more ‘extreme’ nuances of “foreignness”. The July 1962 issue of the local paper would carry an article by someone signing as ‘G. Kr.’ («Τελειόφοιτος Φιλολογίας»), and would unleash an attack which, within the confines of a semi-rural area such as Aliarto, would reveal the full proportions of the dramatic clash between the “old” and the “new” – entitled «Αναθεώρηση ή Δημιουργία – Για το Μεγάλο προσκλητήριο», part of it reads as follows:

«…Είναι πράγματι αξιοθρήνητη η κατάσταση.
Τα ερείπια του περασμένου πολέμου καπνίζουν
ακόμη. Υλικά, ερείπια χαρακτήρων και νεύρων,
πνευματικά ερείπια… Η φτώχεια και η μιζέρια
κρατάνε ακόμη τον σύγχρονο Έλληνα δούλο μιας
περιόδου παρακμής… Και οι νέοι μας;… Θλιβερή
η διαπίστωση μα όμως πραγματική. Πλήρης
αδιαφορία. Ένα πνεύμα υλιστικό κυριαρχεί. Είναι
ένας υλισμός όχι σαν του περασμένου αιώνα…
Είναι κάτι το παράδοξο. Οι νέοι μας με τίποτε δεν
ικανοποιούνται. Αυτό το αίσθημα της μη
 προσαρμογής και του ανικανοποιήτου οδηγεί
 στη συνεχή αλλαγή και τέλος στη δουλική
 μίμηση των ξένων… Τζαζ, περιπετειώδη φιλμς,
 ροκ ή τουίστ, πανσεξουαλισμός, tde dy [sic] boys
 (τέντυ μπόου [sic]) του Δυτικού Κόσμου, ή
hooligans Χούλιγκανς του Ανατολικού, να μια
 ξενική εικόνα, που επιγραμματικά μεταφέρεται
 σήμερα στα δικά μας πλαίσια…» (cf. Voiotike Floga,
22.7.1962, No 8, p. 2, my emph.).

 

By early 1963, the local paper would continue its attack on the life-style of youth, this time hitting out at those most popular of “cultural institutions” attracting young people at the time – i.e. their beloved «σφαιριστήρια» (billiard halls). Very much closely related to what is said above as to «εκτροπή» and «διαστροφή», as also about “Hooliganism” and “Teddy- boyism”, the paper would report the following in an article entitled «Σφαιριστήρια»:

«Από πολλού χρόνου λειτουργούν εις
Λεβάδειαν, Θήβαις και τώρα τελευταία
εις Αλίαρτον, Ορχομενόν, Αγ. Γεώργιον
και εις άλλα χωριά της Βοιωτίας σφαιριστήρια.
Οι ιδιοκτήται αγνοούντες την βλάβην που
προξενούν εις την εφηβικήν ψυχήν, δέχονται
εις τα σφαιριστήρια νέους εργαζομένους ή
μαθητάς κάτω της καθορισθείσης ηλικίας
υπό της Αστυνομίας… Εκτός όμως τούτου
ουδεμία επίβλεψις ή παρατήρησις γίνεται εις
εκτρεπομένους νέους, οι οποίοι υβρίζουν
και βλασφημούν. Ούτω τα σφαιριστήρια
από κέντρα ψυχαγωγίας γίνονται κέντρα
ψυχοφθόρα και αλητείας. Η Αστυνομία, οι
γονείς και οι εκπαιδευτικοί ιδία των Γυμνασίων
ας λάβουν τα μέτρα». (cf. Voiotike Floga, 24.2.1963,
Νο 13).

One may wish to argue that the line toed by Gelis and Kollias was simply or exclusively representative of the “conservative” “Right”: it is quite true that their  Voiotike Floga would often carry exhortations such as the following:

«Να δημιουργήσουμε ένα Νέο Ελληνικό
πολιτισμό βασισμένο στις παλιές αρχές του
ελληνοχριστιανικού πολιτισμού, που θα
αναδημιουργείται συνεχώς ανάλογα με τα
αιτήματα των καιρών…[etc.]» (cf. Voiotike Floga,
11.11.1962, Νο 9).

But whatever suggestion that it was only the “conservative” or “Right-wing” quarters that clashed with the “foreign-inclined” socio-cultural practices of the younger generations would, based on the empirical data available, be wide off the mark (and we may here remind ourselves of how “Left intellectuals” had looked down on the new ‘consumerist’ trends in general). Let us here, for instance, consider the case of the Thiva-based newspaper Allagi tis Voiotias [Αλλαγή της Βοιωτίας – Μηνιαία Προοδευτική Εφημερίς], also circulating in the 1960’s (established May 17, 1964). As suggested by the term «προοδευτική», etc., and as explicitly stated in its various Editorials, this paper was pro-ΕΔΑ (and therefore expressed views of both the communist and non-communist “Left”).

The June 14, 1964 issue of this paper would carry an article on the annual demonstrations organized by the Thiva Highschool for its summer closure (that same institution attended by Amalia Eleftheriadou at the time). It would report on the event as follows:

«Την 24ην Μαΐου [1964] ενώπιον των δημοτικών,
πολιτικών και στρατιωτικών Αρχών των Θηβών
ετελέσθησαν οι καθιερωμένες ετήσιες επιδείξεις
του Γυμνασίου Θηβών…». (cf. Allagi tis Voiotias,
14.6.1964, No 2, p. 2).

What was, for this “Left-wing” organ, the central most important newsworthy item about this event involving high school pupils? For it, what truly mattered was how those youngsters behaved in front of their seniors, and especially as such seniors constituted the official «Αρχές» of Thiva. The paper would write:

«Παρατηρήθηκε κάποια αταξία στην
διεξαγωγή των αγωνισμάτων…[etc.]»
(ibid., my emph.).

This might sound lukewarm criticism of youthful behaviour, especially if compared with the hubris thrown at youngsters by the Aliartian  Voiotike Floga. But in that selfsame issue of Allagi, the Editors would also publish an article which voiced its concerns about what it called the «Εκμαυλισμό της νεολαίας». Endorsing the views of a Mr. Kafetzopoulos, who was the then «Πρόεδρος Επαγγελματοβιοτεχνών Λειβαδείας», the paper would go on to enumerate the causes and symptoms of the crisis of a youth characterized by a certain «αταξία» – such causes/symptoms would include:

«Κινηματογραφικές ταινίες άθλιες,
πορνογραφήματα, κατάπτωσης
αθλητισμού κλπ.» (ibid., p. 4).

Proposals published in Allagi and meant to deal with the problem of youth could as well have been written by Gelis, Kollias and their own ideological cohorts – we read:

«… Κατάργησι των σφαιριστηρίων με τζούκ-μπόξ …
Αυστηρός έλεγχος στις εισαγόμενες
γκαγκστερικές ταινίες … Απαγόρευσιν ασέμνων
περιοδικών…» (ibid.).

The “Left-wing” clash with the new, “Western”-inspired socio-cultural practices of the young – and as already alluded to when examining the discourse of “intellectuals” above – basically came down to a feeling of “frustration” (on the part of the “Left”) as regards the overall orientation of the majority of young people. Voula Damianakou, who knew Giannis Ritsos personally (and who was of course the poet of the communist “Left”), describes the feelings of the poet towards the younger generations as follows:

«Έλπιζες, Ρίτσο αγαπημένε μας, κι όλοι
ελπίζαμε. Μα τα σημάδια τα δυσοίωνα
όλο πληθαίναν και σκιάζαν τις ελπίδες
μας. Πολύ και το φαινόμενο της νεολαίας
 σε απέλπιζε: Εδώ στην κατανάλωση εκεί
 να καταλιέται, στραβή πορεία στα στραβά…»
(cf. B. Damianakou, Τιμιότατο να ‘σαι
 Έλληνας – Να ’σαι ο Γιάννης Ρίτσος, Εκδόσεις
Επικαιρότητα, Oct. 1991, p. 24, my emph.).

The clash between the “new” and the “old”, between the “unethicality” of the young and the “propriety” of a Kanellakis, a Gelis, a Kollias or of the Editors of Allagi, would actually spill over and encompass other sectors of Greek society – as was quite inevitable, the socio-cultural practices of the younger generations would rub off and affect/influence other segments of society as well, thus generalizing the clash of “values” we have been describing. But what must sound absolutely paradoxical to the researcher of the period we are investigating, is that the so-called “unethicality” of the young would also be reproduced in sectors of society one would least expect – for instance, one would have thought that, in the early-1960’s, the Armed Forces (that bastion of so-called “conservative nationalism” meant to supposedly ‘guard’ Greek society from the corruptions of the day, and which also harboured the likes of a George Papadopoulos who was to very soon establish a dictatorial regime flourishing an ideology of presumably puritan ‘Greco-Orthodox’ ideals) would themselves not ever be ‘poisoned’ by the immoral «αταξίες» of the unruly youngsters. And yet, history writes its story in a manner befitting the sheer complexities of its various “forms of life”. Consider the following article, entitled «Οργασμός χορών», and which was published in 1963 in Voiotike Floga:

«Έγινε πλέον κανών και μόδα, αι ημέραι των
απόκρεω να γεμίζουν από χορούς… Το τι γίνεται
εις τους χορούς αυτούς, ακόμη και εις τους
πλέον καλώς ωργανωμένους και “πολιτισμένους”
μπορούν να πουν αυτοί που παρηκολούθησαν
τον διαλαληθέντα χορόν των Αξιωματικών του
Κ.Ε.Π. εις Θήβας. Περί του ίδιου “πολιτισμένου”
χορού μαρτυρούν και αι φωτογραφίαι αι οποίαι
ελήφθησαν και κυκλοφορούν… Ελπίζομεν ότι οι
αξιότιμοι οικογενειάρχαι και σύζυγοι θα οικτείρουν
εαυτούς, που προσήλθον εις τον χορόν αυτόν.
 Αλλά και οι Αξιωματικοί θα έχουν μετανοήση
 πικρά που άφησαν τον εαυτόν τους να παρασυρθή
 από το κατώτερο ρεύμα της κοινωνίας. Τώρα τι
γίνεται εις τους άλλους χορούς είναι υποτιμητικόν
όχι μόνον να το γράψη κανείς, αλλά και να το
φαντασθή» (cf, Voiotike Floga, 24.2.1963, Νο 13,
my emph.).

This ‘spilling over’ and the ‘rubbing off’ we have spoken of above is clearly indicated in the  Voiotike Floga article by the phrase «άφησαν τον εαυτόν να παρασυρθή» – that which had beguiled the Officers and led them astray were the ‘lower instincts’ and the ‘lower trends’ within Greek society, and – judging by the hubris used by the local papers in describing the life-style of youth – one can only but draw the conclusion that such ‘trends’ emanated from this particular social grouping.

We may therefore say that the likes of a Kanellakis the monarchist, of a Gelis/Kollias the “Right-wing pro-technology ethicalists”, as also the likes of the “Left-wing pro-socialist ethicalists” – all such clusters of people would, not only be hitting out at youth itself, but at whoever happened in some way or other or at some point in time to reproduce the ways of the young (i.e. they would be mercilessly attacking those who allowed themselves to be led astray by the ‘lower’ instincts and trends, such as the military Officers mentioned). But these clusters of “organic intellectuals” would of course go on to as mercilessly attack whoever remained (apparently) “indifferent” to what was happening around them. Now, such “indifference” – and we need emphasize that such a stance was only apparently “indifferent”, hiding as it did within it both a fear of and an attraction to the new challenges opening up – could actually be said to include great masses of people mainly residing in rural or semi-rural areas such as Aliarto. It would be such people – on average middle-aged and over – whom the local Aliartian newspaper would stigmatize. In July 1962, it would carry an article entitled «Να λείψουν οι στενοκέφαλοι», and part of which went as follows:

«Οι άνθρωποι που καταδικάζουν την επαρχίαν
μας εις την αμάθειαν, την αφάνειαν, το σκότος
& τον μαρασμό… Έχομεν υπ’ όψιν μας πολλά
χωριά, τα οποία θα είχαν ανακαινισθεί ήδη, εάν
δεν υπήρχαν οι ολίγοι εκείνοι άνθρωποι, τα
καθυστερημένα εκείνα μυαλά, τα γεμάτα από
πείσμα και εγωισμό, οι οποίοι είναι οι
“πολύξεροι” και οι “διανοούμενοι” του χωριού
ή της πόλεως … Οι άνθρωποι που εμαθήτευσαν
εις την ταβέρνα ή τα καφενεία του χωριού, τα
μοναδικά δι’ αυτούς σχολεία, από τα οποία
έμαθαν να είναι άσσοι εις την πρέφαν και το
κουτσομπολιό, μοναδικοί εις το άδειασμα των
βαρελιών και το κάπνισμα των αργιλέδων …
Αλλά είναι απορίας άξιον πώς ανέχονται οι άλλοι
και υπολογίζουν τις γνώμες τέτοιων ανθρώπων».
(cf. Voiotike Floga, 22.7.1962, No 8).

And yet, such “indifferent” people – what we might call the 1960’s “traditional” coffee-shop/taverna regulars – actually represented the vast majority of the older male generations. While spending many hours working in the fields or at a Mill such as that of A&M, and while spending perhaps as many hours in the coffee-shops and their tavernas, they would ultimately have to return to their homes. And what was it they found therein? What faced them there was the central arena of socio-cultural struggle at the time – i.e. the ever-rising doubt/rejection of their authority as “Patriarchs” by the young “Amalia-type”, as also by the young male “Damokas-type”. As we have elsewhere shown in this series of papers discussing the socio-cultural ‘milieu’ of the 1950’s-1970’s, the Greek Family Unit was beginning to be fairly seriously ‘rocked’, and especially given the up-and-coming ‘sexual revolution’. At least until such time as the consumerist behaviour of an Amalia and that of her parents would converge, meet and supplement one another, the clash between the so-called “indifferent” coffee-shop regulars-cum-parents and their offspring would be intense, though such intensity could vary much depending on circumstances.

In a very important sense, then, the conflicts of the period were centered, not merely around the polemics of a Kanellakis or of a  Voiotike Floga – in fact, the real conflicts were above all most concentrated around the everyday lives of those apparently “indifferent” parents, and as such parents had to confront the new socio-cultural practices of youngsters right inside their own house (cf., for instance, an article published in a 1965 daily newspaper [the clipping does not allow us to identify the name of the paper] which describes a violent clash between father and daughter over the latter’s insistence on listening to “twist songs” – «Η κόρη ήθελε τουίστ αλλά έμεινε χωρίς μαλλιά – Ο δράστης – κουρεύς μπαμπάς απηλλάγη»). Now, as such new practices were transferred inside a home, the “Patriarchal” father (but the mother in her own way as well) would see his own “authority” fading – and thus, like Kanellakis, Gelis, Kollias and the Editors of Allagi, he too would also wish to see his kids “disciplined” by “Authorities” outside his home, be these the School directly, the Church indirectly, or even the Police if need be. Seeing his own “Patriarchal authority” waning, in other words, he would turn to organs of the State (“private” or “public”) to maintain order within this clash of “values”. And thus, were the coffee-shop regular to have read  Voiotike Floga while sipping his coffee, he would certainly have agreed with either the disciplinary injunctions meant to bring youth back to order or with whatever initiatives meant to tame the ‘wilder instincts’ of an Amalia Eleftheriadou or a Vasilis Damokas. And despite what the Editors of such local papers themselves thought, the coffee-shop regular was in fact an avid reader of newspapers right within the coffee-shop: it is a fact that most coffee-shops in villages near Thiva or Levadia had a special table in some corner piled with newspapers and these would be shared amongst regulars.

All of the older generations, faced with the ‘youth problem’, would have quite agreed with the following article published in  Voiotike Floga towards the end of 1962, and tellingly entitled «Η μεγάλη ευθύνη»:

«… Διότι ποίοι ποτέ ηθέλησαν να έλθουν αρωγοί
εις την επίλυσιν των τόσων προβλημάτων που
αντιμετωπίζουν οι νέοι μας; Των σχολικών, των
σεξουαλικών, της ηθικής, της μελλοντικής
επαγγελματικής αποκαταστάσεως και των τόσων
άλλων που σχετίζονται με τας συνθήκας της
οικογενειακής, της κοινωνικής ζωής και του εν
γένει περιβάλλοντος; … Kάτι θέλησε να προσφέρη
η εκκλησία και αι διάφοραι χριστιανικαί κινήσεις,
με τα Κατηχητικά Σχολεία, τας Χριστιανικάς
Μαθητικάς Ομάδας, τας Κατασκηνώσεις, αλλά τα
αποτελέσματά των δεν ήταν ικανοποιητικά, εξαιτίας
της προκαταλήψεως πολλών της μη δυνατότητος
των εν λόγω προσπαθειών … Αι ιδιωτικαί πρωτοβουλίαι
έχουν εκλείψει…». (cf. Voiotike Floga, 11.11.1962, No 9).

We assume that extreme measures taken by the central State to fight the “Teddy-boy” phenomenon – such as ‘Law 4000’ of the 1960’s mentioned above – would not necessarily have met with the approval of the “average parent” (bar extreme cases, that is). Writing prior to the enactment of such law, in 1959, Varikas (op. cit., p. 192), would perhaps have expressed that more compromising stance of the “average” Greek parent when he would write:

«…θα αδικούσαμε πολύ τα σύγχρονα νιάτα,
αν δεν θέλαμε να δούμε σ’ αυτά παρά μόνο
τις εκδηλώσεις του “τεντυμποϋσμού”, του
αμοραλισμού και της τυφλής ικανοποίησης
των ενστίκτων».

Yet still, parents would have expected the school (especially) to have taken over the role of a “disciplining” mechanism (and which would also imbibe in their children some kind of Greek version of the “work ethic”, which was itself, by the way, to willy-nilly prepare kids as successful consumers). Thus, when Gelis wanted to advertise his own private school (through the pages of his Voiotike Floga) to those “indifferent” compatriots of his, he would really know what it was that they wanted to hear – his 1962 advertisement would go as follows:

«ΙΔΙΩΤΙΚΟΝ ΓΥΜΝΑΣΙΟΝ
Κ. ΓΚΕΛΙ
ΕΝ ΑΛΙΑΡΤΩ –
 Η εργατικότης, η αυστηρότης, η παρακολούθησις,
 η τακτική επικοινωνία με τους γονείς,
 το άνετο περιβάλλον κ.λ.π. είναι από τα μέσα,
πού διαθέτει το Γυμνάσιόν μας …» (cf. Voiotike Floga,
26.6.1962, No 7, p. 2, their emph.).

The question of work-discipline («εργατικότης») and of severity («αυστηρότης») would be widely accepted “values” amongst the older generations. Thus, when the Local Authorities of the region would organize «Γυμναστικαί επιδείξεις» amongst high schools in 1962, the purpose of such activities – according to the  Voiotike Floga – would be defined as follows:

«…ο εθισμός των μαθητών εις την
συστηματικήν και πειθαρχημένην εργατικότητα»
(ibid.).

All social institutions at the time would try to somehow ‘tame’ what then seemed to be wild, ferocious ‘instincts’ heralding from a ‘Wild West’ unheard of in pre-war Greece – but as Varikas was trying to point out, the drives of Greek youth were not just that, and gradually the old would be ‘meeting’ the young in the terrain of consumption and in at least some of the socio-cultural trends projected by the advertizing sector. Such sector had no choice but to take into account the realities we have been describing, and it would do so especially in the course of the seven-year Military Dictatorship. The practices of the latter would be highly contradictory: while it would have no choice but to allow the deluge of new socio-cultural patterns to enter Greek society, it would still insist on ‘taming’ the youthful ‘Wild West’ (and would do so most probably because it was rather scared of it). Thus, and according to a June 1967 issue of yet another Thiva newspaper – I Foni ton Thivon [Η Φωνή των Θηβών] – the regime would try to make use of both the Church and the School in a desperate attempt to hold back the socio-cultural tide that was already on its way – we read:

«Το Υπουργείον Παιδείας δι’ εγκυκλίου προς
τους επιθεωρητάς Στοιχ. Εκπ/σεως εντέλλεται
όπως οι μαθηταί των δημοτικών σχολείων
εκκλησιάζωνται κατά Κυριακήν» (cf. I Foni ton Thivon, 5.6.1967, No 554).

Such cultural clashes as we are describing, we should not forget, were taking place in material conditions of a widespread poverty (cf. Koeppen above), and especially as regards the very early-1960’s. It is surely a major paradox of such period that, while youngsters were beginning to experiment with new cultural trends, this experimentation would go hand-in-hand with the struggles of parents to actually feed their children – and this would, again, further add to the psychic confusion and characterize the turbulent transitionality of such period.

To give us some picture of the scale of such poverty, and especially as that plagued the “periphery”, we may consider the following extract taken from a 1962 article in  Voiotike Floga:

«Τα νειάτα της υπαίθρου κυνηγημένα από
την ανεργία εγκαταλείπουν την πατρική γη
και φεύγουν… Φεύγουν για τις μεγάλες πόλεις.
Φεύγουν για τις ξένες χώρες. Ποίο άραγε είναι
το μέλλον του ερημουμένου τούτου τόπου;»
(cf. Voiotike Floga , 22.7.1962, No 8).

The Aliartian barber we have elsewhere referred to in this research project is himself an excellent example of such migratory trends caused above all by poverty. We may summarize his own sojourn in life as follows:

• Born in 1926 in Domvraina, a village of Thiva. He would begin working from a very early age – first as a vendor of food products around the nearby villages (he would use a donkey for this), and then as a trainee barber;
• He would move to Thiva so as to train as a car mechanic;
• He would return to his village and establish his own barber-shop (with a partner);
• He would then move to a suburb of Piraeus and again establish a barber-shop;
• He would move back to Domvraina and again establish a barber-shop – the cut-throat competition between barber-shops in his village, and the fact that he would get married and have children, would bring him to near-bankruptcy;
• By the very early-1960’s, he would make his move to Aliarto and again establish his own barber-shop. He would try to supplement his income by also working as a sales representative (would sell fridges to various tavernas, etc. around the villages of Thiva and Levadia); It would be in this period of his life when he would, for the very first time (by now in his 30’s), begin to make his first timid steps as a “consumer” – e.g. he would buy a radio for his family, “modern” clothes for his wife and kids. Still, such “consumerism” would be fairly restricted by the tight family budget;
• He would move to a suburb of Athens and would work as a wage-earning barber for a barber-shop at Omonoia; he would combine this by also working night-shifts as a supervisor of female workers in a smallish clothes manufacturing company;
• Frustrated with his economic plight – he had still not managed to buy a fridge for his family – he would, by August 1963, leave for South Africa. There, he would first work as a wage-earning barber for an Italian and soon establish his own barber-shop.
• It would only be by the early-1980’s that he would return to Athens and establish his own – and final – barber-shop in the city.
• He would finally retire in Domvraina and be buried there in 2012.

Here we have ‘ten easy steps’ for an “average Greek” belonging to the popular masses at the time to be able to finally declare himself a “consumer” (and house-owner). This man, like thousands of others, had chosen his “exodus”. For those who remained behind, material conditions in the early 1960’s remained tough – the same July 1962 issue of  Voiotike Floga referred to above would also publish an article entitled «Σκελετωμένα παιδιά» – it went as follows:

«Αν κανείς παρηκολούθησε τας γυμναστικάς
επιδείξεις ή τους περιφερειακούς αγώνας … [θα]
παρετήρησε … με λύπην ότι τα … ελληνόπουλα
διέθεταν κατά το πλείστον σώματα αδύνατα και
σκελετωμένα. Δεν χρειάζεται βέβαια να πούμε
ότι αυτά τα παιδιά είναι το μέλλον της φυλής
μας, η ελπίς της αύριον κ.λ.π. κ.λ.π… Η φυλή
δεν μεγαλουργεί με καχεκτικά και σκελετωμένα
κορμιά… Οι Αρμόδιοι και οι κατά τόπους
εκπαιδευτικοί ας οργανώσουν εκστρατείαν δια
την καταπολέμησιν της πείνας και του
υποσιτισμού εις την επαρχίαν μας. Οι Γονείς ας
φροντίσουν όσο μπορούν περισσότερον την
υγείαν των παιδιών των… Μόνον έτσι θα
μπορέσουμε να παρακολουθούμε επιδείξεις δια
να ευχαριστούμεθα… Άλλως θα μας θυμίζουν το
τρομερόν χειμώνα 1941-42» (ibid.).

Now, while the ex-Aliartian barber would be slaving away with his pair of scissors somewhere in Johannesburg, those «σκελετωμένα παιδιά» would soon be able to drink their proper dosages of milk and, as soon –  say by 1968 – even be able to “drink brand-names” (as in any case Erich Fromm would wish us to see it) such as Coca-Cola. We know that Greece was having its first (and only) “industrial revolution”, and both young and old would see this and many members of both age-groups would find a common (though still culturally contradictory) ground as regards the question of working hard so as to earn money and enter the age of consumption – the “Amalia-type” and her brother would belong to this category of youth. The «σκελετωμένα παιδιά» would soon be consuming enough milk and meat so as to grow robust and be ready for the “new age”. According to the 1972 “Statistical Yearbook Of Greece” and based on the selected series of world statistics it also includes, the per capita increase in the consumption of milk and meat amongst Greeks would be as follows (in grams per day):

MEAT        MILK
1960-62              72              344
1963-65              92              387
1967                   111             448
(cf. p. 382)

Or, in terms of consumer price indices for Greece, and with specific reference to food up until 1970, the Yearbook provides us with the following picture (in annual averages):

1965 – 105
1966 – 112
1967 – 112
1968 – 112
1969 – 116
1970 – 120
(cf. p. 381)

Parents at the time acquired an almost religious devotion to their mission of feeding their children – their war-time experiences, especially that «τρομερόν χειμώνα» of 1941-2, would drive them to an almost psychotic obsession with the amount of food their kids consumed. One representative example of advertizing which circulated in 1961, and which placed the child and its eating at centre-stage, ran as follows:

«Με ΜΙΑ δραχμή ΔΥΟ γεύματα…
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΙΔΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ…
Με προϊόντα ΓΙΩΤΗ…»
(cf. Kathimerini, 23.5.1961).

This advertisement, to which we shall have to return below, does a number of things – inter alia, it ‘plays’ with the rubric “Kingdom of Greece”, suggesting as it does that such “Kingdom” now belongs to the young – and, further, that this up-and-coming new generation had to have its calories and proteins (the most popular «ΓΙΩΤΗ» product being, of course, milk).

Gradually, it would not be merely food that had to be provided to the Greek child – especially as the latter became a teenager, parents would work hard to provide their offspring with clothes and whatever other artifacts would come to constitute the new “consumerist” model. In some sense, the socio-cultural conflicts which truly ‘rocked’ the Greek Family Unit would almost inevitably yield practices within such Unit which aimed at maintaining ‘balances’ between parents and offspring through a series of ‘compromises’ – one can imagine, for instance, the parents of Amalia allowing their daughter, while still at high school, to go to Levadia and treat herself to a new dress. And this would itself initiate the parents themselves to new consumer patterns. As the years went by in the 1960’s, the “average Greek” would be able to do that – even Konstandinos Tsoukalas, in his otherwise bad little book ‘analysing’ events which led to the regime of 21st April, would have no choice but to admit:

«Μη ξεχνάμε ότι το σημερινό καθεστώς
[i.e. the 1967 Military Dictatorship] έδρεψε
τους καρπούς μιας δεκαπενταετούς
απρόσκοπτης οικονομικής ανάπτυξης της
οποίας οι αντανακλάσεις στο επίπεδο ζωής
των καταπιεζομένων τάξεων δεν έγιναν
εμφανείς παρά στις αρχές του 1960»
(cf. Η Ελληνική Τραγωδία [The Greek Tragedy], Εκδόσεις
Ολκός, 1974, p. xii).

We shall end these notes on the historical context covering the 1950’s-1960’s period by a recapitulation of the basic thrust of our argumentation, clarify possible ambiguities, and relate all such to the advertizing discourse that would ensue.

All too often, we have emphasized the conflict between the “old” and the “new”, and this with special reference to the socio-cultural practices that such “old” and “new” carried. We have tried to show how such conflict would yield a socio-cultural “confusion” amongst the Greek people. And we have suggested that this would create the need for such generalized “confusion” to be ideologically “ordered” by the “organic intellectuals” of the day. However, and given the specific historical circumstances, we would have a variety of conflicting paradigms trying to establish some sort of “order” within such “confusion”. Such conflicting paradigms would, on the one hand, yield the “tired person” of the early 1960’s – we believe that the  Voiotike Floga was quite accurate in its description of the early-1960’s Greek as «τον αναμένοντα κουρασμένον σημερινόν άνθρωπον» (cf. Voiotike Floga, 30.12.1961, No 1, p. 1, my emph.). On the other hand, it would yield extremities such as that of the “Teddy-boy” phenomenon amongst Greek youth. The older generations were “tired” because of the conflicting paradigms in a context of poverty; the younger generations were “angry” because all such paradigms, whatever their ideological orientation, were essentially hostile to their new-found socio-cultural practices and especially as regards the question of sex (in 1970, Panselinos would note: «… την ώρα που γράφονται τούτα … συντελιέται μια ηθική επανάσταση της νεολαίας που έχει κιόλας συντρίψει τα βάθρα της ερωτικής δεισιδαιμονίας» – cf. op. cit., p. 205).

As we have seen above, the “Kanellakis-type paradigm” (against the new technology and with heavy dosages of “traditional ethicalism”) would clash with the “Gelis/Kollias-type paradigm” (for the new technology but still also with heavy elements of “traditional ethicalism”). Both of these “Right-wing”-inspired paradigms would clash with the “Allagi-type paradigm” (which, being “Left-wing”-inspired, would only accept technology within a socialist context and would also adopt an “ethicalist” position against the corruptions of the Western style of life, the “consumerism” of which it saw as a disorientation from political struggle). And all three of these paradigms would clash with the “indifferent” coffee-shop regulars, precisely because they showed an apparent “indifference” towards matters of technology, ethics, nationalism and socialism. But, in actual truth, these coffee-shop regulars and hard-working drunkards, together with their wives, would clash with their sons and daughters, noticing as they would that their offspring would be gradually demolishing the foundations of “traditional” “sexual prejudices” or concomitant “superstitions” (Panselinos).

Facing both Kanellakis, and Gelis/Kollias, and those who struggled for a “socialist ΑΛΛΑΓΗ”, and also facing the “Patriarchal Family Unit”, there would be the up-and-coming young “Amalia-type”. The latter, together with friends and/or possible sexual partners such as the “Vasilis Damokas-type”, would sense this fusion of contradictions – they would live it directly and feel it deep inside their very guts. The “Amalia+Vasilis-type” would itself be deeply-rooted in “Greekness”, given the socio-cultural formation within which it had been raised – but it would come to articulate such “Greekness” with its pro-“Western” socio-cultural “values”, with its love for the new technology of the time, etc. (and all of which would of course be subsumed within a new “consumerist” behaviour).

It would be this “New Identity” which, as it experienced this fusion of contradictions we have referred to, would ultimately come to gradually defuse the situation, and this process of defusion would have as its basic form precisely the socio-cultural/sexual revolution of youth. The “values” of this veritable revolution would, in the long run, ultimately become dominant throughout society, at least by the early 1980’s (we say ‘dominant’, which by implication suggests that such “values” would continue co-existing with the more ‘residual’ secondary cultural systems and sub-systems). But much of that “New Identity” – and that “New Type” of person – which was raising its head, being dominant, would ultimately also come to be adopted by many sections of the older generations: “modernism”, as a socio-cultural practice, would permeate the whole of society. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the spearhead of this defusing revolution would, amongst females, have been the young “Amalia-type”.

Now, if, as we have suggested, the 1950’s-1960’s period was essentially transitional, we need also emphasize that the “Amalia-type” was also as transitional a type. Amalia Eleftheriadou, like all the younger employees at the A&M Mill, had been raised in a family which carried intense memories of the recent war and her parents were themselves children of the rural, traditional style of life. Her own boss at the Mill, Marakis, was himself a man with a military past and consistently adopted stern “traditionalist/ethicalist” practices even in the running of his company. And Amalia herself, as a young female employee whose income was, in the 1960’s/early 1970’s, still determined by the Greek sexual division of labour (and the low remuneration that went with it – cf. our papers on Greek women workers generally and Mill female employees in particular in the 1960’s/1970’s period), would continue to hover between the need to survive and the wish to spend some of her earnings on “luxury” products. And finally, Amalia in the 1960’s was only just beginning to be exposed to whatever foreign “values”. All such biographical data allow us to conclude that this “New Type” of person that Amalia represented was definitely “new”, but surely only in a relative sense – we may thus go further and suggest that the “Amalia-type”, being only relatively “new” as a type, was itself a new balance of contradictions: while carrying the “old” in her, Amalia was bent on “modernizing” her life, and in that she was the spearhead of her time. It was precisely to this new balance of contradictions – to this relatively, and therefore internally contradictory, “New Type” of Greek female – that the advertizing industry would have to talk to, and do so convincingly. The new contradictions of the “Amalia-type” would have to be somehow reflected in the discourse of advertizing-as-a-Whole. (Need we say, of course, that since the advertizing industry would also have needed to target the older generations as well, the strategies of its discourse had to steer along lines which were doubly compounded in terms of complexity.)

We may now further suggest that this overall movement from the “confusion” of the period to the rise of the “Amalia-New-Type” signaled the rise of the Greek middle class milieu – the Greek version of the post-war “Golden Age” would determine such movement and throw whatever so-called “anachronistic” flotsam (and also whatever dogmatic understandings of ‘class struggle’) overboard. It is impossible to understand the discourse of advertizing in Greece unless one further considers such new middle class milieu.

GLOSSARY:

NOTES:
● «ΑΛΛΑΓΗ»: “CHANGE”.
● «Αναθεώρηση ή Δημιουργία – Για το Μεγάλο προσκλητήριο»: “Revision or Creation – For the Great call/bidding”.
● «ανάρια φώτα»: dim lights
● «Απολογία στα νειάτα»: “An apology/apologia to youth”.
● «Αρχές»: the authorities
● «αταξία»: disorder
● «άφησαν τον εαυτόν να παρασυρθή»: let themselves be led astray
● «γενική σύγχυση»: generalized confusion, perplexity, bewilderment
● «Γυμναστικαί επιδείξεις»: “Gymnastic demonstrations”.
● «Εκμαυλισμός της νεολαίας»: “The corruption of youth”.
● «εκτροπή»; «διαστροφή»: deviation; perversion
● «Η κόρη ήθελε τουίστ αλλά έμεινε χωρίς μαλλιά – Ο δράστης-κουρεύς μπαμπάς απηλλάγη»: “The daughter wanted to dance the twist but was left without hair – the perpetrator-barber dad is acquitted”.
● «Η κραυγή του Αλέκου»: “Alekos’ scream”.
● «Η μεγάλη ευθύνη»: “The great responsibility”.
● «Καθηγητής Φυσικός»: physics teacher
● «με δυσκολεύει»: it bothers/disturbs me; it is giving me a hard time
● «μυστικιστικό»: mystical
● «Να λείψουν οι στενοκέφαλοι»: “There is no room for the narrow-minded” (free translation).
● «Οργασμός χορών»: “Dancing orgasm”, or “An orgasm of dances”.
● «πιο βαθιά»: deeper
● «που εγγίζει… τα όρια της διαστροφής»: which verges on perversion
● «προβλήματα, που έχουν γίνει πύρινοι κύκλοι…»: problems, which have become fiery circles (in the sense of vicious and fierce)
● «Πρόεδρος Επαγγελματοβιοτεχνών Λειβαδείας»: Chairman of the Levadia professional classes, craftsmen and merchants
● «προοδευτική»: progressive
● «ρεκλάμες πολύχρωμες»: multicoloured advertisements
● «Σκελετωμένα παιδιά»: “Emaciated children”.
● «σταυροδρόμι του αέρα»: a wind-blown junction/crossroads (free translation)
● «Στήλη των νέων»: “Youth column”.
● «Τελειόφοιτος Φιλολογίας»: philology graduate
● «τέχνη πολύτροπη»: multimodal art
● «τι είναι αυτός ο “δυτικός κόσμος”, τι αξίζει… έπειτ’ από τόσες ριζικές μεταβολές, τι μπορεί να προσφέρει στο μεταπολεμικό άτομο…;»: what is this “western world”, what be its merit… following so many radical changes, what can it offer to the post-war individual…?
● «Τιμιότατο να ‘σαι Ελληνας – Να ‘σαι ο Γιάννης Ρίτσος»: “It is most honourable to be a Greek – To be Giannis Ritsos”.
● «το σχήμα της ρευστής εποχής μας»: the form of our volatile era
● «τον αναμένοντα κουρασμένον σημερινόν άνθρωπον»: the anticipative, tired person of the early-1960’s (free translation)
● «τρομερόν χειμώνα»: terrible winter
● «ψυχή»: spirit

THE NEW TYPE: EMERGENCE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS MILIEU

The clash between the “residual” and the “modern” which we have described above was inevitable, and it was so determined by the specific circumstances of the period. Thus, when we speak of “residual” and “modern”, we do not in whatever way mean to “value” either of these as either “bad” or “good”. Both expressed their own logic and cohesion, both were “carried” by historical subjects for objective, historical reasons. And if there was any element of the ‘irrational’ in what was “carried”, it could have applied to both “old” and “new”. Further, even elements of so-called ‘irrational behaviour’ can be shown to be functional in relation to the social environment within which they operate – it is in this sense that we would fully reject the Pareto sociological model referred to above.

Now, this clash was – for the period we are discussing – the dominant contradiction within the Greek social formation, cutting across and permeating social strata in ways which by-passed any simple Capital-Labour contradiction (Greece, in any case, was characterized by a complex combination of modes of production). And we say that such clash was dominant because, as we look back in history, we realize that it was this socio-cultural clash that would most determine the form of social stratification in modern-day Greece. It would, as it progressed, yield the middle class milieu: we speak of ‘milieu’ because middle class “values” and the middle class style of life would become dominant as an ideology (not in the narrow political sense) for all social strata of the popular masses, whether these worked in a small factory such as A&M, in a large clothes manufacturing plant such as the Thiva-based Dourida factory, or simply ran their own entrepreneurial operations (as did the ex-Maraki worker, Zigoyiannis, who would, at some point in time, shuttle workers to the Dourida factory with his private bus service). Again, that this clash was to yield such a milieu is not to be evaluated as either “good” or “bad” – it yielded a “form of life” which demands that it be examined in absolute objectivity.

This dominant clash, we are saying, did not happen in a social void, permeating as it did all social strata. But although it was to yield a dominant middle class milieu, it would – at first – affect different social strata in specific ways: it could only but have been received by different social strata in their own specific ways, and that obviously given their different social circumstances. The young “Amalia-type” could not possibly have received an advertisement – and undertaken the possible consumption that went with it – in the way that a daughter of her boss Maraki, would.

At first, from the 1950’s and up to the early-1970’s, the most intense form of the clash was located within the old-young interface (though the form of such interface varied according to the social stratum concerned). Such intensity would take a very specific form in the case of the young “Amalia-type” – that “type”, amongst females, would spearhead either the rise of middle class “values” amongst working people, or would be the progenitor to the rise and spread of the new Greek middle classes as such (shop-keepers, freelance professionals, etc.). Whether wage-labourers or freelancers, all would ultimately adopt – or truly wish to adopt – styles of the European or American middle classes. But, at the same time, these popular masses would combine such taste with their “Greekness” (in varying degrees of intensity): at least for the period we are discussing, the new “Amalia-type” carried the old-new and/or “traditional”-“foreign” clashes deep within itself, if only because such “type” had grown up within such on-going clashes. This, we are suggesting, would make of Amalia a historically “New Type”, albeit only relatively speaking. By the 1980’s, this “New Type” would become so powerful that it would directly assert its presence within Greek State structures – its consumerism went hand-in-hand with such power. By then, advertizing would even glorify such power (it had no choice but do so).

Such “New Type” is neither a figment of our imagination and nor is it our own historical ‘discovery’. The emergence of such “New Type” – and its emergence precisely given that socio-cultural clash we have been describing – had been noted as early as 1957 by I.M. Panagiotopoulos (but who, as we have mentioned above in discussing Greek “intellectuals”, would himself join the 1970’s “Left” bandwagon and, ignoring the new realities, would simplistically reduce the phenomenon of advertizing to manipulative propaganda). In July 1957, in an article entitled «Οι σύγχρονοι κοινοί τόποι» and published in Nea Hestia  (No 720, op. cit., pp. 900-902), he would in fact be much struck by the emerging new realities, by the “residual” vs. “modern” clash, and would draw his conclusions as to what was happening to the post-war Greek “type” of person. In this extremely important text – to be later ignored by both himself and others – he would write:

«Η ζωή μας έχει καταντήσει μια σειρά απροσδόκητα.
Πώς να κερδίσει κανείς τον κατάλληλο προσανατολισμό,
όταν τα περιστατικά παρουσιάζονται αντιμαχόμενα
κάθε οργανωμένη συνείδηση; Αυτό είναι το πρόβλημα.
Όσο παλιώνουμε, ολοένα και μεγαλύτερο δείχνεται
το ρήγμα, που μας χωρίζει από τους μεταγενέστερους.
… Πρόκειται για βαθύτατες διαδοχικές τομές … Ίσως ποτέ
 δεν ήταν οξύτερη η διαμάχη ανάμεσα σε κείνο που
 αντιπροσωπεύει η παράδοση και σε κείνο που
 διατυπώνει τ’ αναγκαία νέα αιτήματα. Υπάρχει λοιπόν
 κ’ εδώ ένα απροσδόκητο… Ας συνομολογήσουμε, πως
 αυτός ο αιώνας δημιουργεί ένα νέο ανθρώπινο τύπο»
(my emph.).

It is within this historical framework, delineated by Panagiotopoulos in 1957, that the “Amalia-type” must be understood – and it is the transitional instabilities (those «διαδοχικές τομές») which would be reflected in advertizing discourse itself.

We have said that there would be a radical shift in the thinking of Panagiotopoulos by the 1970’s – and yet, all he would really be doing by 1977 is to still accept the existence of the «νέο ανθρώπινο τύπο» but this time he would simply feel sorry for it. Adopting an ahistorically static position as to what people ‘should’ be like – and forgetting the objective «ρήγμα» which he had seen occurring – he would see in such “New Type” a “loss of self”, bent as it was on continually renewing its various material means. In 1977 (cf. Ο σύγχρονος άνθρωπος, op. cit., pp. 70-71), he would write:

«Έτσι, θύμα αυτής της μηχανορραφίας, ο άνθρωπος
της εποχής είναι υποχρεωμένος, ακόμη και για τη
διάσωση της ατομικής του αξιοπρέπειας, ν’ ανανεώνει
τα ατομικά μέσα της μεταφοράς του, τα έπιπλά του,
τα σκεύη του, ν’ αλλάζει τρόπο ζωής, να γίνεται άλλος…
Η μέριμνα για τη συνεχή απόκτηση υλικών αγαθών,
κεντριζόμενη από την εμπορική διαφήμιση,
κατακαλύπτει το χώρο του εσωτερικού βίου…»
(my emph.).

For the “Amalia-type”, as also for very many Aliartian residents in the 1960’s, this need to “renew” furniture, etc. (which was not at first continual), did mean “becoming someone else” and preserving “self-respect”, but not at all in the way Panagiotopoulos would mean it in 1977. As has already been alluded to above, Aliartian residents did “renew” their furniture by getting rid of the tree-trunks on which they had to sit and start buying manufactured chairs. Likewise, they would gradually “renew” their pieces of newspaper which they used in the toilet and start buying toilet paper (shall come back to the crucial issue of hygiene). Thus, this process of «να γίνεται άλλος», gradually yielding that «νέο ανθρώπινο τύπο», was a historical reality – that “type” which would emerge was not a victim of imaginary prototypes manipulatively engineered by advertizing companies. Such “New Type” was not suffering a “loss of self” – it was discovering a new one.

But examining Panagiotopoulos’ 1977 text a bit closer allows us to go further – he speaks of a «συνεχή απόκτηση υλικών αγαθών» and, while this would not have applied to the “Amalia-type” in the very early-1960’s, it certainly would have applied by, say, 1968. What does this reality tell us? It tells us that the “Amalia-type” was gradually not merely surpassing past poverty – such “type” was also gradually accumulating (and/or renewing) its material means and goods, and this would have meant a gradual change in life-style and “worldview”. This “worldview” was that of the emerging Greek middle classes. It is true to say that such “continual renewal” may have been a mere wish for many people of the popular masses – but such a dream was to adopt the style of life of the middle classes, and certainly not of some “proletarian culture”. In fact such latter “culture” had never existedin Greece in any significant way, as it had in England – for instance – and as that has been described by E.P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class (Penguin Books, 1991, first published in 1963). And it would be an outright mistake to confuse the widespread “lumpen culture” in Greece at the time we are examining, as also in the pre-war years, with the “proletarian” tradition – cf. our paper on the “Mathioudaki Case”, but especially the excellent Τα παιδιά της πιάτσας [Streetwise Characters] by N. Tsiforos (Ερμής, Αθήνα, 1991).

The fact that the “Amalia-type” was the progenitor to the middle class milieu is absolutely crucial in helping us to understand how that “type” would relate to the world of advertizing – we shall therefore have to dwell on the extent to which that “New Type” we have been referring to could in fact have expressed middle class “values” – i.e. the extent to which changing material conditions would allow it to adopt such “values”.

With reference to the years immediately following World War II, and speaking of the whole of Europe (with Greece included), the periodical Paragogikotis [Παραγωγικότης] would point out that the generalized poverty and the crisis in the retail trade would allow for the actual exploitation of consumers (in Greece during the war years especially, we also had strong currents of black market racketeering). Such conditions of exploitation obviously stifled whatever consumer power and consumer consciousness, and by implication were not conducive to the rise of any middle class “values”. In 1956, the periodical would note:

«… η γενική ένδεια, η οποία επεκράτει εις το
λιανικόν εμπόριον, είχε νεκρώσει τον συναγωνισμόν
και είχεν επιτρέψει κατά κάποιον τρόπον την
εκμετάλλευσιν του καταναλωτού, ο οποίος ήτο
υποχρεωμένος, κατά την διάρκειαν των χρόνων
αυτών, να αγοράζη ό,τι ηδύνατο να εύρη»
(cf. Paragogikotis, No 13 –
Athens – June-August, 1956, p. 26).

Such generalized poverty in Greece, directly evident to Koeppen in 1961 (op. cit.), was – and as suggested above – a transitional phenomenon. In fact, we notice such transitionality as we observe Greece through the eyes of Koeppen himself – on the one hand, he could write:

«Όχι πλούτος, φτώχεια!... Και ελεεινά τα αγόρια
που στέκονται εδώ κι εκεί, πεινασμένα, πρόσωπα
γερασμένα κιόλας στα δεκατρία τους…»
(p. 31).

And at the same time, as if speaking of some other country or some other era, he would continue describing what he saw around him as follows:

«… οι νεαροί με ρόδινα μάγουλα…»
(p. 32).

It seems, then, that even amongst the popular masses, poverty was unevenly spread. Such a reality would gradually even out upwards, for the vast masses of people. As the decade of the 1960’s unfolded, we had a move from “exploitation” based on the poverty of consumers (the 1956 Paragogikotis observation) to a so-called “exploitation” of consumers based on their relative “affluence”, and which lay the foundations for the rise of middle class “values”.

We use the term “affluence” keeping in mind the very specific qualification we noted above when contrasting the Greek reality to Galbraith’s Affluent Society – and yet the economic development in 1960’s/early-1970’s Greece was rapid enough to make even that rather important Greek philosopher, Christos Malevitsis, fall into the trap of using Galbraith’s work as a theoretical tool in understanding Greek consumer behaviour early in 1972. Of course, his almost verbatim reproduction of Galbraith’s thinking would lead him to draw conclusions about Greek consumerism which are somewhat reminiscent of the Greek anti-consumer “intellectualist” bandwagon we have discussed above. But what remains of interest is that his falling into the Galbraith trap is simply symptomatic of the awe people felt at the time on seeing the material realities of Greece alter so deeply and, from a long-term perspective, so rapidly. In his Προοπτικές (Εκδόσεις Δωδώνη, Athens, 1972, p. 88), Malevitsis would write:

«…τα χαμηλά εισοδήματα διατίθενται για
την κάλυψη των άμεσων βιοτικών αναγκών –
τροφή, ενδυμασία, στέγη – όπου (στην απαραίτητη
ποσότητα κι όχι στις πολυτελείς εκτροπές) η
διαφήμιση δεν τις μετακινεί. Μόλις όμως αρχίζει
 να αυξάνει το εισόδημα επάνω από το στοιχειώδες
 επίπεδο διαβίωσης (και τούτο είναι χαρακτηριστικό
 της εποχής μας) ολοένα και μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό
αυτού του εισοδήματος διατίθεται βάσει ευμετάβολων
παρορμήσεων. Εδώ παρεμβαίνει η επίδραση της
διαφήμισης και αλλοιώνει τις προτιμήσεις του
καταναλωτή κατά τις κερδοφόρες επιθυμίες των
κατασκευαστών…» (my emph.).

We need not, by the way, see here any real contradiction between Malevitsis and the observations of the Paragogikotis quote cited above: the latter refers to conditions of poverty and how this leads to the “exploitation” of consumers by retail traders; Malevitsis simply tells us that consumers who merely stick to subsistence levels are not vulnerable to advertizing. Both may be quite accurate in what they say on this matter – and both would agree that soon most Greeks would be moving well beyond mere subsistence levels. In fact, what is of major interest here is that Malevitsis in the early-1970’s would fully agree with Panagiotopoulos’ «συνεχή απόκτηση υλικών αγαθών» in the late-1970’s: they would both see that, at least by the decade of the 1970’s, the “average Greek” (with the “Amalia-type” included) would be earning an income which allowed one to accumulate or renew material goods, or which allowed for the satisfaction of “impulses”. Thus, both would be identifying a “type” of person who was not working merely so as to subsist – he was not just some “labour-power” producing and reproducing itself ad infinitum, but rather someone capable of spending his income on so-called “luxury” goods (how and if this could lead to consumer “exploitation” remains an open question). The accumulative acquisition of such goods may have done little to alter whatever was one’s ‘political’ orientation – the “Amalia-type” was herself almost ‘apolitical’ in the strict sense of political ideology – but it would have done much to convince people of the value of private property, be that a pair of stockings or a house of one’s own. It is at this point that we would have the birth of middle class “values” amongst consumers.

For Malevitsis, then, the higher incomes and the capacity to spend money beyond basic needs, was that which characterized Greek society when writing in 1972 – «τούτο είναι χαρακτηριστικό της εποχής μας». How such money was spent by consumers, and the role of advertizing in such spending, are ‘facts’ of social history that need to be researched in a manner that lies beyond any ethical evaluation – but that higher incomes were changing the socio-cultural “values” of the popular masses, is certainly a verifiable fact. On the other hand, one need admit that such «χαρακτηριστικό» cannot apply to the 1960’s exactly as it did in the 1970s – the spread of consumerism was always uneven and not exactly linear for very many Greek families, although the massive emigration at the time would help those who remained behind to find jobs easier. Generally speaking, then, one may say that the Malevitsis text does signal the triumph of the middle class milieu and the peripheralization of working class immiseration.

In 1959, Nikos Tsiforos would observe the rising consumerism and the ubiquitous “Dream” of the vast majority of Greeks to join that «καλή αστική τάξις» – he writes:

«Πήρανε κι’ αυτοκίνητο, ένα τόσο δά Οπελάκι,
καλό και φιγουράτο, πήρανε και έπιπλα παρδαλά
με Στρωματέξ, γίνανε εκείνο πού λέγεται
 “καλή αστική τάξις”…» (cf. Ελληνική κρουαζιέρα,
op. cit., p. 43, my emph.).

Writing of the late-1950’s, Tsiforos would also go on to describe how a simple worker – but who in any case had acquired some kind of «τέχνη» while selling his “labour-power” – would finally decide to establish his own smallish pork meat factory, hiring as wage-labourers some of his ex-colleagues. This case – that of «Αριστείδης», as Tsiforos calls him (and to whom we shall return below) – is a highly representative “type” of that “average Greek” who would move from being a seller of “labour-power” to that of a buyer of “labour-power”. Strictly speaking (or in Marxian terms), that would make of him a ‘small capitalist’, but at least in terms of socio-cultural “values”, all it would really have meant for «Αριστείδη» was that he could now somehow taste the vestiges of a middle class style of life (something itself not very far removed from the “style” of at least many skilled workers). Tsiforos writes:

«Ο Αριστείδης με την τέχνη του, “δεν ανοίγομεν
μικρόν τι εργαστήριον βιοτεχνικόν με αλλαντικά;”
… πήρε και κάνα-δύο πατιράκια παλιούς συναδέλφους
που ξέρανε την δουλειά, άνοιξε η επιχείρηση…
χωρίς να το καταλάβη βρέθηκε με λεφτά ο
Αριστείδης…» (ibid., pp. 73-74).

Of course, this “successful” new member of the Greek middle classes, and who had belonged to the class of wage-earners a little time back, may have quite easily regressed to his previous social status a few years later, as so often happened with so many freelancing small-time entrepreneurs – but such social mobility would nonetheless happen within a steady socio-cultural framework, that being the ubiquitous “Dream” we have referred to. That such mobility was always accompanied by a steady “Dream” somehow takes care of a highly interesting question as regards the ‘reception’ of advertizing discourse by someone such as an «Αριστείδης» (or a Zygoyiannis, the A&M Mill worker). How would «Αριστείδης»-qua-worker have ‘received’ the message of an advertisement and how would «Αριστείδης»-qua-manufacturer have ‘received’ such message? That which would determine the form of the ‘reception’ would have been the only steady element – i.e. that middle class “Dream”. But that such “Dream” hid within it the contradictions of social mobility (and therefore insecurity) would be factors that advertizing discourse would have to take into account – were it not to have somehow done so, a ‘communication crisis’ could have ensued between buyer and seller (or advertiser). Again, this points to the ‘balance of compromises’ that advertizing discourse would have to make so that it deal with the internal contradictions of the up-and-coming Greek middle classes. Matters would be further complicated when a “type” such as «Αριστείδης»-the-manufacturer would himself turn advertiser (as he would, according to Tsiforos), and would find himself competing with foreign giants advertizing products related to cured meats (we shall definitely have to come back to this).

This “Greek Dream” that we talk of would constitute a generalized social consciousness amongst the various strata of the popular masses, and it would fire their imagination in more ways than one. People would “dream” of moving away from their position as wage-labourers to setting up their own entrepreneurial operations (and thus objectively coming to belong to the middle classes), and many would even “dream” of becoming capitalist “millionaires” – Koeppen (op. cit.) would observe this in 1961:

«Μια ώρα για να γίνεις εκατομμυριούχος,
ευτυχισμένος σαν τον πλούσιο Ωνάση.
Στα όνειρά σου» (p. 33).

Of course, apart from possible exceptions, becoming a “millionaire” was an unreachable dream, and therefore belonged to the wildest of fantasies – and yet, it was not at all so for the thousands who departed for places such as America. Just one case in point is that of “Marcos”, who had come to belong to the circle of friends of the Aliartian barber in the 1970’s. This man left Greece in the early-1960’s and settled in South Africa. On departing, his single-minded purpose was just that: to become a “millionaire”. Prior to emigrating, he had been working as a wage-labourer in some small bakery and could hardly make ends meet, and that, despite the fact that he had no family of his own. In South Africa, he would gradually establish his own bakery, remain single so as to restrict personal expenses to a bare minimum, and worked day and night. He expanded his business throughout Johannesburg and beyond. By the early-1980’s, he had made enough money so as to buy himself a small island in the Aegean («σαν τον πλούσιο Ωνάση»).

We know that for those who had stayed behind, the “Greek Dream” could be realizable, though of course only in part. But the “fantasy” of “wealth and happiness” was a real component part of popular social consciousness – it was not at all any “false consciousness”, since upward social mobility was both psychologically wished for and, within certain reasonable limits, materially possible. Advertizing discourse in Greece at the time cannot be understood without taking such ‘psycho-material matrix’ into consideration. Unlike “Marcos”, the “Amalia-type” and her family would never have been able to buy an island for themselves, but they could have bought themselves their very own house – the care Amalia would take in ‘decorating’ her “Home” was, as we shall further discuss below, much inspired by the advertizing of a «ΠΕΙΡΑΪΚΗ-ΠΑΤΡΑΪΚΗ».

The observations of a Malevitsis and a Panagiotopoulos, the perceptive descriptions of a Tsiforos and a Koeppen, the real cases of a Zygoyianni and the consumer capacities of the young “Amalia-type” (though perhaps not that exceptional case of a poor young “Marco” becoming a millionaire) – all such, need to be directly contrasted to the philosophical pearls of dialectical wisdom churned out by the hermetically sealed academic chairs of the likes of a Horkheimer and an Adorno. These would insist:

«Η πολιτιστική βιομηχανία εξαπατά αδιάκοπα
τους καταναλωτές στερώντας τους αυτό που
αδιάκοπα τους υπόσχεται» (op. cit., p. 231).

We do know that Amalia Eleftheriadou would remain a “White-Collar” employee at the A&M Mill Headquarters till the early-1970’s: her relatively low remuneration as a “Clerk” and the “Bureaucratic Despotism” exercised on her by her boss could have frustrated her middle class “Dream” day in and day out for as long as her movements were confined behind those tall factory gates. But outside those gates, in the so-called sphere of ‘reproduction’, that «πολιτιστική βιομηχανία» would gradually allow her to become an active consumer – it would, by and large, fulfill a “Dream” the content of which would be inscribed (in its various contradictory ways) within advertizing discourse. Such advertizing content would include ‘models’, ‘styles’ and ‘prototypes’ of living which the “Amalia-type” would wish, here and there, to identify herself with – like the vast masses of Greek working people, she wanted to see herself as a potential member of the new middle classes.

It is precisely this sphere of life of the “Amalia-type” – that which happened outside the factory gates – which the Greek “Left” (like the Frankfurtians) could not possibly swallow. For the “Left”, such ‘outside’ reality was being imposed on blinded proletarians by the capitalist «πολιτιστική βιομηχανία». Consider, for instance, how Constandina Pantazi-Tzifa, in her book, Η θέση της γυναίκας στην Ελλάδα (Athens, 1984, Νέα Σύνορα, Εκδόσεις Α. Α. Λιβάνη) would present the overall reality of Greek women even as late as the 1980’s – she writes:

«Στη χώρα μας, η βιομηχανία της διαφήμισης
εμπνέεται, τις περισσότερες φορές, από τα πιο
εξεζητημένα αμερικανικά πρότυπα και
 απομακρύνεται όλο και περισσότερο από την
 πραγματικότητα, μεταφέροντας μια νοοτροπία
και δημιουργώντας “μοντέλα” που επιβάλλονται
και διαμορφώνουν τα άτομα και το περιβάλλον
τους, σύμφωνα με τα κριτήρια αξιών κατάλληλων
για τη βιομηχανική επικοινωνία…»
(p. 91, my emph.).

Were we to accept Pantazi-Tzifa’s observation that advertizing discourse has had this tendency to “distance” itself from the Greek reality («απομακρύνεται», etc.), then we would have to go one step further and conclude that such discourse would be operating in an almost complete social vacuum – but if that be the case, then either the recipients of such discourse were themselves almost completely ‘vacuous’, or the advertizing discourse would not be communicating its message to people. But we know that advertisements did help sell products, as we also know that the “Amalia-type” would, to some extent, accept certain American “stereotypes” and/or “models”, seeing in these, as she did, an element of “modernity”. One suspects that Pantazi-Tzifa fails to grasp the whole of the “Amalia-type” reality because she restricts her perspective to that of the workplace (as would any vulgar ‘Marxist’).

That the middle class “Dream” was gradually being realized is explainable, and such explanation would also apply to the “Amalia-type”. With reference to real economic growth in the period of the Military Dictatorship, Nikos Poulantzas provides us with the most reliable – and most objective – picture. Some “anti-Junta” hotheads like George N. Giannopoulos would, in 1976, write:

«η αύξηση της πραγματικής αγοραστικής δύναμης
του εργάτη βιομηχανίας, ήταν ασήμαντη στην
περίοδο της δικτατορίας… [το] χρηματικό εισόδημα
του μισθωτού αυξανόταν σ’ αυτή την περίοδο
με πολύ βραδύτερο ρυθμό απ’ ό,τι το εισόδημα
του ιδιοκτήτη ή του κεφαλαιούχου» (cf. his «Οι
εργάτες και οι αγρότες στο καθεστώς της στρατιωτικής
δικτατορίας», in Η Ελλάδα κάτω από στρατιωτικό
 ζυγό, Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, Athens, 1976, pp. 136-181
& pp. 182-207).

To add insult to injury, yet another “anti-Junta” hothead, Ilias Nikolopoulos, would draw the following ‘scientific’ conclusion, based on the above quote, in 2010 – he notes:

«… με αποτέλεσμα η σχετική θέση των εργατών
να χειροτερέψει από το 1967 και μετά» (cf.
his «Κοινωνικοπολιτικές διαστάσεις του αγώνα
κατά του καθεστώτος της στρατιωτικής δικτατορίας»,
in Tetradia [Τετράδια], No. 57-8, 2010, p. 84).

This is not a matter of insulting the Colonels (Hobsbawm has even written of their «πολιτική ηλιθιότητα», op. cit., p. 447) – it is, however, a matter of causing injury to historical facts. In his The Crisis of the Dictatorships [greek edition: Η κρίση των δικτατοριών, Θεμέλιο, 2006), Poulantzas provides us with a number of concrete data which clearly show that the consumer power of the popular masses in the period of the Greek Military Dictatorship was definitely growing, and which would determine both consumer patterns and even political behaviour. He writes:

«Σύμφωνα με τις στατιστικές του OCDE, η μέση
ετήσια άνοδος των ωρομισθίων και των τιμών των
 ειδών κατανάλωσης, μεταξύ 1966 και 1971, ήταν
… στην Ελλάδα 8,8% και 2,1% ... [Thus] η βελτίωση
της αγοραστικής δύναμης είναι σαφής στην…
Ελλάδα… Ένα πρόσθετο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο –
μολονότι πρόκειται για δείκτη κατά προσέγγιση –
είναι η άνοδος του μέσου κατά κεφαλήν εισοδήματος,
ιδιαίτερα στην Ισπανία και την Ελλάδα (το 1964,
500 δολάρια κατά κεφαλήν για την Ισπανία και
590 για την Ελλάδα … η τελευταία ξεπέρασε σήμερα
[1975] τα 1.500 δολάρια, ενώ η Ισπανία τα πλησιάζει).
… Εκείνο που μας επιτρέπει να μιλάμε για πραγματική
βελτίωση της αγοραστικής δύναμης, είναι η
ιδιάζουσα θέση των χωρών αυτών στη ζώνη
εξάρτησης, κατά τη σημερινή φάση, καθώς
βέβαια και το εξαιρετικά χαμηλό επίπεδο της
προηγούμενης αγοραστικής δύναμης των μαζών …
Αν λοιπόν η βελτίωση δεν οφείλεται, ούτε στο ελάχιστο,
στα δικτατορικά καθεστώτα, είναι ωστόσο
γεγονός ότι δεν κατάφεραν … να την ανακόψουν:
χαρακτηριστική περίπτωση η Ελλάδα, όπου η βελτίωση
είχε πρωτοεμφανιστεί στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του ’60,
πολύ πριν από το καθεστώς των συνταγματαρχών,
κι ωστόσο συνεχίστηκε και μ’ αυτό. Εδώ εντοπίζεται
ένας παράγοντας που συντέλεσε σ’ έναν κάποιο
περιορισμό της πολιτικής ανάπτυξης των αγώνων»
(pp. 66-67, his emph. throughout).

There are at least three basic observations made by Poulantzas above which we should always keep in mind when talking of the 1960’s/early-1970’s period:

• We had a clear-cut real improvement in the per capita income of the “average Greek” (and that, whatever the general inequalities). This real improvement would mean that the style of life and the “worldview” of the “Amalia-type” would be directly affected – and such real improvement would of course be welcomed by the vast majority of the popular masses and that, despite the socio-cultural contradictions that would ensue as discussed above;
• Such real improvement in material conditions would, in the minds of people, constitute an unheard of and previously unimaginable state of affairs, and that, given – as Poulantzas so accurately states – «το εξαιρετικά χαμηλό επίπεδο της προηγούμενης αγοραστικής δύναμης». This would fire the popular imagination and thereby give birth to “The Middle Class Dream”, which was that of the “New Amalia-type”, even amongst wage-earners.
• Despite what the “Left” would want us to believe – and despite how it would decide to write its own history – the real revolution of the period was essentially in the field of culture, sexual behaviour and patterns of consumption – Poulantzas, who was himself a communist theoretician, had no choice but to admit the bitter truth: that «κάποιο περιορισμό της πολιτικής ανάπτυξης των αγώνων». As we know, direct political interest on the part of the “Amalia-type” was itself characterized by at least such a «κάποιο περιορισμό»: what was to galvanize the mind and body of an Amalia Eleftheriadou lay elsewhere.

Perhaps we should here also mention the work of Roupa (op. cit.), which also includes specific statistics enabling one to explain the rise of consumerism in the 1960’s – and which forces her to make admissions such as the following:

«[there had been a] βελτίωση του εισοδήματος
μεγάλου μέρους του ελληνικού λαού –
μέσα σε μια γενιά το Α.Ε.Π. τριπλασιάστηκε…»
(p. 255).

Now, the 100% increase in GDP during the 1960’s, which she elsewhere notes (p. 269), must surely have constituted the basic reason behind the rise of consumerism – and therefore concepts such as “patriotism”, “foreign influence” and “national character” which she wants to consider as alternative explanatory (or “manipulative”) factors lying behind consumerist patterns, are only of secondary interest, though such factors could determine the forms of such patterns.

The objectively measurable real improvement of material conditions – the real increase in the “average” per capita income – would allow people to buy things, to accumulate them and to renew them: but Roupa comes to see such capacity as a “compulsion” imposed on people by the “manipulative” strategies of advertizing discourse – she writes:

«Αρκετές διαφημίσεις έγιναν ψυχαναγκαστικές
και παρουσίασαν την αποχή από την κατανάλωση
ως πράξη επιτιμητική και τιμωρητέα»
(p. 266, my emph.).

We do not at all mean to doubt the existence of such “compulsive” advertizing discourse in the 1960’s, etc. (it is an example of that type of advertisement which we shall present as “provocatively interventionist”), but to argue that people consumed because of such “compulsive” advertizing discourse verges on the ridiculous: try to imagine the young Amalia Eleftheriadou working eight hours a day, six days a week at the A&M Headquarters, and then practicing some sort of religiously-inspired «αποχή από την κατανάλωση». No, Amalia did not belong to either a Christian Orthodox monastic order or to an Orthodox Communist anti-consumerist sect. It is quite true that neighbours would “compete” amongst one another as to who would buy the first fridge, and it is as true that those “left behind” could be looked down on by the rest – but such practices were a product of the objective rise in GDP and reflected the new “popular values” of a middle class cultural milieu made possible by the increase in per capita income. There was, therefore, “compulsion” – but that was as much a popular grassroots social practice.

The Roupa position, of course, could concede that buying as such would be ‘proper’, but not so when it came to buying (what Galbraith had called) “superfluous-artificial” goods (op. cit). This brings us to that rather complex question of what it means to buy “luxury” goods, and which cannot possibly be understood without relating it to the up-and-coming middle-class “values” of the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Examining the relationship between Greek films and the issue of consumerism in the late-1950’s and the early-1960’s, Roupa says that such films placed an emphasis on material goods, the renewal of furniture, and other “luxuries” meant to achieve “personal satisfaction”. She critically observes:

«… στηρίζουν την πλοκή τους στη βελτίωση
της ζωής και την προσωπική ικανοποίηση
μέσα από την κατανάλωση και την κατοχή
υλικών αγαθών… [Η] έμφαση δίδεται στην
αλλαγή της επίπλωσης και στην… υιοθέτηση
πολυτελούς τρόπου ζωής» (p. 264).

The question of “material luxuries” raised here is extremely important in trying to comprehend what we have called the Greek middle class milieu – i.e. whether such ‘milieu’ would in fact mean the ultimate satisfaction of certain “superfluous-artificial needs” (or at least the mere craving for the satisfaction of such needs).

We may begin with some general observations. First, we would argue that it is extremely difficult (though perhaps not impossible through the meticulous research of the history of a single product and the developments of its own specifications) to estimate, within historical time (not necessarily at all “linear”), when a “luxury good” is a “false need” and at what point in time such “false need” has gradually turned real – i.e. has become expressive of the new needs of a new “type” of person, whose very “nature” has undergone mutations through the capacity to consume new types of products. One may counter-argue, secondly, that “luxury products” always remain “false” – but in such case a highly paradoxical question arises: if the “luxuries” enjoyed by the ‘dominant classes’ throughout all history have been “false”, then why is it that they would always fight tooth and nail – even to the point of waging wars – so that such “luxuries” be monopolized on their behalf? If their “motives” have been “false”, then we are faced with a “false” history (which would be ludicrous). We may therefore fairly safely adopt the position that any “luxury” becomes a real need when its possessor feels it so within a particular socio-historical context: all other criteria must be rejected as either ‘metaphysical’ or ‘ahistorical’, or both. It is within such framework that we shall have to consider the so-called “artificial” tastes of the emerging Greek middle class milieu of the period.

We know that it is Galbraith who has been the doyen of that concept of “superfluous” or “artificial needs”, and we know how influential his thinking had been in Greece and all over the Western world at the time. In his The New Industrial State (op. cit.), he would very articulately unfold his arguments which, in hindsight, seem either devoid of any real historical sense or are unsuited to the Greek case of the period under discussion. One representative passage is the following:

“… goods that are related only to elementary
physical sensation – that merely prevent hunger,
protect against cold, provide shelter, suppress
pain – have come to comprise a small and diminishing
part of all production. Most goods serve needs that
are discovered to the individual not by palpable
discomfort that accompanies deprivation, but by some
psychic response to their possession. They give him
a sense of personal achievement, accord him a feeling
of equality with his neighbours, divert his mind from
thought, serve sexual aspiration, promise social
acceptability, enhance his subjective feeling of health,
well-being or orderly peristalsis, contribute by
conventional canons to personal beauty, or are otherwise
psychologically rewarding” (p. 206).

One could assess such mode of thinking from a number of critical perspectives. Firstly, his understanding of what constitutes “palpable discomfort” is statically ahistorical: that which could cause “discomfort” to a middle class New Yorker in the 1960’s cannot be randomly equated to what “discomfited” a coarse, weather-beaten peasant of Aliarto in the 1940’s. And similarly, even his reference to “equality” is devoid of any socio-historical content, and is therefore either to be rejected as a useless ‘abstraction’ or to be accepted as a concept which only applies to certain concrete social formations. Secondly, it is not at all clear why “hunger”, “cold” “shelter”, etc. are all more real (or, as Galbraith puts it, more “elementary”) than are “sexual aspiration”, the “subjective feeling of health”, or – even – the issue of “personal beauty”. All these latter so-called “psychological” states are real, ‘material’ social practices, and which have been historically determined in a variety of different forms throughout human history. Thirdly, and applying such critical observations to at least some aspects of the Greek case, we may ask:

• Would, for Galbraith, the buying of a fridge, a stove, a washing machine, etc., in Greece in the 1960’s, have constituted consumption of “necessary” goods meant to ease “palpable discomfort”, or were these just “luxury” goods meant to give people “a sense of personal achievement”? Did not, say, a fridge, serve absolutely necessary needs at the time, while at the same time – given the circumstances – also function as a “status symbol” (“psychic response”)? Surely here, the abstract, ahistorical categorization of commodities into “necessary” and “luxury” would be quite ludicrous for the Greek case.
• Was not the question of “personal beauty” in Greece in the 1960’s, a real socio-cultural practice amongst females that went well beyond the “Industrial State” but was also a necessary expression of it? We well know that “personal beauty” for females had been as “psychologically rewarding” in, say, Minoan culture (1600 BC) as it was in the 1960’s: for a 1960’s young woman in Greece, “beauty” (and the accessories that would accompany it) would come to constitute a necessary “reward” of the “Golden Age” which redefined her relationship to herself and others. One needs here a social history of “personal beauty”, obviously pre-dating the “Industrial System” (cf. our paper on “female beauty” as a socio-cultural practice in the 1960’s/1970’s).
• Were not the “sexual aspirations” of the young in the 1960’s as real and as necessary as the need to eat and clothe oneself, given the post-war reality of the Greek sexual revolution? Was not the mini-skirt a necessary “luxury” for many young girls by the late-1960’s? Maybe not and maybe yes: but it was these young girls – as historical subjects – who would decide for themselves.
• Finally, was it not a real necessity for the “average Greek” to continually increase his consumer power so as to bridge the dramatically wide income gap between himself and the Greek social elites? Was his need for some relative “social equality” not an absolute social necessity? Or was it merely “some psychic response” meant to “accord him a feeling of equality with his neighbours”? These latter questions clearly bring to light the completely different social conditions that prevailed in Greece vis-à-vis the USA.

One may therefore at this point draw the following general conclusion: the struggle, on the part of the “average Greek” in the 1960’s, for “palpable comfort” (buying a fridge), and his capacity to increase his consumer power, as also his ability to ‘indulge’ in socio-cultural practices emphasizing “beauty” and “sex” – all these, albeit perhaps “luxuries”, were at the same time historical necessities. Being so, they were not at all “superfluous-artificial needs”, as Galbraith and his interpreters in Greece would want us to believe. Put together, they all constituted the historically necessary elements – both ‘material’ and ‘psychological’ – which would galvanize the rise of the Greek middle class milieu.

Such conclusion would allow us to argue that the consumer patterns of the “Amalia-type” were never simply a product of “manipulation” – or, as Galbraith would say, of “persuasiveness” and the “management” of consumer demand from “above”. And, to be absolutely fair to Galbraith himself, one should note that, here and there, his work does allow for varying degrees of “manipulation”/”persuasiveness”/”management”, depending on historical circumstances – and which would allow the social researcher to gauge, not only degrees of “management” from “above”, but also degrees of “management” coming from “below”, and depending on the historical periodization. Such historical sensitivities in Galbraith’s The New Industrial State are rare and definitely do not constitute an organic part of his analyses – and yet, he can once in a while, admit:

“When goods were less abundant, when they
served urgent physical need and their acquisition
received close thought and attention, purchases
were much less subject to management” (p. 220).

In 1960’s Greece, goods were definitely “less abundant” in comparison to the case of the USA at the time, and Amalia would struggle hard within the Headquarters of the A&M company to be able to buy herself a pair of stockings, a bottle of perfume or a tube of toothpaste. The acquisition of such so-called “luxuries” would of course “receive close thought and attention” on the part of the “Amalia-type” – that “close thought and attention” was precisely how Amalia Eleftheriadou would relate to the advertisements that bombarded her. At least in its transitional phase, therefore, the up-and-coming Greek middle class milieu of the 1960’s/early-1970’s would, up to some point, “manage” its own consumer patterns of behaviour. It is quite true that there was much “frenzy” – as has so often been said – amongst the Greek youth of the period, but this was not something “engineered” or “managed” from some “systemic forces” coming from “above”: such “forces” had to take into consideration a youthful grassroots “frenzy” which had no choice but to delimit and “manage” itself given its “less abundant” material conditions.

We shall end this sub-section with the observations of Pavlos Floros, an important Greek “intellectual” who belongs to the so-called «γενιά του ’30» and who, as a “cosmopolitan”, was able to compare and contrast Greece with the rest of Europe and draw conclusions as to what had really happened to the Greek people by the late 1960’s. In a 1967 article entitled «Γυρισμός» and published in Nea Hestia (No 967 – 15.10.1967), Floros would make the following truly astounding observations with respect to the anthropologically mutated “New Greek”:

«Η πρώτη εντύπωση από την ανθρώπινη
μορφολογία: Ράτσα αφάνταστα στιβαρή
και ρωμαλέα. Δεν είταν έτσι το 1919 και
το 1922, μήτε το 1940. Ο μέσος όρος του
αναστήματος, του ύψους, φαίνεται πως
μεγάλωσε. Η εξήγηση για τη μεταμόρφωση;
Ο εξολοθρεμός των ανωφελών κουνουπιών,
η καλοπέραση από το 1953 κ’ εδώ, η εκλαΐκευση
της υγιεινής και της πολιτισμένης κατοικίας…»
(pp. 1364-1367).

And further, he would observe –

«… την οικείωση του απλοϊκού ανθρώπου,
επαρχιώτη μικροαστού, καλλιεργητή ή
τσέλιγκα, με τις ανέσεις του συγχρόνου βίου
και της ευεξίας, με τον οικιακό πολιτισμό
και την υγιεινή» (ibid.).

There was a positive material content in all advertizing discourse of the period which offered real material goods that were necessary, at times absolutely necessary, for this new Greek «ανθρώπινη μορφολογία». Whatever the form of advertizing discourse – whether it be “provocative-interventionist”, or “compromisingly adjusted” to local conditions, or something in-between, or just simply “neutral” – it would offer the necessary goods of “modernity” that expressed this historically novel «μορφολογία». As Floros suggests, these goods included products related to hygiene, home facilities and comforts, technological devices, etc. – all of which would come to constitute what he calls an «οικιακό πολιτισμό». Thus, before we examine the extent to which Greek consumer demand was being “managed” from “above” and the extent to which advertizing discourse was itself being “managed” from “below”, we need to consider the relationship between advertizing and the new material goods available for the “New Type” of Greek – this constituting, we are suggesting, the positive material content of all advertizing discourse at the time.

GLOSSARY:

NOTES:
● «ανθρώπινη μορφολογία»: human morphology
● «αποχή από την κατανάλωση»: consumer abstinence
● «γενιά του ‘30»: the generation of the 1930’s
● «Η Ελλάδα κάτω από στρατιωτικό ζυγό»: “Greece under the military yoke”.
● «Η θέση της γυναίκας στην Ελλάδα»: “The place of woman in Greek society”.
● «καλή αστική τάξις»: good bourgeois class
● «κάποιο περιορισμό της πολιτικής ανάπτυξις των αγώνων»: a certain limitation in the political development of the struggles
● «Κοινωνικοπολιτικές διαστάσεις του αγώνα κατά του καθεστώτος της στρατιωτικής δικτατορίας»: “Sociopolitical dimensions of the struggle against the regime of the military dictatorship”.
● «να γίνεται άλλος»: to become someone else
● «Οι εργάτες και οι αγρότες στο καθεστώς της στρατιωτικής δικτατορίας»: “Workers and peasants in the regime of the military dictatorship”.
● «Οι σύγχρονοι κοινοί τόποι»: “The modern common grounds” or “commonalities” (free translation).
● «οικιακό πολιτισμό»: domestic culture
● «ΠΕΙΡΑΪΚΗ-ΠΑΤΡΑΪΚΗ»: “PEIRAIKI-PATRAIKI” – “PEIRAIKI”, from Pireaus; “PATRAIKI” from Patras. Greece’s largest textile producer, 1919-1996.
● «πολιτική ηλιθιότητα»: political idiocy or fatuity
● «πολιτιστική βιομηχανία»: “culture industry”, term often used by the old Frankfurtian School
● «Προοπτικές»: “Prospects”.
● «σαν τον πλούσιο Ωνάση»: like the rich Onassis
● «συνεχή απόκτηση υλικών αγαθών»: continual purchasing of material goods
● «τέχνη»: skill
● «το εξαιρετικά χαμηλό επίπεδο της προηγούμενης αγοραστικής δύναμης»: the exceptionally low level of the preceding purchasing power
● «τούτο είναι χαρακτηριστικό της εποχής μας»: this is characteristic of our epoch

NEW-FOUND MATERIAL COMFORTS AND THE POSITIVE MATERIAL CONTENT OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE

All categories of advertizing discourse, and including those which one could say were highly ‘manipulative’, did have what may be referred to as a positive material content – by this we mean that most advertisements helped to inform and introduce people to the newly available material comforts of “modernity”. All promised what Ernst Bloch had called (for his own reasons) the “material of hope” of the post-war years. Greek “intellectuals” would see this and reject both the ‘materials’ and the ‘hope’: they would generally look down on the material “triumphs” of people, especially in the period of the Military Dictatorship. For Manolis Anagnostakis, even an absolutely necessary “luxury” such as the fridge was presented as «πράγματα ανιαρά» – in a 1970 poem which appeared in Δεκαοχτώ Κείμενα [Eighteen Texts, Κέδρος] and entitled «Ο Στόχος», he would write:

«(Επιμένω να διηγούμαι και μάλιστα
πολύ ωμά, πράγματα που
τα ξέρετε όλοι…
Πράγματα ανιαρά, που δεν κινούν πια
διόλου το ενδιαφέρον σας
Όπως… το ψυγείο Κελβινέϊτορ)»
(p. 131).

We note that Anagnostakis places this stanza of his verse within brackets – for him, presumably, the fact of buying and using a Kelvinator fridge constituted a boring little “parenthesis” of life – what really mattered, and which was the purpose behind the Δεκαοχτώ Κείμενα, was to fight the “Junta” regime. Unwittingly or not, he was in fact placing the “Amalia-type” itself – whose “Dream” was to possess a fridge – within such “parenthesis”.

If Anagnostakis would choose to place Amalia Eleftheriadou and her fridge (or her “dream-fridge”) within a symbolically-expressive “parenthesis”, D. N. Maronitis would go even further: he would throw the poor young lady, together with all her material comforts (or “wished-for” comforts) in prison. This may sound like an overstatement of his thinking but it is not so – this is what he would write in his own contribution to that collection of literary texts entitled Δεκαοχτώ Κείμενα of 1970:

«[There are] τρία είδη από φυλακές, μέσα
στις οποίες ζουν οι άνθρωποι του αιώνα μας,
είτε το καταλαβαίνουν είτε όχι… Η πρώτη
 διαθέτει ακόμη πολλές ανέσεις και τόσο
 διακοσμημένες πληγές, που δύσκολα ξεχωρίζει
 κανείς την αληθινή κραυγή από την
 κερδοσκοπία και την διαφήμιση» (pp. 135-
136, my emph.).

The thinking of the “Left-wing” Maronitis is certainly characterized by that ‘arrogance’ of many “Leftist intellectuals” which we have spoken of above – interestingly, his text in the 1970 Κείμενα carries the title «Υπεροψία και μέθη», and whoever it is he intends to throw such accusations at, these certainly boomerang back on his own stance. The ‘arrogance’ expressed in the quote referred to blinds him absolutely to any real, positive material content of advertizing discourse at the time: whatever real material comforts promoted by such discourse are reduced to mere «διακοσμημένες πληγές». Why so? His inflexible dogmatism blinds him to the real “material of hope” experienced by categories of people such as the “Amalia-type”, and as such “type” would relate to advertizing messages. Put otherwise, what he cannot at all see is the fact that the post-war “modern world” is successfully beginning to help people of all social strata overcome a great deal of the physical exertion that they were stuck in prior to the 1950’s. Freed from such physical exertion – obviously in a relative sense – the “Amalia-type” would not need to cry out the anguish of a prisoner («αληθινή κραυγή»): the young lady could now use her new-found free-time outside the A&M Headquarters to experiment with the new milieu that was unfolding.

We have noted above how Habermas would, by the mid-1980’s, come to reject whatever theory presented post-war “modernity” as an «επίπεδο και άχρωμο τοπίο ενός πλήρως διοικούμενου, υπολογιζόμενου και εξουσιαζόμενου κόσμου» (op. cit.). He would reject such interpretations of the new “forms of life” because none of these interpretations had really wanted to understand the real social revolution that had occurred when it came to limiting the physical exertion which people had to suffer in the past merely so as to survive. In an important passage in his The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, he would emphasize:

«Καμμιά τους [i.e. none of all such theories] … δεν
είναι ευαίσθητη ως προς το εξαιρετικά διφορούμενο
περιεχόμενο της πολιτιστικής και κοινωνικής
νεωτερικότητας. Αυτή η ισοπέδωση παρατηρείται
 επίσης και κατά τη διαχρονική σύγκριση νεωτερικών
 και προνεωτερικών μορφών ζωής» (greek edition, p. 416, my emph.).

What do all such theories not do at all when undertaking such a comparison of these different “forms of life”? Habermas continues:

«Δεν υπολογίζεται καν το ακόμη πιο υψηλό κόστος
 που έπρεπε παλιότερα να καταβάλλει η μάζα του
 πληθυσμού … στις διαστάσεις της σωματικής
 εργασίας, των υλικών συνθηκών ζωής και των ατομικών
 δυνατοτήτων εκλογής, της νομικής ασφάλειας και …
 της πολιτικής συμμετοχής, της σχολικής εκπαίδευσης
 κλπ…» (ibid., my emph.).

Thus, when comparing the post-war “modern times” to the past, one cannot possibly deny the real “progress” that had been achieved both materially and in terms of participation and personal choice, etc. Advertizing discourse would inscribe within itself this material lessening of physical exertion – and, further, in cases where we had a “provocative-interventionism” in any such discourse, the masses could exercise their own choice as to what to reject and what accept («ατομικών δυνατοτήτων εκλογής»). And even further – interpreting the element of the ‘political’ in its wider socio-cultural sense – the “Amalia-type” would have the capacity to “participate” in the forging of the “ideological discourse” of advertizing (and as we have discussed above). All such realities of the post-war period, but especially as regards the material delimitation of time and energy expended on physical exertion, would constitute the positive material content of all advertizing discourse in Greece at the time. The mass “response” to advertizing must be seen within such context. (Of course, the question of physical exertion had already been preoccupying the American female well prior to World War II – cf. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1987; Greek translation, Η Εποχή των Αυτοκρατοριών, Μορφωτικό Ίδρυμα Εθνικής Τραπέζης, Αθήνα, 2007, p. 333. The question of female exertion in the household would be tackled with concepts and practices related to the “scientific management” of the household.)

We may now consider samples of the very many advertisements which appeared in the 1960’s and which emphasized this possibility of escaping physical exertion. A 1967 issue of Romantso would carry the following advertisement promoting a fridge :

«Ξαναβρήτε την προσωπικότητά σας μέσα
στο σπίτι σας. – CANDY ρομπότ – σταματά
τη μπουγάδα – Τώρα με το CANDY έγιναν
όλα πιο εύκολα… Ένας από τους 4 τύπους
πλυντηρίων CANDY ταιριάζει οπωσδήποτε
στο νοικοκυριό σα ς… Πρώτα στην κατανάλωση
… ΤΑ ΠΛΥΝΤΗΡΙΑ ΠΟΥ ΣΑΣ ΛΑΤΡΕΥΟΥΝ»
(Ρομάντσο, No 1248, 31.1.1967).

This advertisement is comprised of a fairly complex discourse which demands that it be analyzed and somehow “categorized” along the “provocative” – “adjustment”, etc. scale. We shall not at this point attempt this here – we merely dwell on phrases such as «σταματά τη μπουγάδα» or «Τώρα … έγιναν όλα πιο εύκολα». The “Amalia-type” is asked to contrast the well-known reality of a «μπουγάδα» to the as real possibility of escaping its physical exertion through “robotic” technology, and which would also mean saving on extra free time.

Now, although this home device was, at the time, being sold in fifty towns all over Greece – apart of course from the cities of Athens and Salonika – it would most probably not as yet have belonged to a family such as that of Amalia Eleftheriadou. This is a mere assumption, but it is based on the fact that it was only by the very late-1960’s/early-1970’s that a sizeable proportion of the “average Boeotian” would venture into buying a washing machine for his home – though we know that by then many IZOLA workers (especially but not only) would buy themselves more than one washing machine (one for their home, another/others as dowry if they had daughters).

But even if the Eleftheriadou family did not possess a washing machine in 1967, it was still just such home device that the “Amalia-type” would have dreamt of, especially as she would project her life into the future, when she would establish her own home. We know that especially female working youths would, not only focus on their “frenzied” present, but also be thoroughly forward-looking. The “Amalia-type” would dream of her own future “Home” as a place that would have escaped from the physical exertions of doing the washing for her own family – the “CANDY” advertisement could only but have addressed itself to the problematic realities of the day within the 1960’s household, and Amalia would have definitely given such advertisement her “close thought and attention” (Galbraith) – i.e. would have attended at least to the positive material content of such discourse.

One may compare the «CANDY ρομπότ» offered to Greek housewives with that of the reality which they would need to escape from. Zyranna Zateli, in an excellent collection of stories which truly capture the atmosphere of the 1960’s (Περσινή αρραβωνιαστικιά [Last Year’s Fiancée], Εκδόσεις ΣΙΓΑΡΕΤΑ, July 1984, 1st edition), would write of the «μπουγάδα» taking place in 1961 as follows:

«… κατευθύνθηκαν προς το υπόστεγο
όπου ανάβαμε καζάνι και πλέναμε…»
(pp. 12-13).

Marika Zota, resident of the Boeotia village of Kleidi, would describe the old-time women’s job of washing clothes as follows:

«Για το πλύσιμο φτιάχναμε αλισίβα –
στάχτη, απ’ τη φωτιά που είχαμε. Έριχνες
τη στάχτη στο καζάνι, κόχλαζε το νερό,
κι ύστερα έπρεπε να ρίξεις νερό κρύο:
το νερό σταμάταγε να βράζει κι έμενε πάνω
πάνω στρώμα η αλισίβα…» (cf. 17η προφορική
μαρτυρία: Μαρίκα Ζώτα, περ. 65 χρονών,
από Κλειδί Βοιωτίας, 30.7.2009, interview at
Aliarto).

Further, Vangelio Kalomiri, resident of Aliarto since the age of 19 (and by 2009 in her late ‘60’s), would speak as follows about washing, and with a focus on the sexual division of labour within the household:

«Οι δικές μας οι εποχές ήταν αλλιώς…
Πού να βγει έξω ο άντρας, ν’ απλώσει
την κιλότα… Τι λες!... Η γυναίκα ήτανε για
το σπίτι, η γυναίκα για όλα… Ξέρεις τι δουλειά
έχω ρίξει εγώ;…» (cf. an open discussion with
Βαγγελιώ Καλομοίρη at Aliarto – Interview No. 20,
12.8.2009).

And Tsiforos, in his Άνθρωποι και Ανθρωπάκια (op. cit), tells us how the Greek grandmothers would do the washing before products such as ‘TIDE’ and “ROL’ would enter the Greek home:

«Η γιαγιά.
Έπλενε καλώς…
Χώρια τ’ άσπρα, χώρια τα σκούρα.
Έβαζε και ινδικόν (λουλάκι)»
(p. 243).

This movement from the use of the traditional «λουλάκι» or of the «αλισίβα» to the advent of the much more technologically advanced foreign-produced detergents would be advertized on a massive scale by various publications – for instance, the daily newspaper Akropolis [Ακρόπολις] would carry advertisements such as the following in 1965:

«ΝΕΟ ROL SPOTLESS…
ΛΕΥΚΟ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΛΕΚΕΔΕΣ»
(cf. Akropolis, 28.11.1965,
p. 15).

Greek housewives and their daughters – who usually helped with the housework – would be exposed to advertisements which directly offered them the real possibility of less strain when it came to washing clothes – the daily newspaper Apogevmatini [Απογευματινή] would carry the following advertisement in December 1965:

«ΥΠΕΡΑΥΤΟΜΑΤΑ ΠΛΥΝΤΗΡΙΑ. Κυρίες μου,
σας προσφέρουμε το υπεραυτόματο ΠΛΥΝΤΗΡΙΟ
που πραγματικά θα σας ξεκουράση (ΜΟΝΟΝ που
 δεν σιδερώνει)…» (cf. Apogevmatini,
14.12.1965, p. 7, my emph.).

The positive material content of advertising discourse pertaining to the practice of washing and to the appliance of the washing machine would be the clearly technical functions of such device, and how such functions would substitute the physical exertion of persons – however much such reference to “technical functions” could be interpreted as “manipulation” on the part of the advertizing sector to persuade a housewife to buy the product, the fact nonetheless remains that such promised “functions” (and their material implications) could be verified by the user, and which means that advertizing discourse was in this case absolutely falsifiable in everyday practice. In November 1965, the Akropolis carried an advertisement that read as follows:

«ΥΠΕΡΑΥΤΟΜΑΤΟ ΠΛΥΝΤΗΡΙΟ… gabry…
ΠΛΕΝΕΙ – ΞΕΒΓΑΖΕΙ – ΣΤΙΒΕΙ – ΣΤΕΓΝΩΝΕΙ…
μόνο του… 5 κιλά ρούχα…»
(cf. Akropolis, 28.11. 1965, p. 6).

The “Amalia-type”, using its “close thought and attention”, would inevitably focus on such specific functions – and would do so because these practically concerned the material conditions of the life of an Amalia Eleftheriadou: the latter would gradually accumulate enough money so as to buy and try out such device. Advertizing discourse can and does tell lies – on the other hand, ‘capitalist’ technology does not: were it not for such technology, each of the functions mentioned in the advertisement above would otherwise have to be done by hand (though it remains true that the last function, «ΣΤΕΓΝΩΝΕΙ», would not be fully substituted). Overall, however, the “Amalia-type” would “attend” to the tangible fact that much energy and time could be saved through such “technical functions”: the saving of such energy and time would constitute a necessary precondition for her own “freedom” (and as she would forge her own understanding of such “freedom”).

For those who, in the early-1960’s, could not as yet afford to buy a washing machine for their homes, advertisements would inform them of the existence of dry cleaning services – such services would especially be used for clothes to be worn on special occasions – we know that since the 1920’s and right up to the 1960’s «η τσάκιση είχε μεγάλη σημασία» (cf. madeincreta.gr). Dry cleaners were operating even as early as 1928 in Iraklion, Crete (ibid.), but would become accessible to the masses both in Athens and the “peripheries” from the 1950’s and through to the 1960’s and on. Especially when that very special «τσάκιση» had to be accomplished for male clothes, housewives could simply let such shops do the job for them. It was precisely such ‘service’ of meticulous cleaning and ironing that the following advertisement would promote in 1959-1960:

«ΤΑ ΧΙΟΝΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΑΛΠΕΩΝ
ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΟΛΥΜΠΟΥ
ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΣΥΓΚΡΙΝΟΝΤΑΙ
ΣΤΗΝ ΑΣΠΡΑΔΑ
ΜΕ ΤΑ ΡΟΥΧΑ ΣΑΣ
ΑΝ ΤΑ ΕΜΠΙΣΤΕΥΘΗΤΕ
ΣΤΑ
ΠΛΥΝΤΗΡΙΑ
“ΤΑ ΧΙΟΝΑΤΑ”
ΦΡΟΣΩΣ ΧΡ. ΜΥΛΟΝΑΚΟΥ
ΔΑΒΑΚΗ 51…
ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑ ΕΠΙΜΕΛΗΜΕΝΗ
ΥΓΙΕΙΝΗ ΕΞΑΣΦΑΛΙΣΙΣ
ΚΑΙ
ΤΙΜΑΙ ΥΠΕΡΛΟΓΙΚΑΙ»
(cf. Christos Papazoglou (Ed.), Η Καλλιθέα του
 χθες και του σήμερα [Kallithea of Yesterday and Today, Έκδοση Εφημερίδας
 Έρευνα Καλλιθέας), Kallithea, 2000, p. 333,
their emph.).

Perhaps a much more important home appliance than the energy-saving washing machine was the refrigerator. In his 1974 Άνθρωποι… (op. cit.), Tsiforos uses irony to try capture what the purchasing of a fridge would have meant to a Greek housewife in the 1960’s/early-1970’s period – he writes:

«… παρήγγειλε και ψυγείο καινούργιο.
Μικρό. Η δόση δρχ. 350… Εκεί μέσα
 τοποθέτησε τα όνειρά της…» (p. 262,
my emph.).

To suggest that the buying of a small fridge would lead a housewife to placing her ‘dreams’ therein seems like a sarcastic exaggeration. But if one considers what the “average” Greek home had thus far been using to preserve its foods, one could understand what Tsiforos is in fact getting at: very many homes, and right through to at least the mid-1960’s, had been using a «παγωνιέρα» for such purpose. This rather primitive ‘appliance’ was a fairly simple wooden box (albeit reinforced by insulation) wherein people would place a largish block of ice at its base – the ice-block usually being delivered to the house early in the morning (left on the doorstep) by people whose job it was to ‘manufacture’ such blocks of ice (cf., for instance, Giannis Xanthoulis, Το πεθαμένο λικέρ, Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, 1987, p. 55, where the use of the «παγωνιέρα» is referred to as a matter-of-fact reality in 1958).

Keeping such grim realities in mind (‘grim’, if one contrasts this to what was happening in parts of Europe and the USA at the time), one would conclude that the act of «Εκεί μέσα τοποθέτησε τα όνειρά της» was in fact a very logical response on the part of a Greek housewife who had just managed to buy herself a small electrically-powered fridge. It is, therefore, a historical fact of the period that ‘The Fridge’ had come to constitute a “Dream-object” that asked of the dreaming-subject to turn it into a “Reality”. Thus, by extension, we may say that to fully understand that “New Transitional Type” (of which the “Amalia-type” was a part), we shall need to as much understand how that “type” would relate to the new, electrically-powered fridge as a home appliance (or to such fridge as an image in an advertisement). For the young working Amalia, such relationship can best be described as an unreachable “Dream” that persistently urged her to make it unfold into a reachable “Reality”. It was not merely the necessary functions of such appliance that would constitute such “Dream”, and it was not merely its ‘aesthetic’ position within the household that mattered: both ‘technical functions’ and ‘aesthetics’ would compose a whole “Dream-image” that would dangle in her mind as would a pendulum. Such pendulum would, at times, smash itself against the rocks of the economically ‘unreachable’; at other times – or even simultaneously – it would smash itself against the rocks of a practical necessity for such device. Given the first opportunity – i.e. economic capacity (the installment of 350 drch.) – the “Dream” would become a “Reality”, and thus become an organic and irreversible part of Amalia’s everyday life. Above, we have referred to the case of the Aliartian barber and how, despite his hard work, he had never managed to buy a fridge for his family by 1963 – on setting foot in South Africa, his wife’s first “Dream”-demand was nothing else but that of buying an electric fridge (and which was of course very soon met).

Now, it was precisely this reality which we have been describing that would be inscribed in the positive material content of advertizing discourse promoting fridges at the time. We may here consider a representative advertisement which appeared in the weekly newspaper Paneuvoikon Vima [Πανευβοϊκόν Βήμα] in December 1965:

«Το όνειρο της δροσιάς! –
Το όνειρο κάθε γυναίκας! –
ΗΛΕΚΤΡΙΚΟ ΨΥΓΕΙΟ ΚΕLVINATOR –
Τέλειο σε όλα! – και με στιγμιαία απόψυξι (σε 1 λεπτό)! –
Πολυτελής εξωτερική εμφάνισις, γερή αθάνατη
κατασκευή, θάλαμος από STYRON, έξυπνη εκμετάλλευσις
εσωτερικού χώρου, ισχυρό ψυκτικό μηχάνημα,
μαγνητική πόρτα, αθόρυβη λειτουργία, και το
οικονομικώτερο σε κατανάλωση. – ΕΥΚΟΛΙΑΙ
ΠΛΗΡΩΜΗΣ…» (cf.  Paneuvoikon Vima,
25.12.1965, p. 2).

At first sight, one would say that the above advertisement is merely a run-of-the-mill sample of the type that tries to “manipulate” consumers with highfaluting promises about the product. And yet, on closer inspection, and keeping in mind what we have said above as regards the fridge as a logically-explainable “Dream-object” in the 1960’s, we realize that the discourse of such advertisement is organized around a positive material content meant to fulfill the real and logical needs of an “Amalia-type”. Such content, pointing to the necessary ‘technical functions’ and to the as necessary ‘aesthetics’, is composed of the following interrelated discourse concepts:

• the fridge as a “Dream” («Το όνειρο…»);
• such “Dream” possesses real technological perfections («Τέλειο σε όλα») – and these were perfections as such at that stage of technological development;
• such real ‘technical functions’ went hand-in-hand with a real ‘aesthetical’ luxury («Πολυτελής…»);
• such real “Dream” was economical to use («οικονομικώτερο σε κατανάλωση») and fairly easy to buy («ΕΥΚΟΛΙΑΙ ΠΛΗΡΩΜΗΣ»), and thus could constitute a reachable “Dream”.

Yet another advertisement promoting fridges, this time published in the daily  Apogevmatini, and also in December 1965, read as follows:

«SINGER – SLIM LINE – ΤΟ ΚΟΜΨΟΤΕΡΟ ΨΥΓΕΙΟ

• Πολυτελέστατη εμφάνισις
• Μεγίστη ψύξις εις ελάχιστον χρόνον
• Κινητά ράφια
• Αρίστη μόνωσις
• Μαγνητική αεροστεγής πόρτα
• Διπλή ψύξις
• Αυτόματος απόψυξις
• Ειδικόν σύστημα κυκλοφορίας του αέρος εις το εσωτερικόν

…SINGER – ΤΟ ΣΗΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΕΜΠΙΣΤΟΣΥΝΗΣ»
(cf. Apogevmatini, 13.12.1965, p. 8).

Here we have yet another excellent example of an advertisement which, while placing much emphasis on the question of “luxury”, nonetheless goes on to enumerate the series of practical functionalities which the particular fridge offers, and which constitutes the hard core of the positive material content of this advertizing discourse. What it enumerates, in other words, is an objective reflection of the real technological progress being “democratized” at the time and which facilitated the lessening of physical exertion amongst the popular masses, and which was also conducive to the general upgrading of the material conditions of life amongst the “average Greek” (such as the “Amalia-type”).

The positive material content of advertizing discourse at the time would take yet another and as important, form: apart from informing people about the new technology, it would also practically facilitate the movement from the old and “primitive” to the new and “modern”. As regards fridges in particular, advertisements would actually help great numbers of people to give up their wooden «παγωνιέρα» and buy themselves an electric fridge. Such facilitation of the renewal of household appliances, and especially as regards the fridge, is clearly evident in the following Apogevmatini advertisement of 1965, and which is only a representative sample of that type of advertisement in the decade of the 1960’s:

«ΜΗΝ ΚΟΥΡΑΖΕΣΘΕ ΑΔΙΚΑ. Για ηλεκτρικό ΨΥΓΕΙΟ…
ΕΛΑΤΕ αμέσως στα ΓΝΩΣΤΑ καταστήματα 74 ΑΧΑΡΝΩΝ
… Είναι τόσες οι ΕΥΚΟΛΙΕΣ που ΘΑ ΣΑΣ κάνουμε, που
δεν θα πρέπει ούτε στιγμή να μείνετε χωρίς ΗΛΕΚΤΡΙΚΟ
ΨΥΓΕΙΟ. ΠΟΙΟΤΗΣ ΚΑΤΑΠΛΗΚΤΙΚΗ… ΕΧΕΤΕ ΠΑΛΑΙΟ
ΨΥΓΕΙΟ; Ηλεκτρικό ή Πάγου, ΘΕΛΕΤΕ Ν’ ΑΠΟΚΤΗΣΕΤΕ
το τελευταίο ΜΟΔΕΛΟ;… Επισκεφθήτε μας προς το
συμφέρον σας… ΟΣΟ ΚΟΣΤΙΖΕΙ Ο ΠΑΓΟΣ και η δόσις
του ξύλινου ΨΥΓΕΙΟΥ ΣΑΣ ΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΟΜΕΝ ένα
ωραιότατο ΗΛ. ΨΥΓΕΙΟ… Όλος ο κόσμος τόμαθε –
Όλος ο κόσμος ξεύρη. Πως. Το ηλεκτρικό ΨΥΓΕΙΟ του.
Στην ΑΧΑΡΝΩΝ θα εύρη… ΟΙ ΜΙΜΗΤΑΙ ΜΑΣ είναι
πολλοί, αλλά μόνον ΕΜΕΙΣ ΑΝΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΟΜΕΝ τα
παλαιά σας ΨΥΓΕΙΑ…, αγοράζοντας τα ιδικά σας σε
τιμές απίστευτα υψηλές… ΠΑΡΤΕ ΤΑΞΙ με έξοδά μας
κι’ ελάτε στάς εκθέσεις μας…» (cf. Apogevmatini,
14.12.1965, p. 7, their emph. throughout).

This rather long and crudely-written advertisement appeared in the ‘small ads’ pages of the newspaper, but was repeated therein in a variety of versions, thus taking up most of the space of these pages. It would be published almost on a daily basis both in Apogevmatini and in various other publications – thus indicating the mass spread of its message amongst the popular masses. It is as important to note that similar types of advertisements (suggesting similar types of transactions) were of course also being published by other firms apart from «74 ΑΧΑΡΝΩΝ», and as that is revealed by the latter’s warning that «ΟΙ ΜΙΜΗΤΕΣ ΜΑΣ είναι πολλοί». As mentioned, all such advertisements would actively facilitate the progress from the use of blocks of ice to the electrically-powered fridges – they would facilitate the withdrawal of the “primitive” and allow for technological renewal. As in the case of the above advertisement, most would point to the fact that there would be little difference in cost between possessing the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ («ΟΣΟ ΚΟΣΤΙΖΕΙ Ο ΠΑΓΟΣ και η δόσις του ξύλινου…»), and would offer to buy the ‘old’ («ΕΜΕΙΣ ΑΝΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΟΜΕΝ τα παλαιά σας ΨΥΓΕΙΑ… αγοράζοντας τα ιδικά σας σε τιμές απίστευτα υψηλές…»). As we shall further see below in discussing other household appliances, what we have here was a generalized offer to renew things – and this, of course, reflects precisely what Panagiotopoulos had written in 1977 (op. cit.), observing that dominant practice amongst the “average Greek” «… ν’ ανανεώνει… τα σκεύη του…».

Another advertisement of this type would be much more specific as to the amount of cash the firm was prepared to offer for the buying back of “primitive” fridges still in use – we read:

«ΑΓΟΡΑΖΟΜΕΝ τα παλαιά ΨΥΓΕΙΑ του πάγου
ΜΕΤΡΗΤΟΙΣ 1.000 δραχ. έκαστον και σας προσφέρομε
ΨΥΓΕΙΑ ΗΛΕΚΤΡΙΚΑ όλων των εργοστασίων ΜΕ
ΠΟΛΛΕΣ ΑΤΟΚΕΣ ΜΗΝΙΑΙΕΣ ΔΟΣΕΙΣ και πενταετή
εγγύησιν…» (Apogevmatini, ibid.).

This is therefore yet a further example of advertisements facilitating the renewal of appliances and allowing for the purchase of new electric fridges through installments, etc. – as to the buying of the old, wooden fridges, this advertisement would further clarify:

«… όσο παλαιά και αν είναι…» (ibid.).

Finally, the following advertisement gives us some idea of the price of an electric fridge in the mid-1960’s:

«ΨΥΓΕΙΑ ΚΡΟΝΟΣ…
ΑΠΟ 165 Δρχ… ΤΟ ΜΗΝΑ...
6,5 Κ.Π. Δρχ. 6,100…
8,5 Κ.Π. Δρχ. 8,800…»
(cf. Apogevmatini, 6.10.1965, p. 6).

When Amalia Eleftheriadou would be officially hired as an «Υπάλληλος» at the A&M Headquarters by December 1966, we know she would be receiving a net daily wage of 65 drachmas; unless she did overtime work or worked on Saturdays, she would be earning a monthly income of 1.625 drachmas. Were she to have decided to buy a fridge for her family, she would know – based on the advertisement above – that of that 1.625 drachma earnings, 165 drachmas would have to be devoted to that fridge at the end of each month, reducing her monthly income to 1.460 drachmas – the ‘sacrifice’, it seems, must have been quite ‘manageable’, though we do not know what other economic needs and responsibilities beset her. Under fairly ‘normal’ conditions, and if Amalia would have decided to buy the less expensive 6,5 Κ.Π. fridge, it would have taken her about 3 years to settle all her bills for the purchase. Things would have been much easier if her family already possessed an old wooden fridge, which they could have withdrawn and made 1.000 drachmas by simply doing so – in that case, Amalia would have been able to settle all her bills in even less than 3 years. And things would have been still easier if family-members (like her brother and father) would combine part of their earnings so as to contribute to the buying of the 6,5 Κ.Π. electric fridge. What we are very simply suggesting is that the “Dream-fridge” was certainly a reachable “Reality” by the mid-1960’s, and that even as regards a badly-paid young female «Υπάλληλο». And the implication is that at least as regards the positive material content of advertisements promoting fridges – i.e. the technical functions of such appliances, the possibility of selling the “primitive” and buying the “modern”, and the real prices and conditions of sale of fridges –, all this had little to do with ‘false’ or “manipulated consciousness”: the material content of advertizing discourse directly reflected the real material conditions of life.

We may now examine the positive material content of advertizing discourse promoting the kitchen-stove of the period. We know that, next to doing the washing, Greek women also had to exert as much time and energy in doing the cooking for the family. Here, we simply note that social history should someday deal with the history of the cooking practices of the popular masses around the world (comparative studies would be invaluable in understanding such practices – social anthropologists have already contributed to such object of research, though mainly involving pre-capitalist societies). Greek social history, if it were ever to take off as a field of research, would also have to write of the history of the cooking practices of Greek women and trace the truly revolutionary ruptures in such practices as one compares how they did their cooking before and after the advent of the cooking-stove. Such rupture was inscribed in the positive material content of advertisements promoting this kitchen appliance in the 1960’s.

The daily newspaper Akropolis would, in November 1965, carry the following advertisement promoting the IZOLA [ΙΖΟΛΑ] kitchen-stove:

«ΝΕΕΣ ΚΟΥΖΙΝΕΣ ΙΖΟΛΑ… ΟΛΕΣ ΜΕ ΦΟΥΡΝΟ
… Με ΔΥΟ θερμοστατικές εστίες ταχείας
θερμάνσεως EGOWATT… Με μεγαλύτερο
φούρνο… Με δύο ταψιά εμαγιέ… Με ενδεικτικές
λυχνίες λειτουργίας εστιών… Με ηλεκτρική
σούβλα… Με χρονοδιακόπτη…»
(cf. Akropolis, 30.11.1965, p. 7).

This advertisement presents the Greek housewife with seven technical functions installed in the IZOLA kitchen-stove, and which presumably, put together, constitute the positive material content of its discourse – and which is therefore addressing itself to the practical needs of consumers. Now, it is very difficult for us to determine which of these “functions” would actually fulfill real practical needs, and which were merely ‘decorative’ dummies added so as to “manipulate” people into buying the product – these latter constituting some form of negative ‘material’ content. On the other hand, and as mentioned above, it would be the consumer himself who, in the last instance, would determine what ‘content’ would be ‘positive’ (truly helpful practical functions) and what would be ‘negative’ (useless little advertisement fibs) – in other words, the sheer usage of the appliance by the housewife herself would elucidate in verifiable practice what constituted “manipulation” and what not (that being the ultimate – though never absolute – ‘power’ of the “Amalia-type”). We in any case note that this particular IZOLA advertisement was definitely responding to the real needs of women to either cut down on time-consuming cooking practices, or to at least ‘manage’ the vital question of time involved in such practices – as to cutting down on time, we may note the function of «ταχείας θερμάνσεως»; as to time-management, we may further note the function of a «χρονοδιακόπτη».

Interestingly, advertizing discourse could go much further than simply enumerate the technical functions of a kitchen-stove: it would at times also dwell on the practical implications of such functions, and it would do so by describing the effect such functions would have on the everyday life of a woman, especially as regards the question of physical exertion and that of time-consumption. Here, advertizing discourse would narrate the lives of women who had chosen to make use of the particular appliance. Did such an approach constitute a “manipulation” of the imagination of women? Let us consider just such an advertisement which appeared in the Akropolis in 1965, and which was promoting the AEG kitchen-stove:

«Δεν την αλλάζω με καμμιά…
Γιατί έκανε διασκέδασι την φροντίδα του
μαγειρεύματος.
Γιατί μου έδιωξε κάθε σκοτούρα…
Γιατί με απήλλαξε από κάθε έγνοια και
συνεχή παρακολούθηση (Μαγειρεύει
μόνη της).
Γιατί λειτουργεί σταθερά και ασφαλώς.
Γιατί είναι… ευκολομεταχείριστη… AEG»
(cf. Akropolis 1.12.1965, p. 3, their
emph.).

This advertisement presents potential buyers with the supposedly very ‘human’ effects that the technological capacities of an AEG kitchen-stove would have on the life of its user – turns of phrases such as «έκανε διασκέδασι», «έδιωξε…», «απήλλαξε», etc., may easily be said to be emotionally-laden, highly subjective estimations of what technical functions can do to people and which may play psychological games on the imagination of an exhausted and frustrated Greek housewife. This, of course, seems to question the extent to which such advertizing discourse carries any positive material content worth considering. But such an interpretation of this advertizing discourse would be forgetting two vital factors which would determine the relationship between buyer and seller: firstly, the role of the buyer as a subject who is offered the opportunity to test whatever advertizing claims in practice; and secondly, the ability of such subject to compare and contrast her own cooking practices before and after the use of the AEG kitchen-stove. More accurately, and as regards the latter factor, the subject would be able to ‘measure’ her own experiences as cook in the past, when – as happened at Aliarto in the early-1960’s – she would have to laboriously light a fire invariably in her yard, fix a pot over it and tend to the cooking (or, at best, use “primitive” gas-stoves connected to gas-cylinders, or use that «παλιά γκαζιέρα πετρελαίου» of the 1950’s). And she would then instinctively go on to ‘measure’ such past in relation to her post-war present, when she would be able tο let the kitchen-stove, now naturally indoors, more or less do its own job («Μαγειρεύει μόνη της»), and without having to tend to it continuously (that «συνεχή παρακολούθηση»). Put in a nutshell, we may say that the experiential effects of the technological functions of the electric kitchen-stove as presented in the advertizing discourse could be compared with the experiential effects of such functions in real life – to the extent that elements of the advertizing discourse were exaggerating the experiential effects, the user was free to critically qualify the advertizing message empirically. Thus, positive material content would be differentiated from negative waffle, and which would help the consumer become more prudent when it came to his/her next purchase.

As in the case of fridges, so also with cooking appliances, there would be a generalized tendency to renew old gas-stoves with the new electric and/or “automatic” kitchen-stove. In 1965, the Apogevmatini would carry an advertisement promoting precisely such “robotic” nature of the new cooking appliance:

«Θέλετε ΚΟΥΖΙΝΑ ELCO ROBOT; Ελάτε –
ΑΧΑΡΝΩΝ 74…» (cf. Apogevmatini,
14.12.1965, p. 7).

And this advertisement would immediately go on to urge people to exchange whatever old cooking appliance they happened to possess for a new cooking “robot”. Apart from the real needs of people – and as these were determined by the historical context – this generalized and continual renewal of things, which we are saying characterized the period, went hand-in-hand with a continual technological development which continually renewed itself – many advertisements of the period would carry messages that went as follows:

«Όμως η αλήθεια είναι μία… ο εφευρέτης
[of whatever particular product] συνεχώς επί
30 χρόνια το βελτιώνει» (cf. Akropolis,
5.12.1965, p. 4).

As to why developments in technology per se would be such as to continually renew itself – and thus finally ‘force’ even the Greek consumer to get rid of old appliances – a French analyst, Serge Antonioli, writing in a 1979 issue of Δελτίον ΣΕΒ, would explain as follows:

«… η τεχνολογία που κυριολεκτικά “καλπάζει” σε
κατακτήσεις, [το αγαθό που διαρκεί πολύ] το
απαξιώνει … λειτουργικά και επιβαρύνει με πρόσθετο
κόστος τη μακρά χρήση του» (cf. Δελτίον ΣΕΒ,
No 411, 30.9.1979,
p. 28).

Such continual technological development, yielding a renewal of technology, and thus a continual renewal of things, would be persistently pointing to the possibility of substituting the housewife in toto – i.e. freeing the individual (such “individual” being the “triumph” of the post-war years, as Hobsbawm would put it) from the daily drudgery of work done in the kitchen. Consider the following advertisement promoting kitchen-stoves in the mid-1960’s:

«Πλήρης αυτοματισμός… με την
Φλαμίνα Σουπερμάτικ… Αυτόματος
έναρξις και διακοπή της λειτουργίας…
 Εκτελεί τις επιθυμίες σας με χρονομετρική
 ακρίβεια όταν εσείς απουσιάζετε. Ενεργεί
 μόνη της… Δεν κινδυνεύει να κάψη το
φαγητό χάρις στην αυτόματη εστία EGO,
 που σκέπτεται μόνη της και μαγειρεύει
 χωρίς επίβλεψη. Αυξομειώνει ή διακόπτει
το ρεύμα, δημιουργεί σταθερή θερμοκρασία,
εξοικονομεί ρεύμα… flamina Supermatic
ΠΙΤΣΟΣ…» (cf. Akropolis, 12.12. 1965,
p. 4, my emph.).

Concepts such as «όταν εσείς απουσιάζετε», «σκέπτεται μόνη» and «χωρίς επίβλεψη» – all of which are consummated in that “EGO” mechanism of the appliance – were essentially introducing Greek women to a continuum of possibilities whereby large chunks of their real time would be freed from material necessity, and which was till now restraining their minds and bodies around pots over open-air fires, or around “primitive” and at times rather dangerous gas-stoves attached to gas-cylinders, or around those wobbly «γκαζιέρες πετρελαίου» which continually demanded one’s constant attention. In fact, many women at Aliarto and in the villages of Thiva and Levadia would be literally terrified of the gas-cylinder and would often express their preference for the open-air fire – on the other hand, they well knew that doing their cooking in the yard would mean getting up very early in the morning and finishing their cooking-job by lunch-time (something which would in any case be practically impossible for women who entered the ranks of working people at, say, the Dourida, the Michaelidis, the IZOLA or the A&M plants). Working women such as the “Amalia-type”, and especially the married workers such as Maria Giannou at the A&M Mill, would ultimately have no choice but to buy an electric-powered kitchen-stove for their selves. But such an appliance would not merely facilitate their working as wage-labourers: its “robotic” functions would enable them to free themselves of much physical exertion outside work-hours – something which would prove especially invaluable to the young “Amalia-type”, and given the socio-cultural revolution of youth at the time.

Interestingly, the advertisement above would refer to the «αυτόματη εστία» of the “flamina Supermatic” as “EGO” – it was obviously insinuating that the “Amalia-type” would henceforth be able to possess a double ego: on the one hand, the “ego” of the flesh-and-blood Amalia Eleftheriadou would no longer have to be physically present in the kitchen while the cooking was taking place, and would no longer have to think about or even care-for what was happening therein. On the other hand, this selfsame Eleftheriadou would be the possessor of yet another “ego” well outside of her (as an individual), and which would –  independently of her person – act and think for her but by itself in fulfilling the job of cooking («Εκτελεί τις επιθυμίες σας… σκέπτεται μόνη της»). This promised double-ego, that of the person who is free to live and create, and that of the selfsame person who possesses the technical means to satisfy all material necessities, was of course never to be fully realized in the post-war period: the “Amalia-type”, whether as a wage-labourer or as a freelance professional, would in the majority of cases be faced by some ceiling delimiting her economic and consumer capacity, thus rendering such “Dream” of a double-ego veritably utopian. And yet, the 1960’s and 1970’s would constitute a time when the “Amalia-type” would be able to come to possess and use that «αυτόματη εστία EGO» in important dimensions of her everyday life – one such vital dimension being the practice of cooking. One would not, as Roupa (op. cit.) has pointed out, ever see the “abolition of the housewife” – but the ‘mediaeval’ conditions of life of the pre-war Greek woman-as-cook would be over once and for all.

To further examine positive material content in advertizing discourse at the time, we shall need to examine what Galbraith (op. cit.) had called “goods … related … to elementary physical sensation” – goods, in other words, which “protect against cold” and which, for him, had “come to comprise a small and diminishing part of production”. To understand the role of such goods in Greece – and their promotion through advertisements – we should perhaps first consider what weather conditions were like in Greece in the 1960’s and then consider such goods in such meteorological context. We are not at all suggesting that the weather conditions of Greece were in any way exceptional in comparison to, say, those of the USA – but we do need to keep in mind how those particular weather conditions would have affected the “average Greek” who was only just beginning to taste the fruits of technological modernity, and whose usual protection against the cold had been limited to the fireplace (as at Aliarto, especially in the early 1960’s).

Let us consider a number of typical winter months in the region of Boeotia and its environs in 1965. We note that temperatures in the area on October 10 ranged from a mild maximum of 24°C to a minimum of 14°C. By November 28, temperatures would drop to a maximum of 18°C and a minimum of 10°C. Then, by December 3, temperatures would continue to drop further to a maximum of 15°C and a minimum of 9°C. December 4 would see rainfalls throughout the area, and by December 8, while maximum temperatures would have risen slightly to 19°C, the minimum would drop to 5°C. But then, four days later on December 12, newspapers would be reporting the advent of a «ΣΦΟΔΡΟΤΑΤΗ ΚΑΚΟΚΑΙΡΙΑ» and people would be saying that real winter had set in, commenting on its rather late arrival. The Aegean would be beset with wind forces ranging from 32-38 M.P.H. (7 on the Beaufort scale) and even went on to a fresh gale of 39-46 M.P.H. (8 on the Beaufort scale) – with ships out at sea experiencing a variety of problems. By December 14, the minimum temperature would rise slightly to 6°C, but the maximum temperature would not exceed 10°C. Between December 15 and 17, maximum temperatures would range from 12°C to 13°C, but minimums would be stuck at 1°C. And then, by January 6, 1966, all hell would truly break loose: newspapers would be writing of a «Δριμύτατον ψύχος» throughout the country, with heavy snowfalls everywhere (including Athens). Temperatures would be freezing, being usually stuck at 0°C, and rarely raising their head to 6°C at the very most. By January 8 of that year, Boeotia itself would be receiving very heavy snowfalls, villages in the environs would be cut off from local centers, and the cold north winds would be scathing the faces of those workers who could still make it to factories such as that of Douridas, Michaelidis and Marakis. Temperatures on January 8 would start from 0°C and go well below freezing point. Such weather conditions would continue throughout that month with snowfalls and heavy storms in various parts of Boeotia – in fact temperatures would drop even further by January 28 and 29.

Now, it was directly to such real and harsh weather conditions that the advertizing industry would be responding – it would be such reality, in other words, which would ‘feed’ the positive material content of advertisements promoting heating appliances at that time of year. We have noted above that, by November 1965, temperatures would start to fall (from 24°C to 18°C maximum, etc.), and would thus inaugurate the gradual setting in of winter cold. It was absolutely natural for producers of heating appliances to have immediately grabbed the opportunity – exactly by November of that year – and advertized their goods to a freezing population, most of which – especially in places such as Aliarto – still had to depend on the burning of wood so as to warm themselves (use of fireplaces, or “primitive” «ξυλόσομπες» – the Aliartian barber would only be able to buy such «σόμπα» by early 1963). In November 1965, the Akropolis would carry the following advertisement:

«…ΚΙ’ ΕΣΕΙΣ ΔΑΜΑΣΤΕ ΤΟ ΚΡΥΟ… μια ζεστή
συντροφιά μέσα στον άγριο Χειμώνα…
ΘΕΡΜΑΣΤΡΑ MASTER… ΤΕΛΕΙΑ ΕΙΔΗ ΓΙΑ ΤΕΛΕΙΟ
ΝΟΙΚΟΚΥΡΙΟ» (cf. Akropolis, 28.11.1965,
p. 6, my emph.).

Locating this particular advertisement within the time and place in which it was published, one realizes how deeply real it is in relation to the needs of such time and place: very simply, it quite spontaneously responds to the socio-climatic environment of which it is here an organic part («μέσα στον άγριο Χειμώνα…»). On the other hand, one cannot fail to notice that this advertisement also goes on to add to such real response that quite ‘ideologically’-laden phrase «ΓΙΑ ΤΕΛΕΙΟ ΝΟΙΚΟΚΥΡΙΟ», and which seems to want to play with the wishful thinking and the emotional world of women. But even such “manipulative” intentions should not be seen as a purely external ‘intervention” imposed haphazardly on housewives – as mentioned, the “Amalia-type” at least (and especially given her young age) would actually dream of a “perfect home” for her future family – in fact, even within conditions of poverty, housewives would nonetheless create their own cozy little “hub” which constituted a self-created space relatively autonomous of the harsh reality of life outside of it (cf. our paper on the Meletiou family, and which includes references to the literary work of Dimitris Hatzis on this issue). In any case, merely evoking images of the «ΤΕΛΕΙΟ» in such a discourse would be to reduce it to an ineffective empty shell were there to be an absence of its crux, which is its positive material content – such crux, of course, being the thing sold during a heavy winter-time to ward off the cold. We therefore have here some sort of balance between the real (the heater) and the only half-real (the “dream”).

We need to try and empathize with some Aliartian mother and her children crouching in front of a fireplace on that Saturday of 8th January, 1966, when heavy snow would begin to cover her little hovel of a place (which was once, as sometimes happened, used as a barn) and with temperatures at below zero – the question raised is how she would have most probably responded to the following advertisement which had continually been published in the pages of Apogevmatini at least since November 1965 and which went as follows:

«ΠΡΟΣΕΞΑΤΕ… ΚΑΤΑΠΛΗΚΤΙΚΗ ΕΥΚΑΙΡΙΑ…
ΘΕΡΜΑΣΤΡΕΣ – 10.000 ΘΕΡΜΙΔΩΝ –
ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΟΥ ΤΥΠΟΥ ΜΕ ΚΑΥΣΤΗΡΑ ΚΑΙ
ΤΑΜΠΕΡ ΕΥΡΩΠΗΣ – ΜΟΝΟΝ ΔΡΧ. 1.950…»
(cf. Apogevmatini, 9.11.1965, p. 2).

Would the mother have focused her attention on the product’s “European” make or on its thermal capacity («10.000 ΘΕΡΜΙΔΩΝ») as such? Further, would she have dwelt on such “European” make or on that «ΜΟΝΟΝ ΔΡΧ. 1.950»? Any mother whose children are threatened by cold and whose husband is persistently working hard so as to make ends meet, would naturally have ‘bracketed’ all the “frills” of the advertisement and would have given that strategic word «ΜΟΝΟN…» her “closest thought and attention” – what would have directly concerned her, in other words, would be material matters involving palpable things such as the need for cash and the need to deal with cold. Here, specific material conditions of a meteorological nature – as also of a clearly economic one – would have called for a very specific response on her part, and the positive material content of this advertisement (thermal capacity and cash needed) would have counter-responded to the questions posed by the mother’s “thought and attention”. The immediate conclusion one may jump to is what we have referred to as the ‘bracketing’, on the part of the consumer, of whatever “manipulative frills” in the discourse, and which would have made the impact of such “frills” to simply ‘fade away’. And yet, and as in the case of the «ΘΕΡΜΑΣΤΡΑ MASTER» advertisement above, such ‘bracketing’ would never be total and the advertizing company would not be haphazardly throwing any alien concept right in the face of the Aliartian mother. If, as we have said, the “Amalia-type” would dream of a «ΤΕΛΕΙΟ» home of her own, she would also – as would the “average Greek” – be harbouring a “European Dream” of sorts (at least as regards life-standards), and thus the reference to the «ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΟΥ ΤΥΠΟΥ» cannot possibly be reduced to a mere “manipulative frill” aimed at disorientation. We would therefore again have here some degree of balance between, on the one hand, the heater, its thermal capacity and its price, and on the other, the “Euro-dream”. For that mother on that Saturday of early January 1966, it would be the material conditions of cold that would make her tilt her “thought and attention” towards the former and not much to the latter side of the scale (a balancing mechanism would be facilitating precisely such free play). The advertizing industry was truly ‘communicating’ with her, but just as she was with it, for it would be she who would be ultimately determining the specific tilt of the balance.

Speaking of people’s “close thought and attention” devoted to the question of the need for cash so as to deal with the cold, we may here briefly consider real consumer capacity to actually buy electrically-powered heaters. A January 1966 advertisement would make the following announcement:

«Ελάτε να σας ΖΕΣΤΑΝΟΥΜΕ… με τη μεγαλύτερη
ποικιλία θερμαστρών… από 100 δρχ. μηνιαίως…
ΠΟΛΛΕΣ ΔΟΣΕΙΣ…» (cf. Apogevmatini,
5.1.1966, p. 7).

Were Amalia Eleftheriadou to have decided to pick and choose whatever heater she wanted from the variety mentioned in the above advertisement, and given her daily earnings of 65 drachmas at the time, she would have to work, roughly speaking, about one and a half days per month at the A&M Mill Headquarters so as to be able to pay that installment of 100 drachmas. And were she to have also decided to buy a fridge with an installment of 165 drachmas per month, she would have to devote about four of her 25 work-days per month to settle her dues for both appliances. Despite the relatively hard material conditions of the 1960’s, therefore, things promised by advertisements would be relatively reachable. And we can say this with some certainty as we bear in mind that, with specific reference to the early-1960’s, the current “Dreams” even of the youthful “Amalia-type” were, in the last instance and with respect to material matters, realistic dreams. The “realism” of people right after the end of the Civil War and for some years on is brought to our attention by an interesting little booklet published in 1950 by the «ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΝ ΦΩΣ» [The Greek Light Association] and entitled Για μια καινούργια Ελλάδα» [For a new Greece]. Speaking of what it called «Το δεύτερο όνειρο» [“The Second Dream”] (and which concerned the amelioration of material conditions), it would say this as regards the wishes of the Greek people:

«Ονειρεύεται τώρα μιάν Ελλάδα άξια…
Και βολικός άνθρωπος καθώς είναι, δεν
έχει μεγάλες απαιτήσεις, ούτε καν στο
όνειρό του. Δεν ζητά από την Ελλάδα να
γίνη από την μια στιγμή στην άλλη παράδεισος.
Δεν ζητά κρεμαστούς κήπους, αλλά λίγα
απλά πράγματα» (p. 8).

That the “average Greek” at that particular period of time harboured “realistic dreams” only apparently contradicts what we have identified as the “Amalia-type’s” wish for the «ΤΕΛΕΙΟ» (be that a fridge, a sitting room or a husband). An Amalia Eleftheriadou was both “frenzied” enough as a youth (as regards, for instance, her sexuality), and “realistic” enough as a working person, to set herself manageable goals for her short-term present and long-term goals for that «ΤΕΛΕΙΟ» in her looming future. That ability to be both a “realistic” and a “utopian” “Dreamer” was precisely symptomatic of what we have identified as her transitional nature as a “New Type”. Thus, she could both compromise with the ‘grandiose’ messages of advertisements in her short-term present (thus remaining indifferent to them) and fight for the realization of such very messages in long-term manageable units of the ‘reachable’ in what was being promised (one may assume that the older generations were themselves perhaps more of that «βολικός άνθρωπος» centered around more short-term goals). Thus, both the “Amalia-type” and that youngish mother with her freezing kids in that winter of 1966 would have certainly focused their attention on advertized heaters to warm their bones there and then, and would have eyed that reference to the “European” as a more long-term target. Unlike the particular mother, however – who had to take care of her two kids and let her husband be the sole breadwinner – Amalia Eleftheriadou was in some way more privileged: being single and belonging to a family with two other working members (father and brother), they could all three have pooled their resources and bought their family both a fridge and a heater right at the same time. We have noted that installments for household appliances could range from minimums such as 165 drachmas to 100 drachmas and, in the absence of any other serious emergency expenses, even Amalia’s meager income would be enough to allow her to venture into such purchases. As regards the question of pooling incomes within family units, we may simply note here that this was a very common practice at the time: we have seen such pooling practices in examining the case of the Meletiou family (op. cit.), and which is also evident in literature referring to the 1960’s – one example of this is Loula Didika’s little novel, entitled Τα ανθρώπινα κουρέλια [Human rags], published in Athens in 1963, and which describes the pooling of family resources as follows:

«Μάνα, πατέρας, και δυο αγόρια δούλευαν
όλοι και μάζευαν κάθε Σάββατο το μεροκάματο,
αλλουνού μεγάλο κι’ αλλουνού μικρό. Όμως όλα
τα κανόνισαν τόσο νοικοκυρεμένα, που έβαζαν
κάτι και στην πάντα… – Για να πάρουμε ένα
οικοπεδάκι, όπως έλεγαν… Από τώρα σκέπτονται
την προίκα που θα δώσουν μια μέρα στο
στερνοπούλι τους, που είναι κοριτσάκι» (p. 39).

This state of affairs, we should say, characterized large numbers of the “average Greek family” amongst the popular masses, and allows us to understand how it would be possible for even “poor” Aliartian families – such as that of Amalia – to at some point attain a certain consumer capacity to enable them to finally buy (and at times even renew) electric appliances for their home.

Still on the question of heating, we shall need to emphasize the primary importance that Greek parents would place on the matter of keeping warm, especially when it came to their children. We have already pointed above to that almost psychotic obsession, on the part of the 1960’s Greek parents, to feed (or even over-feed) their children, and which was a direct psychological consequence of that «τρομερόν χειμώνα» of 1941-2. Similarly, and very naturally so, the Greek parent would almost automatically connect whatever harsh winter-period of the 1950’s and 1960’s to that tragic winter. Thus, that almost psychotic obsession with food always went hand-in-hand with that as persistent obsession to protect children from the cold. The Aliartian barber would remember how, as a youth in the 1940’s, he always had to don whole sets of clothes, one set on top of the other, whenever he had to go out, and which would keep him from moving freely. His mother, he would muse, would actually force this on him, covering up his body with layers of clothing «σαν κρεμμύδι». And this could even more or less apply to when he was indoors and had to limit his movements around the warmth of the fireplace. Directly related to this, we may here quote a text published in the periodical Romantso (τεύχ. 1248, 31.1.1967, p. 24), and entitled «Το κρύο άλλοτε και τώρα». Amongst other observations, it states:

«Έτσι, δεν μπορούμε, να καταλάβουμε γενικώς
τα βάσανα του χειμώνα προπολεμικώς.
Στα σπίτια τρέμαμε, σαν κολασμένοι,
και πολλές νύχτες κοιμόμασταν ντυμένοι».

Now, this generalized obsession to ward off the cold at all costs would continue through to the 1960’s and even the 1970’s – advertizing companies had of course full knowledge of such real obsession and would ‘tap’ it by promoting a variety of products the central function of which was to keep people as warm as possible. One could of course say that advertizing discourse in this case was exploiting such mass popular ‘weakness’ – and yet, one would also have to acknowledge that advertisers were not themselves ‘manufacturing’ such obsessive need for warmth. Thus, the content of such discourse would essentially be of the “positive material” type, responding as it was to a pre-given reality. One such advertisement, published in December 1965, would promote a blanket with, inter alia, special heating-powers – it read as follows:

 «… απ’ αυτόν τον χειμώνα… κουβέρτες CRYLOR
 … μια Νέα δημιουργία χωρίς προηγούμενο…
 Όλες οι κουβέρτες ζεσταίνουν… η CRYLOR –
 ανάλαφρη και απαλή – ζεσταίνει περισσότερο
… Όλες οι κουβέρτες πλένονται, αλλά πώς
γίνονται… Η CRYLOR πλένεται εύκολα στο
ηλεκτρικό σας πλυντήριο, στεγνώνει αμέσως
και γίνεται καινούργια… Η κουβέρτα CRYLOR,
λουσάτη και απρόσβλητη απ’ τον σκώρο, διαθέτει
και το ακαταμάχητο πλεονέκτημα – χάρις στην
ειδική τεχνική επεξεργασία – ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΜΑΔΑΗ
ΚΑΙ ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΧΝΟΥΔΙΑΖΗ… Για το σύγχρονο σπίτι…»
(cf. Akropolis, 5.12.1965, p. 4, my emph.).

This advertisement presented the consumer with a whole list of ‘special’ qualities which would presumably make the particular blanket – which was of French make – superior in comparison with others. But what is of interest here is that the creator of this advertizing discourse, being aware of the Greek ‘weakness’ to keep as warm as possible, places the question of warmth right at the top of the list of the various ‘special’ qualities of the product. Such strategically-placed message was obviously meant to immediately attract the attention of Greeks at a time of year, December, when temperatures would be dropping to 9°C, and then to 5°C, then down to 1°C, and which would yield that «ΣΦΟΔΡΟΤΑΤΗ ΚΑΚΟΚΑΙΡΙΑ» we have noted above.

It would be quite wrong to assume that this CRYLOR advertisement constituted an isolated case – we shall present two further samples of that type of advertizing discourse which directly reflected both the socio-climatic conditions of Greece in the 1960’s as also the pre-given mass obsessive need to be protected from the cold. Again in December 1965, we could see an advertisement such as the following:

«Η ΑΤΟΜΙΚΗ ΣΑΣ ΚΕΝΤΡΙΚΗ ΘΕΡΜΑΝΣΙ…
ΑΝΔΡΙΚΑ ΚΑΙ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΙΑ ΕΣΩΡΟΥΧΑ –
THERMOFAN (ΘΕΡΜΟΦΑΝ)… Δημιουργούν
ένα θερμό στρώμα αέρος, που απομονώνει
το κρύο και την υγρασία…»
(cf. Akropolis, 8.12.1965, p. 5).

In the winter of 1964, the periodical Romantso would run the following advertisement:

«ΠΡΟΦΥΛΑΧΘΗΤΕ ΑΠ’ ΤΟΝ ΧΕΙΜΩΝΑ…
Κλείστε τον έξω από το σπίτι
με ΤΕΖΑΜΟΛ
Στις πόρτες, τα παράθυρα
τοποθετήστε Τεζαμόλ.
Το Τεζαμόλ
είναι σπογγώδης ταινία που
κολλά αυτομάτως με ελαφρά πίεσι.
Έτσι εμποδίζει τον παγωμένο αέρα
και την υγρασία να μπαίνουν μέσα.
Χρησιμοποιήστε το αμέσως!...»
(cf. Romantso, No 1138,
22.12.1964, p. 45).

We may next consider the question of advertizing promoting furniture: the positive material content of advertizing discourse promoting various pieces of furniture would take its own very specific form: unlike the household appliances we have thus far examined, furniture does not of course directly involve questions of saving on time and energy, of preserving food-stocks or of protecting the body from the cold. In other words, whatever positive material content in advertisements promoting furniture would not place much emphasis on the technical functionality of an artifact (though that too could also be addressed at times) – two factors were to play a central role in the crux of ‘positive content’ here: first, simply informing people who still used home-made, “primitive” furniture of the cheap availability of technologically manufactured tables and chairs (that is, urging them to go beyond the low «σοφρά» and beyond tree-trunks, etc.); second, and most important for those who were already moving beyond the primary stage of the “primitive”, introducing people to the new ‘aesthetics’ of household furniture. But when we speak of an ‘introduction’ to ‘aesthetics’ we do not mean it in the sense of an imposed “manipulation” of mass taste so that people buy useless “luxuries” – as already suggested above, mass ‘aesthetic taste’ and the desire for so-called “luxuries” was part and parcel of what we have identified as the historically-determined middle-class milieu. At least as regards furniture, therefore, ‘aesthetic taste’ constituted a real and palpable psycho-somatic relation to particular objects of furniture – and advertizing discourse had no choice but to promote that. Such psycho-somatic relationship to the “modern” ‘aesthetic taste’ – as that was inscribed in furniture – was a self-defining characteristic of the middle class milieu and was or had to be reflected in the positive material content of 1960’s/1970’s discourse – it was precisely this reflection which constituted the very specific form of advertizing discourse when it came to pieces of furniture.

To give us some idea of the ‘aesthetics’ inscribed in furniture – and as this was expressed in advertizing discourse – we present here an excellent sample published in 1974 in the weekly periodical Epikaira (and a section of which we have elsewhere used in discussing the ‘mechanization’ of Greek society) – the full advertisement read as follows:

«πολύτιμα έπιπλα από μέταλλο και ξύλο…
Ένας αιώνας πείρα
στην κατεργασία του ξύλου
μας οδήγησε σε νέες λύσεις για
την αισθητική αξιοποίηση του μετάλλου.
Έτσι ξαναδώσαμε στο δύσκολο αυτό υλικό
την χαμένη του ευγένεια.
Δημιουργώντας στα μέτρα του ανθρώπου:
σε μια εποχή που όλοι βιομηχανοποιούν,
εμείς προσωποποιούμε.
ΒΑΡΑΓΚΗΣ» (cf. Epikaira, No 322,
3-9.10.1974, p. 2, my emph.).

We are suggesting that the middle class milieu would define itself as such through its relationship with the ‘aesthetics’ of the new furniture designs – the «ΒΑΡΑΓΚΗΣ» advertisement tries to materialize just such relationship: the manufacturers would inscribe an «αισθητική» and an «ευγένεια» into the furniture which would be reflected in the person using such objects («προσωποποιούμε»). We well know, of course, that what the period was really all about was the mass manufacturing of artifacts (the advertizing discourse would itself admit that reality– «όλοι βιομηχανοποιούν») – but what we need to understand about the ‘aesthetics’ of the period – an important issue brilliantly analyzed by Hobsbawm (cf. his  The Age of Extremes, op. cit., esp. sections IX, X and XI) and to which we shall return below – is that there was an interplay of two forces in the 1960’s and 1970’s:

• Whatever manufactured object would be mass produced precisely as that production would fulfill the needs and tastes of a new mass category of people – i.e. that new social category constituting the “New Amalia-Type”. Put otherwise, the new ‘aesthetic taste’ could only but have been collective just as the new middle class milieu, being a milieu, was itself a collective phenomenon.
• However, and right at the same time, each and every individual participating within such a milieu would also see – and relish in – the triumph of his own person, picking and choosing artifacts from an increasingly wide range of designs which he would feel expressed his own supreme individuality – that, of course, is exactly what the «ΒΑΡΑΓΚΗΣ» advertizing discourse was getting at with its emphasis on «προσωποποιούμε» (and we have already noted the emphasis placed on the “EGO” in examining the purely technical functions of the flamina Supermatic kitchen-stove above). On this question of individual expression through the ‘aesthetics’ of a particular product, we should perhaps note that this was to take almost unheard of proportions by the early-1980’s. And to further understand how the early post-war  ‘aesthetics’ in artifacts and their advertizing discourse would in fact express the individual of the middle class milieu then, it would be useful to briefly dwell on the end-product of this process in its latter, more mature stage: the 1980’s explain the 1960’s («Δεν είναι η ανατομία του πιθήκου που εξηγεί την ανατομία του ανθρώπου, αλλά η ανατομία του ανθρώπου που εξηγεί εκείνην του πιθήκου», as Louis Althusser would point out – following Marx – in his «Το μέλλον διαρκεί πολύ», Ο Πολίτης, 1992, p. 244). One contemporary study dwelling on the question of consumerism in the 1980’s is that of Wolfgang Streeck, who makes the following observations:

“By the 1980’s, accelerated product design … made
it possible to customize … commodities … to an
unprecedented extent, subdividing the large and
uniform product runs of industrial mass production
into ever-smaller series of differentiated sub-products,
in an effort to get closer to the idiosyncratic preferences
of ever-smaller groups of potential customers…
Product differentiation matched manufactured
goods … more closely to individual consumers’
particular utility functions. At the same time, it enabled
and encouraged consumers to refine that function, by
developing or paying more attention to their individual
wants, on top of the common needs served by
standardized products” (cf. W. Streeck, “Citizens As
Customers”, NLR, 76, JULY-AUG 2012, p. 31).

We may therefore conclude that the post-war ‘aesthetics’ inscribed in commodities such as furniture would commence a process which would ultimately yield at least a relative convergence between the cultural-aesthetic practices and/or “idiosyncratic preferences” of the middle classes and the positive material content of advertizing discourse: such content would come to be much determined by the supremacy of the middle class individual, and that would also apply to the case of Greece in the 1980’s. The 1960’s would be the progenitor to such process: what has been referred to as the “diversified quality production” (ibid.) of the 1980’s was a consequence of the fact that, gradually through the years following the 1960’s decade, a certain market saturation would be reached in the variety and range of so-called ‘standard products’ (that there was such variety/range in the 1960’s, at least in the Greek case, was ensured by the existence of competitive manufacturing capital).

What specific form would furniture ‘aesthetics’ take in the 1960’s and early-1970’s? Again, there would be a variety of forms and their range would also be determined by their price. Here, we shall merely consider one such form which, while basically for the higher “wage-brackets”, would nonetheless appeal to the young and its particular style would be popular enough to be reproduced in cheaper varieties. The Epikaira would carry the following advertisement in 1974:

«Το έπιπλο είναι αυτό που δίνει την προσωπικότητα
σε ένα σπίτι. Σήμερα ο άνθρωπος προσπαθεί να
αποφύγη την λεγομένη “βαρειά” ατμόσφαιρα και
να βρεθή σε ένα περιβάλλον χαρούμενο και νεανικό.
… Αυτό ακριβώς συνειδητοποίησε η “URETHANE HELLAS”,
η οποία στο άριστα εξοπλισμένο εργοστάσιό της,
κατασκευάζει έπιπλα πραγματικά για νέους ανθρώπους.
… Οι άνθρωποι της εποχής μας, που συνδυάζουν το
μοντέρνο με το απλό, οι σύγχρονοι άνθρωποι,
ενθουσιάζονται κυριολεκτικά με τα σύνθετα έπιπλα
από πολυουρεθάνη, που κατασκευάζει η “URETHANE
HELLAS” και τα οποία αποθαυμάζουν στην Μητροπόλεως
85. Δίκαια άλλωστε, διότι τα έπιπλά της, που τα χαρακτηρίζει
η κομψότητα και τα οποία φέρουν την σφραγίδα του
μοντέρνου, είναι κατάλληλα για πολλές χρήσεις… Κομψά
σύνολα για χώλ, σαλόνι …[etc.]…, δίνουν μια χαρούμενη
νότα στο περιβάλλον και την αίσθηση του ωραίου, που μόνον
η “URETHANE HELLAS” μπορεί να χαρίση σε ένα σύγχρονο
σπίτι…» (cf. Epikaira, op. cit., p. 7).

This advertisement helps to give us some idea of the aesthetic material content of advertizing discourse promoting furniture and as that was materialized in the real artifact – and it is especially useful since, being published in the early-1970’s, it represents a final consummation of styles as these had first sprouted in the decade of the 1960’s. A closer reading of it allows us to draw the following conclusions with respect to the question of ‘aesthetics’:

1. As we have seen with the «ΒΑΡΑΓΚΗΣ» advertisement above, which places an emphasis on «προσωποποιούμε» and which had allowed us to draw certain conclusions about the role of the middle class milieu of supreme individuality – so here too, we see that the «URETHANE HELLAS» advertisement itself sees ‘aesthetics’ as a value which brings the individual person to the forefront – here, this happens by giving an individual’s own home its special  «προσωπικότητα» through particularly designed pieces of furniture.
2. It further relates ‘aesthetics’ to youth: «έπιπλα πραγματικά για νέους ανθρώπους» – it thus addresses itself to and is itself a cultural product of the youthful “New Type” of person born in the post-war years and in the process of maturing in the 1970’s, and which – as a social collectivity – was the vanguard of a «νεανικό» socio-cultural revolution gradually yielding a new type of «περιβάλλον».
3. It thus naturally places emphasis on “modernity” and on the “contemporary man”: notice phraseology such as «την σφραγίδα του μοντέρνου» or «το μοντέρνο», and «Οι άνθρωποι της εποχής μας» or «οι σύγχρονοι άνθρωποι». It therefore more or less directly suggests that their own furniture-design has either by-passed or gone well beyond the pre-war “old”, “traditional” and “primitive” type.
4. Such “modernity” had yielded its own very specific furniture-design: its style was characterized by simplicity and a smart elegance: «το απλό» and «η κομψότητα».
5. Such “modernistic simplicity” was itself the epitome of a sense of the ‘aesthetically beautiful’: notice the phrase «την αίσθηση του ωραίου».
6. By the early-1970’s, such ‘aesthetic beauty’ in furniture would be achieved through the use of new, technologically-manufactured “synthetic” materials which would go beyond, not only wood, but also those of Formica and Nylon, which had been so popular in the 1960’s (as has been discussed above). Technological developments since then would mean that, by now, people would have access to the «σύνθετα έπιπλα από πολυουρεθάνη» – such new material being a new type of plastic.
7. Interestingly, all such super-modern ‘aesthetics’ would nonetheless be re-establishing and re-structuring that bastion and dominion of the Greek middle class milieu, it being the “Greek Home” – though by now that relatively autonomous spatial “hub” we have referred to above would be “protecting” the individual in a rather new architectural interior and from a new external environment. As we have seen above, the «URETHANE HELLAS» advertisement would speak of such external reality as follows: «Σήμερα ο άνθρωπος προσπαθεί να αποφύγη την λεγoμένη “βαρειά” ατμόσφαιρα και να βρεθεί σε ένα περιβάλλον χαρούμενο και νεανικό». We know that the use of the term «χαρούμενο» is in itself meaningless and would have hardly convinced anyone of his personal “happiness” – but the discourse is so sensitive to the question of the individual’s «προσωπικότητα» that it would apply such attribute – as already noted above – to the “protective hub” itself.

We have spoken above of a new architectural interior, and we of course meant this with reference to the new furniture-designs that were gradually sprouting throughout the 1960’s and whose style was reaching some degree of consummation by the 1970’s – we have chosen to use the term architectural because it was rather popular at the time. We simply present here a 1971-72 sample of a simple advertisement to verify this point:

«εσωτερική
αρχιτεκτονική
έπιπλα – ΚΟΥΒΔΟΣ –
ΚΕΝΤΡΙΚΑ ΓΡΑΦΕΙΑ:
ΕΡΓΟΣΤΑΣΙΟΝ:
ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ…»
(cf. Άστυ Καλλιθέας, 1884-1972,
Εκδοσεις: Εφημερίδος Η
 Καλλιθέα, p. 289).

Now, in examining the question of advertizing discourse promoting furniture, we have said that the positive material content of such discourse would be a primarily ‘aesthetic’ material content: whatever technical functionality regarding furniture would take second place. And yet, and especially as regards the “poorer” popular masses, that “hub”-“home” we have been referring to was most often a ‘spatial dominion’ very much limited in terms of square meters, and people who would decide to renew its ‘internal architecture’ would have to keep this reality in mind. In fact, as one re-visits Aliarto and walks around in search of the old dwellings still remaining since the 1960’s, one is struck by how truly small many of these were and wonders how it was really possible for a whole family to have been able to fit in them (the Aliartian barber’s second rented house in the area, and housing four family-members, would not have come to much more than 50-60 square meters). Blocks of flats being built in the wider Athens area in the 1960’s (such as at Egaleo, Petroupoli, etc., and which were to house many ex-Boeotians) were themselves as miniscule. A resident of the Athens suburb of Kokkino Mylo in the early-1960’s, the then newly-wed Anna Papaspiropoulou, would describe the otherwise relatively spacious house she initially lived in as follows:

«Το σπίτι είχε δυο κρεβατοκάμαρες, μια κουζίνα,
ένα σαλόνι… Και ζούσαμε τόσοι άνθρωποι. Η πεθερά
μου κι ο πεθερός μου, οι δυο κουνιάδοι μου, ο
αδελφός του πεθερού μου κι εμείς. Μπροστά, στο
σαλόνι, είχαμε τρεις καναπέδες, στον κάθε καναπέ
κοιμότανε κι ένας άνθρωπος. Εμένα η πεθερά μου
μου ‘δωσε την κρεβατοκάμαρα. Αλλά ζούσαμε καλά
όλοι μαζί…» (cf. 22η προφορική μαρτυρία, κυρία
Άννα, Κόκκινος Μύλος, 9.12.2011).

The relatively “poor”, wage-earning Greek would therefore often opt for pieces of furniture which would combine ‘aesthetics’ with simplicity and multi-functionality (for a historically perceptive discussion of such combination in “modern” furniture, cf. Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes, op. cit., pp. 239-240). Advertizing discourse would often respond directly to such material-functional needs regarding furniture and would thus further enrich the positive material content of its discourse. We may here consider the following sample of advertizing discourse which appeared in the early-1970’s:

«έπιπλα για μικρούς χώρους
‘ΚΟΜΦΟΡ ΛΙ’…
Στην έκθεση ΚΟΜΦΟΡ… είδαμε έπιπλα
πρωτότυπα, για μικρά σπίτια, που
μεγαλώνουν και μακραίνουν, ανάλογα
με τις ανάγκες του χώρου. Ο δημιουργός
τους κ. Χατζάκης διαθέτει διπλώματα
ευρεσιτεχνίας. Επίσης ξεχωρίσαμε ένα
καναπέ που γίνεται ο ίδιος μονό και διπλό
κρεββάτι, μια πολυθρόνα… που γίνεται
ξαπλώστρα, ένα πτυσσόμενο κρεββάτι
τοίχου και πολλά άλλα σε πρωτότυπα σχέδια»
(cf. Epikaira, op. cit., p. 27).

Perhaps we should also add here that the «URETHANE HELLAS» advertisement discussed above, while definitely emphasizing the primary role of the ‘aesthetic’ element in the products it is promoting, would nonetheless also point to their “multi-functionality” somewhere along the line of its discourse («για πολλές χρήσεις»).

As in the case of certain other home appliances (fridges, kitchen-stoves), so too pieces of furniture would themselves enter the generalized wave of exchanges/renewals which we have said was a mass trend characterizing the decade of the 1960’s. Of course, for those many Aliartians who in the early-1960’s were only just beginning to move from their “primitive” tree-trunks and their «σοφρά» to Formica furniture, there was nothing really to give in exchange of the new. On the other hand, at least for people belonging to the upper middle classes – or, in any case, for those who belonged to the old and fairly well-established middle classes dating back to the pre-war years – such renewal of their furniture was already happening. Here, we may remind ourselves of the Koumandareas quote presented above and which speaks precisely of such furniture renewing in 1963 – «Η μισή πόλη …  άδειαζε από σαβούρα – δηλαδή κονσόλες, βιενέζικες καρέκλες και μπουφέδες – για να γεμίσει με φορμάικες και νάυλον» (op. cit.). But soon, by the mid-1960’s and on, the rest of the popular masses would be jumping on the bandwagon and would turn a rivulet of exchanges into a veritable torrent of renewals as the years went by and the “average Greek” could devote more of his “thought and attention” to ‘aesthetic taste’ and a bit less to material survival. In other words, sometime after people were able to make their first purchases of manufactured furniture and as their consumer-power would gradually increase, their ‘aesthetic taste’ and imagination would be galvanized, giving birth to new middle class ‘ambitions’. Especially as regards furniture (basic carrier of ‘aesthetics’ in a home and expressing its owner’s «προσωπικότητα»), this would prompt an on-going revolution of renewals in many households, and which could also be accompanied by additions to the household gear. Furniture companies would be facilitating the process and the material content of advertizing discourse would, as in the case of fridges and kitchen-stoves, be the primary mediator of such process. Consider the following 1965 sample advertisement:

«ΕΠΙΠΛΑ ΚΛΑΣΙΚΑ ΜΟΝΤΕΡΝΑ ΔΑΝΕΖΙΚΑ
… Θα σας πάρουμε τα ΠΑΛΙΑ ΩΣ ΠΡΟΚΑΤΑΒΟΛΗ
και θα εξοφλήσετε το υπόλοιπον με 100 ΔΡΧ.
ΤΟΝ ΜΗΝΑ…» (c.f. Ακρόπολις, 5.12.1965,
p. 13, their emph.).

Furniture renewal would demand furniture production – at least as regards local furniture manufacturing, and with reference to merely wooden furniture, official statistics (cf. the “Statistical Yearbook Of Greece, 1972”, op. cit, pp. 355-356) merely point to the explosion of the phenomenon – we simply present below the GDP for “wood and furniture”, for the years 1964-1971:

Million drachmas at 1971-72 prices:
1964       1965       1966       1967       1968       1969       1970       1971

1.332       1.562      1.702      2.087     2.241      2.649      3.033      3.467

Keeping in mind that such figures merely concern furniture made of wood, and thus exclude all artifacts made of “synthetic” materials, and also keeping in mind that this picture excludes all imported goods (GDP being the total value of final products produced within the national boundaries), we may nonetheless draw the tentative conclusion that GDP regarding “wood and furniture” had increased by 2.135 million drachmas within a period of just eight years. Advertizing discourse was both a cause and a product of such a truly historical phenomenon: its positive material content would be its mirror-image.

Perhaps the most obviously positive material function of advertizing discourse in the period we are discussing is evident in the promotion and circulation of sewing machines (introduced to the “periphery” by the early 20th century) – in this very special case, that which would be promoted would be a machine used by very many women to either supplement family income, or to actually fully support a family, or to act as substitute for the buying of clothing. Sewing machines, in other words, were productive property and could function as one of the central means of family-income, thus constituting some form of ‘home-industry’ for many families. And, as we have seen with other home-appliances, advertizing would play a primary role in the promotion and circulation of such invaluable ‘tools’. Their circulation within the Greek female population – and which could include wage-earners such as the “Amalia-type” – would take place, inter alia, through exchanges and renewals. Consider the following very simple (but also very popular) sample of an advertisement in 1965:

«Αγοράζονται και πωλούνται κατ’ οίκον…
άπαντα τα μεταχειρισμένα είδη…
Ραπτομηχαναί…»
(cf. Apogevmatini, 14.12.1965, p. 7).

This type of advertisement – more like a notification of services (buying/selling) – tells us little to nothing about the manner of discourse in which a sewing machine would be promoted: but it is precisely such absence of whatever ‘technique’ which verifies its straight-forward positive materiality (below, we shall be examining more ‘structured’ advertisements promoting sewing machines and which did effect a certain ‘balance’ between, on the one hand, functionality, degrees of technical perfection and efficiency and, on the other, the ‘aesthetics’ or the brand-name of the machine). But this advertisement-notification does give us some idea, not only of the generalized renewal of things in the mid-1960’s which we have noted, but also of the fact that the sewing machine was itself part and parcel of this wave of renewals.

It really could not have been otherwise: we know that sewing machines were very popular amongst Aliartian females, young and old, and especially given their function as productive property or as machines for the production of home-made clothing (for a verification of this in the area of Aliarto, cf. 31η προφορική μαρτυρία, Χρυσούλα Βελέντζα, 97 χρονών, Μούλκι, Αλίαρτος, 19.7.2013). Specifically as regards the use of the sewing machine as a form of ‘home-industry’ in the early-1960’s, Anna Papaspiropoulou (op. cit.) provides us with an excellent picture of such economic activity – this is what she had to say:

«Περάσαμε δύσκολα στην αρχή [i.e. on getting
married, aged 16, 1963], … αλλά δε θέλαμε να
ζητήσουμε απ’ τους γονείς μας. Αλλά σιγά σιγά,
τα καταφέραμε. 67 δραχμές αυτός μεροκάματο
στην οικοδομή, 43 εγώ, το πιάσαμε τελικά το
κατοστάρικο … [I worked] φασόν… Από τις 7 το
πρωί μέχρι τις 12, 1 το βράδυ. Αλλά δούλεψα
και στο εργοστάσιο … στου Βακαλόπουλου [a
textile mill]. Και με την κοιλιά μέχρι τον λαιμό,
πήγαινα στη δουλειά. Ύστερα μπορέσαμε και
πήραμε και ραπτομηχανή, και δούλευα στο σπίτι,
φασόν. Μπήκαμε κι εμείς σιγά σιγά σε μια σειρά.
Αλλά τι δουλειά! Γιατί έπρεπε να βγει παραγωγή,
σου δίναν τα υφάσματα και σου λέγαν ως την
Παρασκευή πρέπει να παραδώσεις. Για να
παραδώσεις έπρεπε να δουλεύεις όλη μέρα.
Αφού και τώρα ακόμα, όταν κάθομαι στην καρέκλα,
πονάνε τα πόδια, εδώ στους γοφούς. Με βοήθαγε
κι ο άντρας μου όταν δεν είχε δουλειά. Είχαμε καλή
συνεννόηση με τον άντρα μου. Ψαλίδιζε, τα
δίπλωνε… Έπρεπε να βγει το μεροκάματο. Γιατί
τότε είχαμε πάρει το οικόπεδο…».

Both the then sixteen year-old Anna at Kokkino Mylo and the then young Chrisoula at Moulki, as also many Aliartian women, would use their sewing machines (often bought second-hand) to supplement family income by working in their homes: most would belong to the “Amalia type” in terms of age and objective class position. Interestingly, even since the 1930’s/1940’s, advertisements would play an important role in simply informing people of the existence of training “workshops” where parents could send their daughters so as to prepare them as competent dressmakers – in this case, such advertizing discourse would basically be fulfilling a social role, and this would also apply through to the 1960’s. Between 1938 and 1940, we would have the circulation of the following type of advertisement:

«ΚΟΠΤΙΚΗ – ΡΑΠΤΙΚΗ
ΚΙΚΗΣ ΧΕΛΜΗ
ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΑ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΩΝ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ…
Γονείς προτού αποφασίσετε που θα
εμπιστευθήτε τα κορίτσια σας και τα
χρήματά σας, αποτανθήτε εις τον
ΟΙΚΟΝ μου, όστις θα σας εξυπηρετήσι
με όλην την ειλικρίνειαν ήν έχει ως βάσιν
της όλης σταδιοδρομίας του επί μίαν
8ετίαν… Αναλαμβάνω υπευθύνως την
τελείαν εκμάθησιν της ΚΟΠΤΙΚΗΣ διά
του Γαλλικού Σωματομετρικού συστήματος
ΕΝΤΟΣ 3-4 ΜΗΝΩΝ, διά δε τας πρακτικάς
μοδίστρας ΕΝΤΟΣ ΜΗΝΟΣ… Η διδασκαλία
γίνεται παρά της ιδίας κ. Χέλμη.
Οικοτροφείον οικογενειακόν.
Ζητήσατε έντυπον κανονισμόν»
(cf. Η Καλλιθέα…, op. cit., p. 327).

Finally, as regards the use of the sewing machine so as to produce home-made clothing and thereby save on expenses, Didika (op. cit.) presents us with the following 1963 picture (but which happens to be rather melodramatic):

«Από το τρίτο δωμάτιο ξέφευγε από την
μισάνοιχτη πόρτα δυνατό φως… Το είδε η
Κατίνα και σκέφθηκε. – Δουλεύει η Βαγγελίτσα.
Δουλεύει η δεκαπεντάχρονη κοπελλίτσα…
Αλλά την φορά αυτή δεν ράβει ξένο φόρεμα,
ετοιμάζει ένα δικό της. Παντρεύεται μια φίλη της
και είναι από τις πρώτες καλεσμένες… Φτηνό το
ύφασμα και λυπάται γι’ αυτό. Την παίρνει και το
παράπονο, καθώς σκέπτεται πως άλλες κοπέλλες,
σαν αυτήν, έχουν την ντουλάπα τους γεμάτη, απ’
ό,τι ακριβό υπάρχει… Καταπίνει ένα δάκρυ της,
διώχνει μακρυά τις κακές σκέψεις της ζήλειας της,
που καραδοκούν να δηλητηριάσουν την ψυχή της
και ρίχνεται στο ράψιμο… Θα το κάνη πολύ όμορφο,
μια φίνα μοδίτσα και θα της πηγαίνη θαύμα!...
Της επιβλήθηκαν οι σκέψεις της αυτές. Κάθε πικρόχολη
έννοια παραμέρισε και σιγοτραγουδώντας συνεχίζει
το ράψιμό της» (p. 40).

Now, it is important to observe that this type of activity, on the part of any young «Βαγγελίτσα», could be – and very often was – accompanied by a particular form of advertizing discourse which would aid, abet and guide her in the sewing of a particular “fashionable” dress – the advertisement would, not only promote a particular fashion house, etc., but would at the same time offer very specific instructions on how to make the particular piece of clothing (and could include a «ΠΑΤΡΟΝ» as well). At least in the 1960’s and 1970’s, many popular periodicals would at times try to promote a product by presenting its various attributes in the form of an “article” – in similar manner, popular periodicals would offer women practical instructions on the making of a dress and then at some point would go on and advertise the particular clothing company related to that type of dress. Such form of advertizing discourse, taking the form of an “article”, could be said to be “manipulative”. And yet, what we also had here was, not merely a general positive material content in the discourse (generally advising women), or not merely an ‘aesthetic’ content (suggesting latest fashions), but a very specific practical material content: stitch-by-stitch, the dressmaker would follow patterns and instructions offered free of charge, such practice being extremely popular at the time. We present below a 1967 sample of that type of advertisement (which appeared on a regular basis in many popular periodicals):

«ΠΑΛΤΑ… Όσες από τις αναγνώστριές μας
πρόκειται να ράψουν τώρα ένα παλτό, ας
διαλέξουν ανάμεσα από τα μοντέλα μας
αυτό που θα τους ταιριάζη καλύτερα. Είναι
όλα μοντέλα του μεγάλου ιταλικού οίκου
ENTE ITALIANO DELLA MODA… [instructions/
patterns/designs, etc., would usually follow]»
(cf. Romantso, No 1248, 31.1.1967,
p. 87).

It is of some interest to note here that periodicals offering Greek women instructions and patterns on the making of dresses also included – at least as regards the mid-1970’s – foreign publications. For instance, the West German “burda moden”, focusing on women’s fashion, would also include an insert «ΜΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ», which presented the Greek female reader with extremely detailed instructions and «ΠΑΤΡΟΝ» for dressmaking. The German-language periodical itself was filled to capacity with a variety of advertisements related to clothing and other artifacts having to do with the home. Readers in Greece were also encouraged to subscribe to it, via the «ΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΟΝ ΠΡΑΚΤΟΡΕΙΟΝ ΤΥΠΟΥ Α. ΣΑΜΟΥΧΟΣ». (cf., for instance, “burda moden – macht Mode zumMitmachen”, 4.4.1976, with Greek-language insert No. 4 [32 pages] included). As detailed instructions on the making of dresses were also presented by the Greek women’s periodical Ekeini [Εκείνη], established in 1975.

Of purely historical interest is the fact that, while such practices involving popular women’s periodicals as described above were extremely widespread among Greek women with an access to a sewing machine in the 1960’s and 1970’s, such practices in Greece can be traced back to the 1940’s, the 1930’s and even – in some way – to the nineteenth century.

As regards the 1940’s, Pavlos Matesis, in his novel, Η μητέρα του σκύλου» (Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, Athens, 1990, p. 218), writes:

«Η μαμά της έπλενε τα πιάτα και
η Ραραού χάζευε ένα περιοδικό,
αγόραζε περιοδικό η κυρία Φανή για
να βλέπει νέα σχέδια πλεξίματος».

Writing of the period of the 1930’s, and with reference to the island of Corfu, Spiros Plaskovitis puts the following words in the mouth of a young lady at that time:

«Προσπαθούσα να κεντήσω… Είχα αγοράσει
ένα περιοδικό απ’ το περίπτερο – αυτό ήταν
όλο, γιατί δεν κατάφερα παραπάνω από
πεντέξι βελονιές…» (cf. Spiros Plaskovitis,
 Η πόλη, [The City,Κέδρος, 1980, pp. 172-173).

Finally, with reference to the nineteenth century (1887), Haridimos Papadakis makes the following observation in his (rather crude) study of Greek women residing in Rethymno, Crete:

«Τις ημέρες της εξόδου πάντως, στολίζονται
κοκέτικα, ενημερωμένες καθώς είναι για την
τελευταία μόδα, από τα εικονογραφημένα
περιοδικά που τους φέρνουν οι μοδίστρες
τους. Δεν τους είναι άγνωστα ούτε τα τελευταία
καπελάκια του συρμού…» (cf. H.A. Papadakis,
 Οίκοι ανοχής στην «πολιτεία της ανοχής»,
Rethymno, 2013, p. 83).

The sewing machine did not, for Greek women, lessen physical exertion or expand on free time: as is quite obvious, it added to physical exertion and at times – as in the case of Anna Papaspiropoulou – it absolutely took up all of her free time (but which would not at all prevent the Papaspiropoulos couple from frequently entertaining themselves at tavernas till the small hours of the morning and then directly head straight to work – cf. the interview above). Its invention and final circulation amongst women in Greece by the early 20th century and on would oblige very many women to spend a great deal of their time bent over it. But, on the other hand, the fact that the working of this machine brought in cash (or lessened expenses when it came to clothing) would mean that it was also one important means whereby the family could spend more cash on time/exertion-saving devices such as the washing machine and the kitchen-stove, and which would help much to free women from the extremely burdensome household duties of the not too distant past. (For Papaspiropoulou, working the sewing machine would directly contribute to the buying of a plot of land and to the final building of her first very own “Home”).

This new “form of Greek life” in the early post-war period was therefore, for many women belonging to the popular masses, riddled with contradictions and it was so because – at least for the period of the 1960’s and early-1970’s – it was as we have seen an essentially transitional period. But the hard work women had to do – whether bent over a sewing machine at home or bent over a desk at the A&M Headquarters or doing both of these – was nothing new to the Greek popular masses: they had long managed to forge ‘techniques’ of life combining work with play (to be further examined below). That which was truly new was the «τεχνικαί εγκαταστάσεις» which were entering their lives and revolutionizing people’s relationship with themselves, with others and with the objects around them: the exertion and time these «εγκαταστάσεις» saved would ultimately come to constitute the «χρονική μήτρα» and the «ιστορικότητα» of a new, popular middle class milieu in Greece (we use these terms in a loosely Poulantzian sense). The dependent development of the Greek capitalist system at the time was able to ‘offer’ the popular masses (but only given the pressures of the latter) better material-technical conditions of everyday life – it was, in other words, able to fight what Habermas (op. cit.) had called the «υψηλό κόστος που έπρεπε παλιότερα να καταβάλλει η μάζα του πληθυσμού… στις διαστάσεις της σωματικής εργασίας… [etc.]». In time, the “luxury” of the home appliance would become a “necessity”, and the Greek business world would have to prepare both itself and society for this newly- looming world – as we shall see below, such ‘preparations’ would above all include the form advertizing discourse itself would have to take.

As early as 1956, the periodical Paragogikotis to which we have referred above, and which was the central organ of the business world in Greece (ΣΕΒ), would try to explain to its readers – basically manufacturers – what was in fact happening or was about to happen in Greek society: i.e. that soon the consuming public would be demanding good quality products and «τεχνικαί εγκαταστάσεις» which would no longer be seen as “luxuries” but as a “necessary” means to lighten the burden of housework. Given that in the decade of the 1950’s such developments were only just beginning to emerge in Greece, the periodical of ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would try to explain the new obligations of Greek manufacturers by introducing them to what was happening in Europe at the time – more specifically, it would present to them the “Danish Model”, and which would itself include the rise of organized consumer power, itself presented as a functional structure in post-war capitalist society meant to press manufacturers for the proper promotion and appropriate manufacture of what by now had become absolutely necessary home appliances (as suggested, and as we shall see below, this would have a major impact on the form that modern advertizing discourse would have to necessarily take – apart from its positive material content –, even in Greece).

In an extremely perceptive text which would foresee the radically altered mass definition of what would constitute “material necessity” in Greece itself, Paragogikotis  would present the situation of 1950’s Denmark as follows:

«Κατά την διάρκειαν των παρελθόντων ετών,
η Επιτροπή Αγοραστών ειργάσθη επίσης εντόνως
 δια να ελαφρύνη τας οικιακάς εργασίας και να
δώση συμβουλάς εις τας οικοκυράς… Η Επιτροπή
Αγοραστών είναι τοιουτοτρόπως ο εκπρόσωπος
εκείνων, οι οποίοι ζητούν πλέον συγχρόνους
 κατοικίας, και επιδιώκει να κάμη τας αρχάς και
 τον πληθυσμόν να εννοήση, ότι αι τεχνικαί
 εγκαταστάσεις εις ένα σπίτι όπου η μητέρα σπανίως
 έχει βοηθόν, ενώ συνήθως εργάζεται εκτός της
 οικίας της, δεν είναι πολυτέλεια αλλά ανάγκη»
(cf. Paragogikotis , No 13,
Athens, July-August, 1956, p. 29, my emph.).

This is ΣΕΒ speaking in the mid-1950’s – what does it see coming and what was it in fact then doing? As the coordinating organ of Greek capital – and given its structural bird’s eye view – it is basically advising Greek manufacturers to align themselves to the new demands and the new real needs of the popular masses. Put otherwise, ΣΕΒ was helping both the manufacturing industry and its concomitant promotion industry to adjust to what was happening to Greek civil society – of course, its reference to the “Danish Model” should not be seen as ‘accidental’: ΣΕΒ was much aware of the looming “Euro-tastes” amongst the Greek popular masses and was therefore introducing such ‘Europeanism” to Greek manufacturers and promoters of products.

But, then, the question one need pose is to what extent was the physical burden of the Greek housewife of the 1960’s truly being lifted? To what extent was the “Amalia-type” herself truly able to satisfy her “Euro-tastes”? Alternatively, one need consider the extent to which the Greek middle class milieu “Dream” was in fact “reachable” in the 1960’s and early-1970’s. By that time, the “Amalia-type” would be fully aware that very many of the household appliances being promoted were already no longer mere “luxuries” for her – but what she also knew (and which ΣΕΒ would for its own reasons choose to ignore) was that the Collective Bargaining Agreements clinched between her Union (the Ομοσπονδία Ιδιωτικών Υπαλλήλων Ελλάδος) and ΣΕΒ itself, would be such as to seriously limit her consumer capacity (cf. our paper on remuneration scales for female “White-Collar” employees). This would practically mean that, yes, quite a variety of perhaps “necessary” household gadgets and appliances would, in the 1960’s at least, remain “unreachable” for Amalia Eleftheriadou.  The «χρονική μήτρα» which would give birth to the middle class milieu would, at the time, only carry an embryo; the «ιστορικότητα» of the phenomenon was only just starting to raise its head, and that could only unfold in conditions which involved both socio-cultural clashes and what we have elsewhere referred to as “wage-wars” (cf. our paper on the internal industrial relations structures and practices of the Α&Μ Mill factory). Thus, while the wage-labourer “Amalia-type” did possess a certain consumer power as described above, there were to still remain limits to such power – such limits are best understood if contrasted to, say, an Athenian family belonging to the relatively “upper strata” of the popular middle classes in the period under discussion. One such was that of Maria Theodoraki who worked part-time at the Athens racecourse center and whose husband was a public schoolteacher – this is what she has to say as regards the family’s buying of various family appliances:

«Αγοράσαμε πλυντήριο το 1954, όταν μέναμε
ακόμα στο Κερατσίνι. Το θυμάμαι, γιατί τότε ο
παππούς σου [she is referring to her husband –
interview conducted by her granddaughter]
φόραγε δυο ζευγάρια κάλτσες το χειμώνα, το ένα
πάνω από το άλλο. Κι επειδή εγώ είχα τα παιδιά,
μου είχε φέρει μια γυναίκα, μια πλύστρα, να
πλένει τα ρούχα. Εκείνη όπως τις έβγαζε ο παππούς
σου τις κάλτσες, και τα δυο ζευγάρια μαζί, έτσι
τις έπλενε κι έτσι τις άπλωνε. Και μια μέρα που τις
είχε απλώσει εκεί στην αυλή, του λέω “για δες,
τι είναι αυτά;”. Με παίρνει και μου λέει “Πάμε σ’ ένα
φίλο μου να πάρεις πλυντήριο”. Αυτός ήταν από
τους πρώτους που έφερε πλυντήρια – και
κουζίνες και ψυγεία είχε. Τότε πήραμε πλυντήριο,
και πήραμε και κουζίνα, με τέσσερα μάτια. Τα
πήραμε με δόσεις. Τότε δούλευα κι εγώ στον
Ιππόδρομο, ήταν κι ο παππούς σου δάσκαλος, δεν
ήταν ακριβά. Ό,τι θέλαμε δίναμε κιόλας, γιατί
αυτός ήταν φίλος του παππού. Λίγους μήνες μετά
πήραμε και ψυγείο, αυτό που φέραμε κι εδώ [i.e.
Kallithea] όταν μετακομίσαμε, το 1967-8. ΙΖΟΛΑ πρέπει
να ήταν. Πιο πριν είχαμε ένα ψυγείο ξύλινο, με πάγο.
Παίρναμε μια κολόνα πάγο, ή το ¼, ας πούμε, όσο
χώραγε. Από τον πόλεμο και μετά είχαμε τέτοια
ψυγεία. Μόλις έφυγαν οι Γερμανοί, τότε άρχισε ο
κόσμος να παίρνει απάνω του. Όλα με δόσεις τα παίρναμε»
(cf. Telephonic interview with Maria Theodoraki, aged 88,
20.7.2014).

Considering all that has been agued above thus far, we may say that an important and quite representative advertizing discourse presented by Roupa (op. cit.) and to which we have already alluded, contains both real truths and as real falsehoods as regards the amelioration of the problem of physical burden – published in 1957 in the periodical Eikones [Εικόνες], it would make the following rather dramatic statement:

«Καταργείται η νοικοκυρά»
(cf. Eikones, No 78, April 22-28, 1957;
& Roupa, op. cit., p. 260).

At this point, it is only fair to dwell on the falsehoods of such discourse. The household appliances and their technical functions we have noted above would help a Greek woman to somewhat “abolish” herself as housewife when, for instance, it came to tasks such as washing, cooking or lighting a fire in the fireplace in winter-time. But given the reality of those Collective Bargaining Agreements clinched for a female «Υπάλληλο» (and also given the usual infringement of even such Agreements by the A&M employer), there were quite a number of remaining household tasks which an Amalia Eleftheriadou simply could not afford to substitute with machines – and which had become absolutely “necessary” appliances for young women such as Anna who slaved away over her sewing machine, or Amalia who would also slave away at Headquarters beneath the military-style “despotic” control of her boss, Marakis. One task that the majority of Greek women still had to manually deal with in the 1960’s and 1970’s was that of dish-washing (a task which the majority of Greek males would religiously shy away from, given the sexual division of labour which still dominated both home and workplace at the time, despite the on-going sexual revolution amongst youth). And yet, the dishwasher had made its advent in the Greek market in the period under discussion. Consider the following advertisement which appeared in 1971 and which was presumably addressing itself to the “average Greek”:

«EL – SH
ΡΑΔΙΟΗΛΕΚΤΡΙΚΑ ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΑ
ΠΛΥΝΤΗΡΙΑ ΠΙΑΤΩΝ
SIEMENS
ΤΥΠΟΥ: LADY-S
Θ. ΦΟΥΝΤΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ & ΥΙΟΣ…»
(cf. Άστυ Καλλιθέας…, op. cit., p. 269).

This advertisement, also accompanied by a picture of the particular dishwasher, makes no attempt whatsoever at ‘persuading’ consumers about the need for such an appliance: its laconic discourse-content is simply ‘positive’, ‘material’ and therefore straight-forwardly honest. For an Amalia Eleftheriadou, the catch lay elsewhere: it was an unreachable commodity – and which could not therefore “abolish” her regular dish-washing tasks. Being so, its practically “necessary” attributes would, for the “Amalia-type”, seem a “luxury”, and which implies that it was also economic capacity which would historically define what be a “necessity” and what a “luxury”. Time, social pressure and concomitant developments at the political level would gradually re-define all this, by the mid-1970’s and on.

As with the laborious task of washing dishes, so also with the as tedious task of sweeping and mopping floors, physical exertion could have been diminished through the use of an electric appliance. But like the dishwasher, so also the vacuum-cleaner was most probably an unreachable dream for the “Amalia-type” in the mid-1960’s. And yet again, the vacuum-cleaner was available to Greeks by at least then. One can only guess how Amalia Eleftheriadou, or her mother, would have eyed the following 1965 advertisement:

«Σκουπίζει –
Σφουγγαρίζει –
Γυαλίζει –
Αλείφει –
Ξύνει…
PROGRESS – ΣΚΟΥΠΕΣ – ΠΑΡΚΕΤΕΖΕΣ…»
(cf. Akropolis, 30.11.1965, p. 2).

Appliances such as the above, precisely because they would come to be seen as fulfilling real needs, and given the gradual rise in consumer power, would, in the long run, form part of the «τεχνικαί εγκαταστάσεις» of very many Greek households – they would constitute the palpable material infrastructure of the middle class milieu. It was on the basis of such infrastructure – but “in” it and “around” it and “with” it – that the socio-cultural practices of the milieu would be enacted: the technico-functional appliances would not constitute the ‘base’ on which the socio-cultural practices (as a presumed ‘superstructure’) would take place. Technical functions would determine ‘aesthetics’ just as the latter would determine the former: they would together – as a combinatory whole – come to comprise the very “spirit” of the Greek middle class milieu. In the 1960’s, such “whole” would remain incomplete, given the array of as yet “unreachable” goods. As such, the “spirit” of the middle class milieu in the 1960’s would be characterized by a transitional “primitiveness” in itself.

Perhaps the most important terrain of everyday life where the “primitive” would clash with the “modern” in the 1960’s would be around the issue of hygiene – to be more specific: the “spirit” of the middle class milieu would ultimately also come to be determined by what would happen in the Greek toilet. Saying this might sound terribly provocative: the social sciences have traditionally focused on the study of formal institutions such as the State, the Church, etc., or on formal economic transactions as these happen within and between companies, and so on, so as to try to understand the level of ‘development’ of a social formation. And they have done well – but if one is to truly understand any level of ‘development’ amongst the popular masses, one would have to examine their popular practices as such – one such practice is the use of the toilet, and it is of central importance since it may be taken to be an index of “civilization”. Now, any reference to “civilization” may again be seen as provocative: for most historians who had worked on African social history in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the concept of “civilization”, of “being civilized”, etc., had rightly been rejected as symptoms of an arrogant – and therefore biased – “Euro-centrism”. However, one can avoid all biased value-judgements and still accept that certain human practices can be measured along a scale of relative “civilization” within the context of the “modern” world and according to a number of set criteria. Above, one such central criterion has been the degree of physical exertion one has to apply so as to survive. Yet another must surely be that of hygiene and protecting the body from disease, etc. This brings us to the question of what was happening as regards the Greek toilet in the post-war period and the role of technology and advertisements with respect to such reality.

Writing of the period under discussion, George Mihailidis (op. cit.) provides us with the following picture pertaining to Greek toilets round about the decade of the 1960’s:

«Το θυμόμουν καλά το σπίτι… Το έζωνε μια
πλίθινη μάντρα … και πέρα η σκάλα που
ανέβαζε στο σπίτι, δυο δωμάτια με κουζίνα
 κι ο καμπινές χώρια στη γωνιά της μάντρας»
(cf. G. Mihailidis, Tα φονικά, op. cit., p. 178,
my emph.).

What Mihailidis is describing – the “primitive” outdoor toilet – was a generalized phenomenon of the period, and went far back in time. In an interview conducted with a group of Aliartian pensioners, Alekos Karamitros – who had been a worker at the A&M Mill – would explain that even the father-in-law of his boss – Iordanis Abatzoglou – would, in the 1940’s, himself have an outdoor toilet. At the time, Iordanis happened to be the Aliartian owner of a «πετρόμυλο/ριζόμυλο» (to be later expanded and modernized by Marakis into the flour-producing factory of which Amalia Eleftheriadou would be an employee), and could not therefore be said to have belonged to the “poor” popular masses. And yet, when it came to the question of the toilet, his practices would not differ much from those of the rest. Karamitros would relate the following story which took place in war-time Greece:

«Τότε ο Ιορδάνης είχε τρία τέσσερα δωμάτια,
ένα μακρόστενο σπίτι, και η τουαλέτα ήταν
έξω. Οι Ιταλοί [occupying forces] ήταν όλοι
μαζεμένοι στον περίβολο, και η υπηρέτρια
που είχανε, η Μαρία, δεν τολμούσε να βγει
να πάει προς νερού της. Πήγε στην κουζίνα
να κάνει κακά γιατί φοβόταν. Την ανακάλυψε
όμως η Αναστασία [Iordanis’ wife], και άρχισε
να τη χτυπά μ’ ένα ματσούκι. Άκουσε τις φωνές
ο Μαράκης, “Τι έγινε κυρία Αναστασία;” τη
ρωτάει – “κυρία Αναστασία”, έτσι την έλεγε –,
το και το του λέει. Βγήκε έξω ο Μαράκης,
άρπαξε τον Ιταλό [one of the group] και τον
έφερε σβούρα» (cf. 23η προφορική μαρτυρία,
ΚΑΠΗ Αλιάρτου, ομαδική συνέντευξη-συζήτηση
με συνταξιούχους κατοίκους Αλιάρτου,
6.7.2013, πρωί).

When the toilet would be outdoors – as it would be so for the majority of Greeks right through to the 1960’s – getting to it could often turn out to be quite ‘adventurous’. Children would have to face the terrors of the dark if they needed to use the toilet after sunset (one of them had seen a ghostly image in the Aliartian skies); the Aliartian barber’s wife would once safely get there but then come screaming out of it on seeing a snake curled right in the centre of the place; male eyes would often ogle at swaying female bodies footing their way to the toilet; on rainy days one would have to wait for the rain to subside; on hot summer days the smell would attack the nostrils, and so on. Thus, the little story about Maria above was just one amongst thousands like such, during but also long after war-time Greece. Importantly, and at least by the 1960’s, walking to the outdoor toilet would seem to be seriously violating one’s personal privacy – i.e. it would be violating the individual’s right to one’s own private world, something which the young “New Type” would come to really treasure (and which was a defining characteristic of the middle class milieu).

But as the decade wore on, things would begin to change. Of course, for Marakis the small-time capitalist, the contrast between the 1940’s and the 1960’s would be absolutely dramatic as regards the issue of the toilet. The A&M Archives include a plan of the Marakis villa (which was right opposite the factory itself) – it had been prepared by professional designers on 20.11.1964, and was presumably meant to help locate appropriate areas in the house for the installation of an air conditioning system. But what this house-plan also reveals, as regards hygiene, stands in sharp contrast to circumstances in the 1940’s: by now the Marakis family had access to three indoor luxury toilets, each of which also had its own bidet. One of the three was a very spacious room and was entitled «ΛΟΥΤΡΟ ΞΕΝΩΝ» in the plan.

Things would not be that easy for the popular masses – but Nikos Tsiforos, in his Άνθρωποι… (op. cit.), would be describing the advent of the new so-called toilet-related “luxuries” amongst the “average Greek” by the early 1970’s as follows:

«…έδειξε το μαγαζί του, … είδη λουτρού,
με καμπινέδες ροζ, με μπιντέδες βεραμάν,
με του κόσμου τ’ αγαθά, σε απλά γερμανικά
χρώματα της “Φάρμπεν Ιντουστρί”, το
μαγαζί που άρχισε από ένα τίποτα και μεγάλωσε
μαζί με την μεταπολεμική Αθήνα και προμήθευσε
στις καινούργιες πολυκατοικίες, λουτρά μεγαλεία,
 εκεί που πρώτα, ήτανε μια μάντρα, και στην
 άκρη είχανε κτίσει κι ασβεστώσει μια παράγκα
 και για να πας τον χειμώνα φτερνιζόσουνα από
 την μύτη, φτερνιζόσουνα κι από κάτω» (p. 133,
my emph.).

The real “civilizing” progress from what Tsiforos describes as an outdoor «παράγκα» to what he calls the «λουτρά μεγαλεία» does of course suggest some tinge of irony in the story. These developments, which had in fact commenced by the mid-1960’s, were not an easy matter for the popular masses – the problem was not merely economic: for very many people, such radical changes in hygiene practices would constitute a real culture-clash within popular habits, especially though not exclusively in the Greek “periphery” (and hence the Tsiforos irony). Xanthoulis (op. cit.) captures precisely such unfolding clash in the late-1950’s – referring to the year 1958, this is how he puts it:

«Σήμερα, αύριο, το πολύ μεθαύριο κι
έπειτα θα γινόμασταν πολλά μικρά
διαμερίσματα με... “λουτροκαμπινέ”,
 αυτήν την άγνωστη αλλά αηδιαστική
 λέξη, που μου ’φερνε στο νου την εικόνα
 ενός τεράστιου σκατού στη μέση της
 μπανιέρας» (cf. Το πεθαμένο λικἐρ,
op. cit., p. 74, my emph.).

Such emotional response to what was coming – accurately reflective of the clash of hygienic cultural practices – was an inevitable product of the transitionality of the period, and we of course know that the technology of the modern toilet (as also its ‘aesthetic’ dimensions) would ultimately become a universal need amongst all Greeks. But to further understand the cultural rupture that such technology and its promotion would effect within the popular masses, we may also consider how a young Aliartian would respond on first seeing an indoor toilet in the early-/mid-1970’s, and which fully verifies the Xanthoulis description. Vasilis Halimoudras, an Aliartian resident born in 1966 (and who is perhaps one of the best informed minds regarding, inter alia, the cultural practices of the Aliartian «Ευρυτάνες»), had this to say in an interview conducted in 2009:

«Είχα πάει μια φορά στο σπίτι ενός συμμαθητή
μου. Πλούσιος αυτός, το κάθε παιδί είχε το δικό
του δωμάτιο, κι αυτό εμένα μου έκανε μεγάλη
εντύπωση. Καθώς λοιπόν περπατούσαμε στο
διάδρομο κι εγώ χάζευα με ανοιχτό το στόμα
γύρω μου, βλέπω ένα δωμάτιο με νιπτήρα, λεκάνη,
όλα έλαμπαν. “Εδώ τι είναι;” ρωτάω – πού να
καταλάβω εγώ, πρώτη φορά έβλεπα τουαλέτα
στη ζωή μου. “Τουαλέτα” λέει αυτός. Εγώ δεν
ήξερα καν τη λέξη. “Εδώ κάνετε μπάνιο;” “Όχι
μόνο μπάνιο, εδώ κατουράμε”. Και μόλις το ακούω
εγώ αυτό, πώς μου φάνηκε, “Ιιιι! Εδώ κατουράτε;
ΜΕΣ ΣΤΟ ΣΠΙΤΙ ΚΑΤΟΥΡΑΤΕ;”…» (cf. 15th interview,
Aliarto, 22.06.2009).

Both in the Xanthoulis case, as also with Vasilis, the indoor toilet, even as an idea, would shock: the very word «λουτροκαμπινέ» was an «άγνωστη αλλά αηδιαστική λέξη»; «εγώ δεν ήξερα καν τη λέξη», says Vasilis. Prior to the advent of the modern toilet in Greece, the act of emptying one’s bowels went hand-in-hand with the as “primitive” methods of washing clothes (at Aliarto, many women would do their washing at the «Στεμένια» springs), preserving foods (prior to the «παγωνιέρα», people would use a “safe” called a «φανάρι-τροφίμων»), cooking outdoors, and so on and so forth. Such natural act of emptying one’s bowels, therefore, would remain more or less absolutely natural, at least in the sense of remaining untouched by any technological infrastructure. It is therefore not too difficult for us to guess what Marakis would want to mean when he would write a personal letter to one of his employees (his senior Practical Mechanic) and lodge the following complaint in 1963:

«Αθήναις 28.5.[19]63

Κύριον Μιχαήλ Χαρτάκην – αρχιμ[ηχανικός]

“Αυστηρά – Προσωπική”

Μιχάλη,

Κράτησε αυστηρά πειθαρχία και σεβασμόν εις
τον μύλο και εις το χημείο που παρευρίσκεσαι
πάντοτε – διότι το τελευταίο κατήντησε καφενείο –
γαλακτοπωλείον – κουρείον και λουτρό.
Απηγόρευσα την είσοδον οιονδήποτε εντός…
[Signed] Μαράκης» (cf. A&M Archives, my emph.).

The boss Marakis most probably does not mean that his particular accusations be taken literally (and especially that wry reference to «λουτρό») – but his missive does show how a gentleman who happens to possess three toilets in his villa would look down on common plebeians who happened not to have even heard of the word «λουτροκαμπινέ» or «τουαλέτα». As we know, a person such as Vasilis Halimoudras would himself look back at his own past hygiene practices and laugh at how natural these were – and how ignorant he had also been about developments in that sphere of life. To fully understand the profundity of the technological revolution that would uproot whatever “primitive” naturalness still lingering on around Greek popular hygiene methods, we may take a brief look at the history of traditional toilet practices and then go on and contrast this to 1960’s advertizing discourse on the matter: the positive material content of advertisements concerning the toilet would play a major role in creating what we have above referred to as the anthropologically altered “New Type”.

Very schematically – and rather tentatively we should add – the movement from “primitive” hygiene practices to “modern” practices can be summarized as follows with regard to the popular masses:

• During the decade of the 1950’s – as also of course in the pre-war years – the vast majority of the popular masses used either a stone or a bunch of leaves (or both) to clean themselves following defecation. Minority “élite” groups within the general category of the popular masses (teachers for instance) would themselves use toilet roll-paper by the late-1950’s;
• By the late-1950’s and early-1960’s, people were gradually beginning to use strips of newspaper, which would be hanging on hooks;
• From the early-1960’s, we gradually also had the use of «ένα είδος φτηνού κωλόχαρτου, όχι σε ρολό αλλά σε μάτσο χαρτιά» (cf. telephonic interview with Dr. B.Th., 12.08.2013);
• By the mid-1960’s, the “modern” roll-paper was being introduced to the popular masses by a variety of advertisements – people would now “naturally” find it convenient to move from the «μάτσο χαρτιά» to the thinner and much softer «ρολό»;
• On the other hand and according to another source (cf. telephonic interview with Ms. K. K., born 1959, 13.08.2013): «Σ’ ένα χωριό έξω απ’ το Αγρίνιο, χρησιμοποίησαν ρολό χαρτί υγείας από το 1970 και μετά. Πιο πριν [they used] εφημερίδες σε γάντζους, πέτρες και χόρτα»;
• We may generally say that the use of “modern” toilet-paper became an established practice in places such as Aliarto by the late-1960’s – the product was brought to the attention of residents of the “periphery” by advertisements such as that of “MELTEX” (to be examined further below in discussing “balances” within the content of discourse), and which was circulated by popular periodicals such as the Romantso in 1967 and through to the early-1970’s. Yet still, its usage took place within outdoor toilets – it was only by the very late-1960’s and the early-1970’s that the process of locating toilets indoors would gather some momentum, and such process would itself be uneven in the rural or semi-rural “peripheries”.
• Interestingly, when the Aliartian barber had come to visit Greece from South Africa in the 1970’s, he was faced by an uncomfortable reality which he had long forgotten. As a permanent resident of Johannesburg, he lived in a small flat which nonetheless included an indoor toilet with all its necessary facilities. While visiting his homeland, he would also spend some days at his brother-in-law’s house in the village of Domvraina. He found that the toilet he had to use was a shabby little hut perched on a hill and which had no electricity. When he complained about this to his brother-in-law (who by the way was a KKE member), this was the answer he would receive: “Does your bum need light so as to shit?” (Translated). On returning to South Africa, the particular rhetorical question was to circulate amongst the barber’s compatriot immigrants with some degree of haughtiness. But back in the early-1960’s, the barber’s own Aliartian toilet had itself been a totally “primitive” structure: it amounted to four poles forming a miniscule square and covered all round by bush, while a leaking sheet of corrugated iron formed its roof. The floor was a level surface of shrubs and stones.

These historical developments – which remain to be further verified for their accuracy – show the real socio-cultural drama of a people trying to enter the new post-war “modern” world. And while for many professional historians such data may be ignored as ‘trivial’ (the role of the Stephanopoulos government in the 1960’s, for instance, would be considered more ‘historically significant’), these very ‘trivial’ developments – regarding the conditions in which one defecates – would actually secrete within themselves, not only the levels of remuneration clinched in Collective Bargaining Agreements, but also the socio-cultural clashes in the minds of people between the old, traditional habits of “primitive” hygiene and the new, “modern”, technologically-supported practices protecting people from disease, etc. The latter practices would be a tangible material progress (in the Habermas sense) which would constitute the absolutely necessary hygienic/sanitary-cultural infrastructure for the functioning of the middle class milieu “ego”, and especially for that up-and-coming young “ego” of the “Amalia-type”. The popular middle classes would be introduced to modern hygiene per se in a variety of ways – but the most powerful and most widespread means would be the positive material content of advertisements in the 1960’s. (Obviously, these would be the most effective because manufacturers producing appliances and gadgets related to the toilet would of course use highly effective techniques so as to sell on a mass basis.)

For a verification of the role of advertizing in this field, we may consider the following sample promoting a device related to the toilet in 1965:

«ΤΩΡΑ… ΕΛΥΘΗ ΤΟ ΠΡΟΒΛΗΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΚΟΣΜΙΑΣ
ΤΩΝ W.C. ΧΑΡΙΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΒΕΤΙΚΗ ΣΥΣΚΕΥΗ EXODOR
… Δηλούμεν υπευθύνως και εγγυόμεθα ότι
απορροφά και εξουδετερώνει την κακοσμίαν
εν τη γενέσι της. Εξασφαλίζει πολιτισμένην
εμφάνισιν, καθαρήν ατμόσφαιραν, υγιεινές συνθήκες
(και αυτός ακόμη που χρησιμοποιεί το W.C. δεν
υφίσταται την κακοσμίαν που αναγκαστικά
δημιουργείται)… Πώλησις στα καταστήματα ειδών
υγιεινής και στην αντιπροσωπεία EXODOR…
Πράκτορες δια τας επαρχίας» (cf. Apogevmatini,
6.10.1965, p. 6).

Reading such an advertisement out of its historical context would most probably be a rather indifferent exercise – but if one keeps in mind what has been said above about the outdoor toilet and its concomitant practices, one realizes the extent of the technological revolution which was underway in uprooting whatever vestiges of the “natural” and the “primitive”. In fact, little to no trace of the “natural” remains bar the human act of defecation itself – this was to be an altogether new form of human behaviour and a new experience of hygiene which would come to complete the “New Type”. The discourse of this advertisement is centered on the following three absolutely new concepts, heretofore unheard of as regards the Greek popular masses:

• The emphasis on modern-day “obvious” hygiene: «καθαρήν ατμόσφαιραν» and «υγιεινές συνθήκες»;
• The now “natural” need to obliterate what was once an absolutely “natural” fact of life in the outdoor toilet, i.e. the «κακοσμίαν» – here, as in all things concerning “modernity”, we would have a radically new definition of the “natural” (and thus of “Nature” per se) in the minds of the Greek popular masses themselves;
• For the very first time in Greek popular practices, the naturally necessary and raw act of defecation would be directly related to “civilization” («πολιτισμένην») and to ‘aesthetics’ («εμφάνισιν»).

The advertisement above also allows us to make two other observations: first, it introduces Greeks to the “global”, more genteel term “W.C.”, rather than using the perhaps more banal «τουαλέτα» (or the even more unrefined term, «καμπινές»). More importantly, we note that the toilet product being promoted – and therefore also the concepts which accompany it – would be circulating all over the country, given the network of agents extending to the “periphery”.

Re-locating the toilet indoors would be both expensive and a complex technical matter, and which can explain the relative delay in the process. To facilitate such process, a series of advertisements would appear which had just one simple object in mind: to inform people of the availability of the technological means to undertake the implementation of the task, and to assure them that any economic problem could be regulated.  Consider the following short and simple ‘notification’ of the availability of technical services which appeared as early as 1959-1960 (and which was most probably addressed either to Athenians or to the more well-off residents in the “periphery” such as the family of Halimoudras’ friend) – it read as follows:

«ΣΠΥΡΙΔΩΝ ΛΑΡΙΤΖΑΚΗΣ…
Τελεία εξυπηρέτησις δι’ υδραυλικάς
εγκαταστάσεις,… και είδη υγιεινής
με ΕΥΚΟΛΙΑΣ ΠΛΗΡΩΜΩΝ»
(cf. Η Καλλιθέα…, op. cit., p.333).

But it was especially by the early-1970’s that there would be a proliferation of such advertisements. By then, the whole structure of the W.C. would begin to undergo a complete change for very many “average” Greek families – what used to be merely a private spot for defecation and urination (without a single trace of any superfluous “luxury”), would now include all the necessary appliances to maintain the body clean and beautiful: the bath-tub and the washbasin would now be added. A 1971-1972 advertisement, entitled «ΥΔΡΑΥΛΙΚΑ ΕΙΔΗ ΥΓΙΕΙΝΗΣ», would include a full-page illustration of a W.C. which includes all the modern-day paraphernalia – the mirror would play a central role in such room, allowing the “New Type” to reflect on the final triumph of such “type’s” unique individuality(cf. Άστυ Καλλιθέας, op. cit., p.138). Cleanliness and hygiene would be promoted as the essential pre-conditions for personal beauty – even as early as 1966, the Akropolis would be carrying advertisements advising people on what they should be doing in their toilets apart from satisfying their natural needs. Usually depicting a young lady in front of her washbasin, advertisements would further promote the toothpaste – consider the following:

«Για λευκά και γερά δόντια χρειάζεται
μόνον… Kolynos… και λίγη φροντίδα…»
(cf.  Akropolis, 15.1.1966, p. 30).

It is quite true that very many advertisements promoting various “brand-name” toothpastes would belong to that category of highly “manipulative” discourse which we shall examine below as being “provocative-interventionist”. But it is as true that the vast majority of the Greek people in the 1950’s and 1960’s would find themselves suffering from tooth decay at a fairly early age and many would later either be more or less toothless or would take to wearing false-teeth. All had little idea of dental hygiene and very many would completely ignore their teeth. Some would rinse their mouth after eating with a glass of water to which a pinch of salt had been added. As many would become conscious of their teeth only after the pain caused by gingivitis would become unbearable and then they would take to rinsing their mouth with “ouzo”. Thus, whatever the degree of “manipulation” in toothpaste advertisements, they would all be helpful in introducing people to dental hygiene, and this would constitute their positive material content. The necessity for the use of toothpaste was a new “natural” given – the “manipulation” was itself an inevitable phenomenon caused by the competition between different manufacturers. (Concerning the emergence of the “modern” in-door Greek toilet and all that went with it, we might as well refer here to a literary work partly devoted to this matter and published in 1970 – cf. Μ. Hakkas, Ο μπιντές και άλλες ιστορίες, 2η Έκδοση, Κέδρος; translated in English in 1997 by A. Mims, Heroes’ Shrine for Sale or The Elegant Toilet, Kedros.)

. . . . . . . . .

The washing machine, the fridge, the kitchen stove, the electric heater, etc., as also that wholly new room within the house which would substitute the outdoor toilet – all of these things put together would radically change the material and cultural reality of Greece in the course of the post-war years. The changes in material infrastructure, we have suggested, going hand-in-hand with changes in socio-cultural practices, would together form one combinatory whole, and which would be the middle class milieu as such. In turn, this would yield a new sense of time and a new sense of entertainment. We have, throughout this paper on Amalia Eleftheriadou and her milieu, placed great emphasis on the youthful revolution of the 1960’s and how this would give birth to new entertainment practices – here, we very briefly wish to record how the advent of the modern technological appliances promoted by advertizing – as also advertizing itself – would release a new “modern” comprehension of time, on the part of the popular masses, which would combine very hard work with as much ‘hard play’ outside the workplace (sometimes within it as well – cf. 12η προφορική μαρτυρία: Γιωργία Κρεμμυδά, Aliartos, 10.5.2009).

Asimakis Panselinos (op. cit.) contrasts the pre-“modern” to that of the “modern world” by making the following stark observation with respect to the question of entertainment:

«Η διασκέδαση δεν είχε πάρει ακόμα
τα νόμιμα δικαιώματά της στη ζωή»
(p. 25).

We have already referred to Papanoutsos above (Πρακτική Φιλοσοφία, op. cit., p. 220), who had supported that the new technological appliances and their gradual wide usage by the “average Greek” would provide for «ευκολίες ζωής, άνεση και ψυχαγωγία». And we have already mentioned how the extremely hard-working Anna Papaspiropoulou at Kokkino Mylo would combine all-night entertainment with extremely hard work both at home and at the factory. The Aliartian barber, himself an extremely hard-working person who would often illegally operate his barber-shop at Aliarto on Sundays, would nonetheless as often crawl back home in the small hours of the morning in a state of intoxication after having entertained himself in various tavernas with friends. And Vangelio Kalomiri (op. cit.) would relate how she and her husband Spiros would regularly entertain themselves at Aliarto:

«Αλλά ήταν καλός άνθρωπος ο Σπύρος…
Και πέρασα κι ωραία μαζί του…
Τα πρώτα δέκα χρόνια με πήγαινε και
για καφέ, και στις ταβέρνες…
Σε όλες τις ταβέρνες του Αλιάρτου εμείς
πήγαμε πρώτοι… Πώς…» (cf. 20th interview,
op. cit.).

Advertizing discourse at the time would itself ride the wave of this popular need for entertainment in a variety of ways. We present below a rather non-representative sample of such advertizing – and we do so because it interestingly expresses a rather satirical disposition as regards the relationship between entertainment and Party politics in 1965, which was of course a highly turbulent period. Published in the “conservative” newspaper, Akropolis, this lengthy but highly amusing advertisement – it is about amusement – went as follows:

«ΚΟΣΜΙΚΗ ΤΑΒΕΡΝΑ
Ο ΓΕΡΟΒΡΑΧΟΣ…
Ο ΓΝΩΣΤΟΣ ΣΑΣ ΚΥΡΙΑΚΟΣ ΣΑΣ ΠΡΟΣΚΑΛΕΙ ΓΙΑ ΕΝΑ
ΑΞΕΧΑΣΤΟ… REVEILLON
ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΚΑΤΑΠΛΗΚΤΙΚΗ ΡΕΒΥ ΠΙΣΤΑΣ
ΓΙΟΡΤΙΝΟ ΨΗΦΟΔΕΛΤΙΟ
ΥΠΟΨΗΦΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΒΡΑΔΥΑΣ [:]
ΩΣ ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟΣ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΕΩΣ… ΣΟΥΛΗ ΣΑΜΠΑΧ
ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΜΟΝΑΔΙΚΗ ΒΕΝΤΕΤΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΙΤΑΛΙΚΟΥ ΤΡΑΓΟΥΔΙΟΥ
ΩΣ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΝ ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΩΝ… RENNA FILIPPINI
ΩΣ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΝ ΔΗΜ. ΣΧΕΣΕΩΝ… ΤΟΥΛΑ ΛΑΜΑΡ
ΩΣ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΝ ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΣ… ΑΝΝΑ ΓΑΛΑΝΗ
ΩΣ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΝ ΔΗΜ. ΤΑΞΕΩΣ… ΑΝΤΖΕΛΑ ΔΟΥΚΗΣΑ
ΩΣ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΝ ΑΝΕΥ ΧΑΡΤΟΦΥΛΑΚΙΟΥ… ΑΝΔΡΕΑ ΜΑΚΟΥΛΗ
ΔΙΑΠΕΠΙΣΤΕΥΜΕΝΟΙ ΠΡΕΣΒΕΥΤΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΤΟΠΟΥ ΜΑΣ [:]
ΧΡΗΣΤΑΚΗΣ ΣΤΑΘΑΤΟΣ – ΜΙΡΑΝΤΑ ΜΟΣΧΟΥ
ΜΕ ΤΟ ΜΠΟΥΖΟΥΚΙ ΤΟΥΣ
ΥΠΟΥΡΓΙΚΟΝ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΝ ΕΝ ΧΟΡΩ [:]
ΜΟΡΦΗΣ                      ΤΑΣΣΟΣ ΚΥΡΙΑΚΟΣ
ΗΡΩ ΣΙΜΟΝΟΒΙΚΗ      ΜΑΡΟΥΣΚΑ ΜΑΡΤΕΝ
ΒΟΥΛΗ ΤΟΥ ΓΕΡΟΒΡΑΧΟΥ Η ΟΡΧΗΣΤΡΑ ΣΤΑΥΡΟΥ ΡΟΥΧΩΤΑ
ΕΠΕΡΩΤΩΝ ΒΙΟΛΙΣΤΗΣ… ΣΩΤΗΡΗΣ ΜΠΟΝΤΟΣΗΣ
ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΟΓΡΑΦΟΣ… ΜΙΛΤΟΣ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΙΔΗΣ ΑΔΩΜ
ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΟΥΛΗΣ ΓΕΡΟΒΡΑΧΟΥ Η ΤΖΙΝΑ ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΗ
ΔΙΑ ΝΑ ΠΑΡΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΗΣΕΤΕ ΤΗΝ… ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΑΣΙΝ ΤΗΣ ΒΟΥΛΗΣ
ΤΟΥ ΓΕΡΟΒΡΑΧΟΥ ΤΗΛΕΦΩΝΗΣΑΤΕ ΣΤΟ … ΔΙΑ ΤΟ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΙ ΣΑΣ.
ΔΙΕΥΘΥΝΤΗΣ ΤΗΛ. ΚΕΝΤΡΟΥ Ο ΚΥΡΙΑΚΟΣ»
(cf. Akropolis, 24.12.1965, p. 2).

This advertisement is ‘responding’ to and ‘playing’ with the dramatic events of that year: in the face of on-going political instability, it suggests that people simply entertain themselves by watching the «συνεδρίασιν της Βουλής του Γεροβράχου», which – it is implying – is much more pleasant and much more ‘competent’ as regards its purposes than is the Greek Parliament when it comes to its purposes. Like the advertisements promoting heating appliances which we have discussed above, and which were in direct response to the bitterly cold winter of 1965, so here too, this «ΚΟΣΜΙΚΗ ΤΑΒΕΡΝΑ-qua-ΒΟΥΛΗ» advertisement is a direct reflection of the political conjuncture of the period, albeit in typically Greek satirical form. People wanted a stable government and which would represent them democratically – instead, Prime Minister Papandreou resigns on July 15 of that year, the following day the government of Athanasiadi-Nova is sworn in, then the demonstrator Sotiris Petroulas is killed in clashes with the police that same month, by August the King makes continual attempts to set up a government without calling for elections, then we had the Stephanopoulos government by September 24, and then just four days prior to the publication of the advertisement in question, the ΕΡΕ leader withdraws his support of that government and a caretaker government takes over and the political crisis goes on like that till April 1967. But while all this was happening at the Party-political level, the as real everyday life of the popular masses was itself also happening. The «ΤΑΒΕΡΝΑ» advertisement is aware of this other reality and tries to redirect the strictly political attention of people towards what was a socio-cultural need of the masses themselves for entertainment – it does not and cannot ignore politics: it re-interprets the latter by articulating a discourse which combines entertainment with somewhat latent political satire. Such combination was itself a direct mirror-image of mass popular consciousness, whether “Left”, “Center” or “Right”(interestingly, the Akropolis mainly targeted “Right-wingers”). It remains an open research question as to what came first in the minds of the broad masses of people at the time – was it work, play, sex or politics? We know that as regards youth at least, sex and entertainment was their top priority (bar the “activists”, who were of course always in the minority). For the older generations, politics was always something much discussed amongst themselves (they had lived the Civil War), and thus the advertisement in question tries to effect the “combination” between politics and entertainment we refer to. Its discourse was therefore an organic part of the milieu of the 1960’s.

We have said that the dawning “modern” world of 1960’s Greece would yield a new conception of time, and which would mean – especially for youth – a more “frenzied” use of free time. Advertizing discourse would again be directly responding to this new reality – such advertizing could often take the form of “articles” in popular periodicals (something which had also happened with the promotion of fashion houses, as we have discussed above). We shall present here just one such sample of the thousands of advertisements promoting music records in the 1960’s (cf. our paper on youth and music). In 1967, the periodical Vendeta [Βεντέτα]would carry the following “article”-cum-advertisement:

«ΝΕΟΙ ΔΙΣΚΟΙ…
“ΑΪ ΚΑΝ ΟΝΛΥ ΓΚΙΒ ΓΙΟΥ ΕΒΕΡΥΘΙΝΓΚ”:
Μεγάλος τίτλος και “μεγάλα” λόγια σαν
νόημα (“Μπορώ να σου δώσω τα πάντα”)
του νέου δίσκου των γνωστών μας Άγγλων
μακρυμάλληδων “Δέμ”. Περιττό να λεχθή,
ότι πρόκειται για ένα ζωηρούτσικο σέϊκ,
 που ξετρελλαίνει τους “τήνς”…»
(cf. Vendeta, No 92,
10.2.1967, p. 17, my emph.).

We well know, of course, what Greek youth would do on purchasing – or having access to the sounds of – that beloved 1960’s artifact, the music record (whether at home-parties or at various entertainment spots, such as the «σφαιριστήρια» of Aliarto). The advertizing discourse would promise teenagers that the music would “madden” them – and the promise would be frenziedly verified on the spot. Advertisements, in other words, would here be perpetrating the perfect murder – but this would only be a murder of Panselinos’ pre-“modern world” which had kept entertainment away from the popular masses. In 1966, the well-known Greek journalist, Nikos Mastorakis, would undertake to research the question of youth entertainment in the “periphery”. Publishing his ‘findings’ in the daily Mesimvrini [Μεσημβρινή], he would conclude:

«Η ΣΗΜΕΡΙΝΗ νεολαία… [in the “periphery”] έχει
διαφορετικά στρώματα, με κοινά ενδιαφέροντα.
Απ’ την “χάϊ σοσάϊτυ”, που σπουδάζει, μέχρι την
εργατική νεολαία …, οι διαφορές καταργούνται
μπροστά στους κοινούς τρόπους διασκεδάσεως
και στην εξίσωσι των ωρών και των ελευθέρων
απασχολήσεων». (cf. Mesimvrini, 29.1.1966,
p. 9).

Now this is all too obviously a “Right-wing” propagandistic little text meant to convince readers of the “equality” that in the last instance characterized all youth whatever their class origins – and yet, despite the distortions, it does express half of the truth, as it also does somehow capture the idea of free time/entertainment amongst youth of the 1960’s. It is absolutely true that we have, throughout this research work on the “Amalia-type”, supported the position that 1960’s-1970’s youth constituted a special “social category” (in the Poulantzian sense), and which meant that its socio-cultural practices would be relatively autonomous of the objective class position to which different groupings of that youth would belong.  All members of that “social category” could, for instance, have listened to the songs of “The Beatles”, and in that specific sense, the Mastorakis “position” could be said to be accurate. But the “autonomy” of youth vis-à-vis socio-economic class position could only have been relative – the popular masses which would come to express the middle class milieu cannot in any way be reduced to what Mastorakis superficially names “high society”, and neither can the socio-cultural practices of the popular masses be absolutely reduced to those of the socio-economic élites. As alluded to above, the working Amalia Eleftheriadou could not possibly have listened to “The Beatles” and responded to their lyrics in a manner similar to that of Marakis’ non-working daughters. The specific emotional response to such music by Amalia would have also been determined, apart from her age, by her material conditions and her state of mind as an A&M company employee. Even the eyeing of an advertisement promoting a music record would have evoked a special response: she would know that she could only listen to such music on finishing her work at the office (the Marakis daughters had never set foot in the factory); and she would also know that unless she worked, she may not have afforded any music record. Thus, for the “Amalia-type”, hard work and play went hand-in-hand.

As regards entertainment and the popular masses, there were various gradations of working people along the end-points of two extremes: at the one extreme end of the scale, there were those who would completely ignore whatever ‘sirens’ promoted by advertisements (be that fashion-trends, the latest in music, entertainment centers, etc.), and would devote themselves wholly to hard work. Consider, for instance, the case of G. Zygoyiannis, who was a “Practical Mechanic” at the A&M Mill, and had worked there from 1947 through to 1982 – his “work ethic” (also discussed in our papers on the A&M Mill workers) would take an extreme form, which he has described as follows:

«Τις Κυριακές, άμα δε δουλεύαμε στον Μαράκη,
θα πηγαίναμε στην Κωπαΐδα με τα αδέλφια μου
να ξεφορτώσουμε κάνα αυτοκίνητο, όσο ήταν.
Γι’ αυτό σου λέω, ο Μαράκης μας έβαλε σε σειρά,
δουλεύαμε. Εγώ χαίρομαι να δουλεύω. Ήταν κέρβερος,
μας κυνήγαγε, αλλά μάθαμε πειθαρχία. Σχολή ήταν ο
Μαράκης, σαν να βγάζεις μια σχολή… Το πρωί ξημέρωνα
εκεί, κι έφευγα το βράδυ» (cf. 18η προφορική μαρτυρία,
Αλίαρτος, 19.7.2009).

Zygoyiannis would belong to that group of hard-working Greeks who would ultimately establish their own businesses (his colleague, Angelos Arapitsas, was another such “type” – cf. 10η προφορική μαρτυρία, Αλίαρτος, 12.4.2009). Even as youngsters – from what we understand – they would rarely find the chance to share in the ‘fun’ of teenagers. At the other extreme end of the scale, we would have “types” such as Anna Papaspiropoulou and the Aliartian barber who could kill themselves working as much as they could kill themselves dancing (Anna) or drinking (the barber). This would not prevent the former from establishing her own «κουτούκι» and the latter from running his own barbershops. Of course, there were very many in-between cases who would find some sort of balance between work and play. In the last instance, all these people – whatever their “sub-types” regarding entertainment – would form that collectivity which expressed the middle class milieu. Advertizing discourse on how one should spend his free time would either have a direct positive influence or would be ignored: in both cases, people would be fulfilling their own wishes.

What has been called the “Golden Age” of the 1960’s was also experienced as such by the children at the time, and advertisements would play a major role in “manipulating” children’s wishes to experience the ‘miracles’ of such “Age”. The Aliartian Giannis Statiras, born in 1956, was in his pre-teens in the 1960’s – this is what he had to say of that period in a discussion which took place at his Aliartian «ψιλικατζίδικο» in 2013:

«Η Δεκαετία του ’60! Εγώ αυτή θέλω. Τώρα
δε μου αρέσει. Μπορεί να έχουμε κινητά,
διάφορα, αλλά εμένα δε μου αρέσει! Εγώ
τη δεκαετία του ’60 θέλω, γίνεται να γυρίσω
πίσω και να μείνω εκεί;  Ήμασταν όλοι μαζί
τότε, ήταν αλλιώς» (cf. 24η προφορική
μαρτυρία [an open group-discussion], Αλίαρτος,
7.7.2013).

But Giannis Statiras especially could not himself enjoy the ‘fruits’ of that “Golden Age”: his father, being a “Left-winger”, could not land a job after spending years in prison (though he did work at the A&M Mill for five years). The Statiras family «έζησε μεγάλη φτώχεια» (ibid.), and the boy, who usually went hungry, could only but gaze at advertisements promoting manufactured toys. But the idea of a manufactured toy was, in any case, something absolutely revolutionary in the minds of most Aliartian kids – like Statiras himself, the most that these could really do in the early-1960’s was to look at and dream of the magnificence of such all-new artifacts advertized in periodicals such as the Romantso and in daily newspapers. Some could go one little step further: the Aliartian barber’s kids would cut out pictures of advertized toys and stick them on walls and windows. The time would come when, in the course of that 1960’s period which had so fascinated Statiras, kids would once in a while be treated to a manufactured toy by their parents. But roughly prior to the mid-1960’s, Aliartian children would have to make do with home-made/hand-made toys. For instance, hand-made catapults for bird-hunting would be very popular amongst them. As popular would be the old wooden roller skate ‘manufactured’ by the kids themselves – i.e. that «χειροποίητο πατίνι με τις ρόδες από παλιά ρουλεμάν» which «εκτός των άλλων Accesoire, είχε και το φρένο του» (cf. Giannis Simonetis, Θησείο – Γειτονιές που χάθηκαν [Theseion – Lost Neighborhoods, Εκδόσεις Φιλιππότη, Athens, 1991, pp. 46-52). Amongst smaller kids, the so-called “bicycle” would be popular – that would be a mere piece of stick with some paper-flag and other paraphernalia attached to it and kids would clutch its ends and run screaming around the neighborhoods. Also popular would be the «στεφάνι» which, according to Simonetis (ibid.), had been “in fashion” since the fifth century B.C., was popular through the war-years and its use would continue thereafter till the 1960’s – Simonetis describes its “modern” version as «Το … παιχνίδι με “στεφάνι” από παλιό λάστιχο αυτοκινήτου» which was made to roll along with the skillful use of a stick (ibid., p. 49). Aliartian kids would also fly hand-made kites (the elementary materials for their ‘manufacture’ would be newspapers, sticks and flour). Also popular would be the use of large watermelon shells to build ships and boats.

One could go on with further examples – but the point to make here is that in all such cases children’s imagination would be stretched to its “natural” limits. As soon as the periodical and the newspaper would bombard them with advertisements of the manufactured toy (where, for instance, a real ball would take the place of a tin can), then these very “natural” limits – as mental activity – would begin to question themselves: their “stretch” as such – however ingenious – would soon reveal its own “poverty”. The socio-cultural revolution of the 1960’s, bolstered by the new advertizing discourse for kids, would yield the up-and-coming “New Type-junior”: as soon as parents would be able to secure food and warm clothes for their off-spring, the next “natural” step would be to allow them to taste the cultural fruits of the “Golden Age”. For this “New Type-junior”, of course, “culture” would translate into “toys”, and the positive material content of advertizing discourse addressed to children would play a central role in re-defining children’s own “aesthetic-eidetic stretch”. The experiences of such “modernistic eidetic aesthetics” would at some point converge with the experiences of the “modernistic youth aesthetics” of the “Amalia-type” and would much later yield the more matured form of the middle class milieu of the late-1970’s. The child of the 1960’s and the teenager of that same period would together form the generational nucleus of social pioneers for what was to come.

Newspapers such as the daily Apogevmatini would be much read by adults at Aliarto in the 1960’s (reading the “Left-wing” Avgi [Αυγή] would automatically drive them to the local police station) – and the kids of Aliarto would always have ready access to such advertisement-laden publications. In 1965, Apogevmatini would carry advertisements such as the following:

«ΠΑΙΓΝΙΔΙΑ ΚΟΥΚΛΕΣ ΜΠΑΛΛΕΣ ΠΟΔΟΣΦΑΙΡΟΥ
… εις πλουσίαν συλλογήν. Πώλησις χονδρική
και λιανική. Αφοί Παπαφράγκου…»
(cf. Apogevmatini, 14.12.1965, p. 7).

The discourse of this little piece of text does not include whatever form of “manipulative” language – and yet, it would come to alter relations between the old and the very young: boys would no longer make do with tin cans for their neighborhood football matches; girls would no longer wish to “play mother” with dolls made of pieces of rags. Once, sometime in 1963, a crowd of little Aliartian girls would celebrate what was for them a major event: one of them had discovered somewhere in the cotton-fields a real plastic doll (the fact that one of its limbs was missing did not at all dampen their spirits). Kids who had never seen or touched such artifacts would very naturally demand that they do so.

In discussing advertisements promoting furniture, we had fully rejected whatever references these would make to “personal happiness”, suggesting that such a concept – whatever its assumed effect on the ‘sub-conscious’ – would be both meaningless and unconvincing to adults. For some commentators of the period – especially those belonging to the “Left” – such reference to “happiness” in advertizing discourse would constitute an attempt at “manipulation”, and would yield ‘false consciousness’. We have already dealt with such over-simplifications – but even if we were to acknowledge that there is some truth in such interpretations as regards adults, we would completely reject any such approach when it comes to the emphasis placed on “happiness” in advertisements addressed to children. Of course that type of discourse would truly abound in the 1960’s. We may consider the following advertisement which appeared in 1959-1960:

«ΤΟ ΜΥΣΤΙΚΟ ΤΗΣ ΧΑΡΑΣ ΚΑΘΕ ΠΑΙΔΙΟΥ
ΤΟ ΚΑΤΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ
ΠΡΩΤΟΤΥΠΩΝ ΠΑΙΓΝΙΔΙΩΝ
ΧΡΥΣΤΟΥ ΜΠΡΙΝΟΥ…»
(cf. Η Καλλιθέα…, op. cit., p. 335).

This simple little advertisement, with its almost predictable stress on “happiness”, is addressing itself to the “New Type-junior” who could and often did feel quite “happy”, and especially so when the child would handle a new toy. We are of course not suggesting anything original – Freud, in his Civilization and its Discontents [greek edition: Ο Πολιτισμός – Πηγή δυστυχίας, Επίκουρος, Athens, 1974), had observed:

«Δεν είναι παράξενο που οι άνθρωποι
κάτω από την πίεση … των δυνατοτήτων
του πόνου συνηθίζουν να μειώνουν την
απαίτησή τους για ευτυχία… [etc.]»
(p. 17).

The specifically Greek version of the 1960’s “Golden Age” – with all its miseries, its contradictions and the generalized ‘angst’ – would force all Greeks to do exactly what Freud suggests: in the process of getting older and older, they would gradually place more realistic and more minimalistic demands on themselves as regards their wish for happiness (and that is the reason why advertisements addressed to adults and trying to sell “happiness” could not have been that convincing). But prior to reaching the stage of adulthood – and especially when they still remained children – such ‘habit’ as Freud calls it would not as yet have caught up with them. One of the Aliartian barber’s kids had felt deep joy on receiving a toy sent to him by his well-off godfather, and felt as deep a sorrow on losing it (he can still remember the occasion to this day, in his late fifties). It was to such authentic childhood emotions – well beyond all class hierarchies – that advertisements would be addressing themselves. Here, the ‘positive content’ of discourse would not be ‘material’ as such and not at all ‘practical’ – meant to materialize a child’s eidetic “Dreams”, this particular type of advertizing discourse would be of a positively authentic immaterial dream-content. For the first time, however, such content would be “modernistic”.

It is in such context that the following 1965 advertisement should be understood – whatever its latent “manipulative” intentions, all of what it says expresses that specific ‘positive content’ related to the ‘world’ of a child:

«ΣΤΟ ΤΜΗΜΑ ΜΑΣ ΠΑΙΧΝΙΔΙΩΝ
ΖΩΝΤΑΝΕΨΑΜΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΙΑ!
Η χαρά των παιδιών είναι το
παιχνίδι. Χαρίστε σπάταλα ευτυχία
στα παιδιά δωρίζοντας παιχνίδια
απ’ τα παιχνίδια μας. Χιλιάδες
παιχνίδια απ’ όλον τον Κόσμο…
ΑΓΟΡΑΖΕΤΕ ΠΟΛΛΑ ΠΑΙΧΝΙΔΙΑ ΣΤΑ
ΠΑΙΔΙΑ! ΜΑΘΑΙΝΟΥΝ ΝΑ ΣΚΕΠΤΩΝΤΑΙ,
ΝΑ ΜΑΣΤΟΡΕΥΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΝΑ ΑΓΑΠΟΥΝ…
ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ…»
(cf. Akropolis, 12.12.1965, p. 5).

Of course, it goes without saying that such an advertisement – published in December – would be directly exploiting the festive season of the year. It also goes without saying that while it could bring authentic happiness to an Aliartian child (Statiras would be starving both for food and for toys), it could at the same time cause authentic misery to a hard-working parent who was still struggling to make ends meet: for the latter, his child’s “happiness” would translate into the question of cash. Yet still, if the declared Greek family income had come to an overall 30.392 million drachmas in 1967, it would reach a total of 66.870 million drachmas by 1971 (cf. “Statistical Yearbook”, op. cit., p. 6).

We may end this very brief note on the question of toys by pointing out that whatever has been said above may be compared and contrasted to a rather interesting article written by the poet Kostis Palamas in 1916 and entitled «Τα παιγνίδια μου» [“My toys”], in Τα Χρόνια μου και τα Χαρτιά μου – Περασμένα Χρόνια [“My Years and My Papers – Years Past] ΑΘΑΝΑΤΑ ΕΡΓΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΛΟΓΟΤΕΧΝΙΑΣ, No. 8, ΜΠΙΡΗΣ-ΓΚΟΒΟΣΤΗΣ, undated, pp. 470-472.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 In discussing the positive material content of 1960’s advertizing discourse in Greece, we noted that it would reflect a relative lessening of physical exertion on the part of the popular masses. Similarly, we noted a concomitant relative increase in people’s free time in certain domains of everyday life (outside the workplace), as also a new understanding and usage of such free time. We have also suggested that such post-war changes would themselves be part and parcel of the rise of a new ‘aesthetics’. To end this sub-section, we shall dwell a bit more on this issue involving ‘aesthetics’.

It was, inter alia, the material content of advertizing discourse at the time which would both reflect and further enable (or allow for) the rise of a new mass ‘aesthetics’ and a new mass culture, and it would do so to the point of “democratizing” – as Hobsbawm (The Age of Extremes, op. cit.) has shown – “The Arts” as such.

That the post-war masses would come to “share” in the domain of the arts was also fully recognized by Horkheimer and Adorno (op. cit.). But we need notice the manner in which they would acknowledge such new reality – even as early as 1947 they would write:

«Η πολιτιστική βιομηχανία μπορεί να
είναι περήφανη ότι διεξήγαγε με
αποφασιστικότητα τη συχνά αδέξια
μεταφορά της τέχνης στη σφαίρα της
κατανάλωσης ανάγοντάς τη σε
αρχή…» (op. cit., pp. 224-225).

Such bitter irony – «μπορεί να είναι περήφανη» – is of course quite unworthy both of philosophers and of historians: what one would expect of them is, firstly, to objectively record this major historical event (as does Hobsbawm), and secondly, to try to explain the particular form such «μεταφορά» would take given the prevailing socio-economic conditions in a specific country. That the «μεταφορά» was «αδέξια» – and especially so in underdeveloped, “traditional” societies such as Greece – may have been more or less unavoidable. And it was not merely the contradiction-ridden transitionality of Greek society that would make the process «αδέξια» – Greek manufacturers and advertizing companies were themselves entering an as yet unknown terrain.

Like Horkheimer and Adorno, Roupa (op. cit., p. 265) looks down on and rejects this event in toto as (what we would call) a “foreign provocative-interventionism” – she speaks of a «ξενόφερτη αισθητική». The extent to which such new ‘aesthetics’ was/was not an “interventionism”, the extent to which the popular masses would themselves accept/reject such “interventionism”, etc. – these are all questions left unanswered. But before we examine the question of “interventionism” and the question of “compromising adjustments” and “balances” maintained in advertizing discourse, we simply need to record one basic historical fact: by at least 1956, and for the very first time in the economic history of Greece, all Greek manufacturers were being urged by their central organ – ΕΛΚΕΠΑ’s Paragogikotis – to try and find some “balance” between the question of their “profits” and the question of “aesthetics” in their products. The ΣΕΒ organ would try to “re-organize” the “ideology” of all manufacturers by advising them as follows:

«Η συνεχής προσπάθεια διά την βελτίωσιν
των διαφόρων ειδών, τα οποία, καθημερινώς,
διοχετεύονται εις την κατανάλωσιν, δεν
 ανταποκρίνεται μόνον εις υπαγόρευσιν
 θεμιτού συμφέροντος. Πέραν του, αποφασιστικώς,
 επιδρώντος οικονομικού παράγοντος, υπάρχει
 και το κίνητρον εκείνο, που κάμνει τον
 κάθε πραγματικόν δημιουργόν να θέλη
 τελειότερον, αρτιώτερον και ωραιότερον το
 έργον του. Έτσι η παραγωγικότης, η οποία
σκοπεί εις την ποιοτικήν βελτίωσιν είναι
αφ’ εαυτής προικισμένη με τον ψυχικόν
δυναμισμόν της δημιουργίας και αποδεικνύεται
εκδήλωσις εντελώς σύμφωνος με την ανθρωπίνην
έφεσιν, διά την πρόοδον» (cf. Paragogikotis,
Νο 13, Athens, June-August,
1956, p. 29, my emph.).

This “proposal” to Greek industry, coming from ΣΕΒ’s ΕΛΚΕΠΑ – and which would be repeated in a variety of different ways – is of historical importance: it would mean that for the first time, in Greece itself and since the 1950’s, the Greek popular masses were to begin to share in the ‘aesthetics’ of the period, and as these were embodied in consumer products. Such “proposal” was based on an understanding of what the popular masses themselves wished and demanded: as we shall further see below, ΣΕΒ would place great emphasis on the need to know what the consumer felt and wanted, seeing the selling/buying process as a two-way relationship between manufacturer and consumer. Now, if such initiation to ‘aesthetics’ happened to be a «συχνά αδέξια μεταφορά» (Horkheimer-Adorno), that was simply because both parties were as yet unprepared for the new milieu – hence, precisely, the need on the part of ΣΕΒ to “ideologically” re-educate its own members through such “proposals”.

Of course, we well know that it was not merely Greek industry which would help inject mass culture into the everyday lives of the Greek people. International artifacts – with a specifically ‘global’ trade-mark – would themselves enter the lives of people and further deepen the exposure to mass ‘aesthetic’ culture (and that is why Roupa’s complaint about the «ξενόφερτο» does tell us half of the truth – but to tell the whole truth any sociological analysis should in any case first cease being a complaint). Amongst the very many ‘global’ artifacts introduced to Greek society on a mass scale in the 1960’s, there was one which would perhaps most importantly symbolize the advent of mass culture, the active participation of people in such culture, and which would help raise the overall “intellectual” level of the popular masses themselves. This artifact – ingenious in its very simplicity, cheap and thus available to everyone – was of course the ball-point pen. In 1965, the Akropolis would carry the following advertisement:

«ΜΕΓΑΛΥΤΕΡΗ ΠΟΣΟΤΗΤΑ ΜΕΛΑΝΗΣ
ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΕΡΑ ΧΙΛΙΟΜΕΤΡΑ ΓΡΑΦΗΣ
BiC
λεπτής γραφής… ΔΡΧ. 3.50
… με άφθαρτη μπίλλια…
ΣΑΣ ΔΙΔΕΙ ΤΟ ΦΘΗΝΟΤΕΡΟ ΓΡΑΨΙΜΟ
ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ» (cf. Akropolis,
30.11.1965, p. 2).

The purchasing and use of the ball-point pen by the Greek popular masses would spread like wildfire throughout the period. Perhaps one of the most revolutionary of inventions of the “modern” world, this particular artifact would function as a tool of communication which would urge “common” Greeks to express their thoughts in writing: it would therefore constitute a means whereby the “average” Greek would actively participate in a cultural practice which would raise his “intellectual” level by simply putting pen to paper. The discourse of the above advertisement would thus include a clearly ‘positive content’ in that the artifact advertised would do exactly what was promised – i.e. it would literally yield an endless series of «χιλιόμετρα γραφής». One need simply page through the A&M Archives to immediately verify such «χιλιόμετρα»: simple working people, relatives and friends would send letters to Marakis himself for a variety of reasons – workers would write about their complaints regarding work conditions; relatives and friends about the possibility of landing a job at the factory, and so on and so forth. One interesting case is that of Elena Tsolakidou (cf. our paper investigating her case), who was Marakis’ goddaughter and who was to soon also become an employee at the A&M company by 1964. While still residing at Sidirokastro in Crete, she would send her godfather/future boss numerous letters in the early-1960’s that would read as follows:

«Δεν ξέρετε Νουνέ πόση χαρά αισθάνομαι,
όταν παίρνω γράμμα σας. Χαρίζετε λίγη
ζωή στην μονότονη ζωή μου… [etc.,etc.]».

And even Elena’s father – a half-educated Cretan peasant – would himself put pen to paper and communicate with Marakis, and he would do so effectively despite his endless spelling and other language errors (thus, for him, letter-writing would also be an unconscious exercise in self-education). For the younger letter-writers, such as the high school-educated Elena and Amalia, writing as such would also be an exercise in ‘aesthetics’. This would be especially so as regards Amalia Eleftheriadou – one is truly astounded by the ‘aesthetic’ calligraphy of her hand-written job-application submitted to Marakis on the 27th of June, 1966. Again, and generally speaking, the use of the ball-point pen in people’s free time – a practice which would happen right across all social strata – would further re-define one’s understanding of time per se. (On the question of letter-writing in 19th century England, cf. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, op. cit., p. 55.)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The positive material content of advertizing discourse in the 1960’s and early-1970’s would have the positive material effect we have described – it would, in other words, reflect (as both cause and as result) the material comforts that the popular masses were only just beginning to enjoy. But the content of advertizing discourse-as-a-Whole would not always be ‘positive’: the relative autonomy – and at times even ‘anarchy’ – of such discourse could also yield extremities and “imbalances” in its images and messages which would have to be ‘ordered’ by structures such as ΣΕΒ. The struggles for such ‘order’ would not always be successful, as we shall see below.

GLOSSARY

NOTES:
● «… έκανε διασκέδασι την φροντίδα του μαγειρεύματος»: the task of cooking was now made entertaining
● «… ν’ ανανεώνει… τα σκεύη του…»: to renew his/her household appliances
● «10.000 ΘΕΡΜΙΔΩΝ»: 10.000 thermal units
● «CANDY ρομπότ»: “CANDY [brand name] robot”
● «άγνωστη αλλά αηδιαστική λέξη»: an unfamiliar but gross-sounding word (with reference to the term «λουτροκαμπινέ», meaning the w.c.)
● «αδέξια»: awkward
● «αισθητική»: aesthetics
● «αληθινή κραυγή»: real scream
● «ΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΟΝ ΠΡΑΚΤΟΡΕΙΟΝ ΤΥΠΟΥ…»: American press agency
● «απήλλαξε»: relieved
● «ατομικών δυνατοτήτων εκλογής»: individual capacity to choose/select
● «Βαγγελίτσα»: the diminutive for the Greek female name Evangelia
● «βολικός άνθρωπος»: an accommodating person
● «ΓΙΑ ΤΕΛΕΙΟ ΝΟΙΚΟΚΥΡΙΟ»: for the perfect household
● «Δεν είναι η ανατομία του πιθήκου που εξηγεί την ανατομία του ανθρώπου, αλλά η ανατομία του ανθρώπου που εξηγεί εκείνην του πιθήκου»: It is not the anatomy of the ape that explains the anatomy of humans, but the anatomy of humans that explains that of the ape.
● «διακοσμημένες πληγές»: decorated/embellished wounds
● «Δριμύτατον ψύχος»: harsh cold
● «εγώ δεν ήξερα καν τη λέξη»: I had never even heard of the word
● «έδιωξε κάθε σκοτούρα»: has done away with all worries
● «έζησε μεγάλη φτώχεια»: lived in great poverty
● «Εκεί μέσα τοποθέτησε τα όνειρά της»: it was therein that she placed her dreams
● «ΕΜΕΙΣ ΑΝΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΟΜΕΝ τα παλαιά σας ΨΥΓΕΙΑ… αγοράζοντας τα ιδικά σας σε τιμές απίστευτα υψηλές…»: we exchange your old fridges… buying them at unbelievably high prices
● «ένα είδος φτηνού κωλόχαρτου, όχι σε ρολό αλλά σε μάτσο χαρτιά»: some sort of cheap toilet paper, not in a roll but in a bunch of pieces of paper
● «έπιπλα πραγματικά για νέους»: furniture truly intended/specially made for young people
● «ευγένεια»: gentleness/gentility
● «ευκολίες ζωής, άνεση και ψυχαγωγία»: ease, comfort and entertainment
● «Ευρυτάνες»: Eurytanes, inhabitants of Evritania, part of the region of Central Greece
● «ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΟΥ ΤΥΠΟΥ»: European type (or model)
● «η τσάκιση είχε μεγάλη σημασία»: the razor-sharp crease in trousers, etc., was of great importance
● «ΘΕΡΜΑΣΤΡΑ…»: heater
● «ιστορικότητα»: historicity
● «καθαρήν ατμόσφαιραν»: clean air
● «κακοσμία»: bad odour
● «ΚΟΣΜΙΚΗ ΤΑΒΕΡΝΑ-qua-ΒΟΥΛΗ»: tavern-qua-parliament; the term «ΚΟΣΜΙΚΗ» suggests that the tavern specializes in the organization of various social events, such as the celebration of marriages, baptisms, etc.
● «κουτούκι»: tavern, something approximating a shebeen
● «λουτρά μεγαλεία»: w.c. glamour, grandeur
● «ΛΟΥΤΡΟ ΞΕΝΩΝ»: visitors’ w.c.
● «ΜΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ»: in Greek translation
● «μέσα στον άγριο Χειμώνα»: in the (heart of the) fierce winter (free translation)
● «μεταφορά»: transference, conveyance (of the arts to the sphere of consumption)
● «ΜΟΝΟΝ»: only
● «μπορεί να είναι περήφανη»: (the culture industry) can be proud
● «νεανικό»: youthful
● «ξενόφερτη αισθητική»: foreign aesthetics, imported from outside Greece
● «ξυλόσομπες»: wood-burning stoves
● «Ο Στόχος»: “The Target”.
● «ΟΙ ΜΙΜΗΤΕΣ ΜΑΣ είναι πολλοί»: our imitators are many
● «Οίκοι ανοχής στην “πολιτεία της ανοχής”»: “Brothels in the city of tolerance”.
● «όλοι βιομηχανοποιούν»: everyone is engaged in mass manufacturing
● «Ομοσπονδία Ιδιωτικών Υπαλλήλων Ελλάδος»: Greek Federation of Private Employees
● «ΟΣΟ ΚΟΣΤΙΖΕΙ Ο ΠΑΓΟΣ και η δόσις του ξύλινου…»: (an electrically-powered fridge) costs as much as a block of ice together with the installment for the wooden icebox
● «όταν εσείς απουσιάζετε»: in your absence/when you are absent
● «παγωνιέρα»: icebox, an insulated cabinet packed with ice (or, rather, with a large block of ice) for storing food
● «παλιά γκαζιέρα πετρελαίου»: old primus stove
● «παράγκα»: shack
● «ΠΑΤΡΟΝ»: patterns for dressmaking and drawing templates; paper patterns
● «περιβάλλον»: setting, atmosphere, milieu
● «πετρόμυλο/ριζόμυλο»: stone mill/rice flour mill
● «προσωπικότητα»: personality
● «προσωποποιούμε»: personalize/personify
● «προφορική μαρτυρία»: oral testimony
● «σαν κρεμμύδι»: like an onion
● «σκέπτεται μόνη»: it thinks by itself (independently of its user)
● «σοφρά»: the sofras is a Greek traditional low table
● «σταμάτα τη μπουγάδα»: stop doing the laundry yourself (free translation)
● «ΣΤΕΓΝΩΝΕΙ»: it dry cleans
● «Στεμένια»: Stemenia, the name of a natural spring, located in the northeastern outskirts of the Aliartian Acropolis, facing Lake Copais
● «συνεδρίασιν της Βουλής του Γεροβράχου»: session of Gerovrahos’ Parliament; Kyriakos Gerovrahos was the proprietor of the tavern, here referred to as “Parliament”
● «σφαιριστήρια»: billiard centers
● «ΣΦΟΔΡΟΤΑΤΗ ΚΑΚΟΚΑΙΡΙΑ»: severe weather conditions
● «ταχείας θερμάνσεως»: rapid heating
● «Τέλειο σε όλα»: perfect in every way
● «ΤΕΛΕΙΟ»: perfect (as also indicated above)
● «τεχνικαί εγκαταστάσεις»: technical installations
● «Το κρύο άλλοτε και τώρα»: the cold, then and now
● «Το μέλλον διαρκεί πολύ»: “The future lasts forever”.
● «Το πεθαμένο λικέρ»: “The dead liqueur”.
● «Το… παιχνίδι με “στεφάνι” από παλιό λάστιχο αυτοκινήτου»: the term «στεφάνι» refers to a ring or hoop – it would be an old car tyre that would be rolled along. Similar to hoop rolling or hoop trundling, a child’s game.
● «τουαλέτα»: toilet
● «Τώρα… έγιναν όλα πιο εύκολα»: now everything has become so much simpler/easier (free translation)
● «υγιεινές συνθήκες»: sanitary conditions
● «ΥΔΡΑΥΛΙΚΑ ΕΙΔΗ ΥΓΙΕΙΝΗΣ»: plumbing, sanitary ware
● «Υπάλληλος»: Clerk
● «Υπεροψία και μέθη»: “Arrogance and intoxication”.
● «υψηλό κόστος που έπρεπε παλιότερα να καταβάλλει η μάζα του πληθυσμού… στις διαστάσεις της σωματικής εργασίας…»: the high cost/price that the masses had to pay in the past with respect to the different forms of physical exertion/labour (free translation)
● «φανάρι-τροφίμων»: storage cupboard for food
● «χαρούμενο»: joyful
● «χιλιόμετρα γραφής»: kilometers of writing
● «χρονική μήτρα»: temporal womb
● «χρονοδιακόπτη»: time switch/timer
● «χωρίς επίβλεψη»: without any supervision
● «ψιλικατζίδικο»: corner shop

ATTEMPTS AT MAINTAINING “BALANCES” WITHIN THE GREEK ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE

One may wish to insist that the Greek popular masses of the 1950’s, the 1960’s and the early-1970’s were so absolutely bamboozled by those magic and novel words of advertisements which bombarded them – those letters which «αναβοσβήνουν σε χρώμα παπαγαλί και η ατμόσφαιρα γύρω πρασινίζει» (Daskalpoulou, op. cit.) – that they were in fact being reduced to a bleating mass of obsequious Sambos whose only concern was to satisfy their lower instincts (Karandonis, op. cit.). The implication would be that here we had a massive tabula rasa on which advertizing discourse could write the history of a people. As one looks back in time – and as one also considers the political turbulence of the period – such an evaluation of the history of a people sounds extraordinary.

Such an approach wants to forget one essential fact, at least as regards the “average” Greek of the period: these people possessed a knowledge of things Greek. Now this may sound like a truism, but when one considers what it was that they knew, one realizes that such object of knowledge could not possibly have been ignored by the new advertizing discourse. There would be times when the knowledge of the popular masses would cross swords with the intentions of advertisements, and there were times when such knowledge would adapt itself to the new, and vise versa, etc. But the very idea of a people as a tabula rasa is ipso facto ludicrous.

What was it that the “Amalia-type” truly knew? And why is it that such object of knowledge would inevitably come face to face with advertizing discourse? Let us consider here just one case (by way of an example of just such knowledge) – in 1961, Koeppen (op. cit.) would make the following observation:

«Οι Έλληνες ξέρουν να μαγειρεύουν»
(p. 34, my emph.).

Such «ξέρουν» constituted a series of techniques accumulated through the ages (we have already noted above that social historians have yet to research the history of Greek cooking practices). Now, the food industry, the advertizing of food products and thus the very content of related advertizing discourse, would have no choice but take such knowledge into account – i.e. such «ξέρουν» would have to be taken into consideration through a series of necessary “compromises”, “adjustments” and “balances” in their advertizing discourse. And they would have little choice but take such popular knowledge seriously if only because of the quality of the end-product of that knowledge. As to the end-product of Greek cooking, we may here consider the observations of Chrysa Kyriakati, who was a resident of Aliarto from 1956 to 1962, and who, belonging to the Aliartian social élite, could at first only evaluate the cooking practices of the popular masses from some objective distance – this is what she says:

«Το απόγευμα που τελειώνανε τα γραφεία
[headquarters of the Lake Copaїs Organization],
και πριν θερίσουν τα στάχυα, περνούσα από
ένα δρόμο όπου βρίσκονταν οι παράγκες των
εργατών – ξέρετε αυτές οι τσίγκινες… Ακόμα
 θυμάμαι τι ωραία που μύριζε το φαγητό,
 μαγειρεμένο λαδερό φαγητό…» (cf. 13η προφορική
μαρτυρία, Χρύσα Κυριακάτη, Βούλα, Αθήνα,
26.5.2009, my emph.).

What Koeppen has to say for the Greek cuisine generally, Chrysa Kyriakati verifies for the «εργάτες» of Aliarto in the 1950’s and early-1960’s. These popular masses would not be obsequiously vulnerable to any one-sided “intervention” questioning their eating habits by whatever “modern taste”. In direct contrast to such circumstances, a young lady such as Chrysa herself – she was in her twenties when she stayed at Aliarto – could perhaps have been much more vulnerable to that type of “intervention”, given her own socio-cultural circumstances. Being the daughter of someone who had happened to be «από τους μεγαλύτερους βαμβακέμπορους στη Λιβαδειά» (ibid.), she never had to cook and did not therefore possess that practical knowledge which young ladies such as an Amalia would have acquired directly from her mother. Chrysa would very openly speak of such real ignorance and clearly explain the reason for it:

«Όταν μου έλεγε ο Νίκος [her husband] να
έρθω μαζί του στον Οργανισμό, του έλεγα
“Εγώ τι να έρθω να κάνω στον Αλίαρτο; Εγώ
την γκαζιέρα δεν ξέρω ν’ ανάβω”… Και πώς
να ξέρω, στη Λιβαδειά είχα υπηρέτρια»
(ibid., my emph.).

It would not only be Chrysa’s objective class position that could, perhaps, have made her more ‘open’ to any one-sided promotions of “modern taste” – it would above all have been the absence of the knowledge and the ritual of preparing Greek foods which could have allowed her to receive advertizing messages in a manner that the “Amalia-type” would not. But precisely because cooking practices were so deeply and almost universally ingrained within the Greek “soul” (so to speak), even Chrysa herself would be bewitched by the Greek cuisine and advertizing discourse would have to keep such gastronomic proclivities of the “Chrysa-type” in mind as well. We have already noted her love of the workers’ «μαγειρεμένο λαδερό φαγητό». But we may further observe, not only how she would behave, while still at Aliarto, when circumstances would force her to cook, but also what she would in fact cook – laughing, Chrysa described her anxiety about her need to prepare a meal and related the occasion as follows:

«Κάποια μέρα, ο Κονίτσας, που ήταν τότε
στο υπουργείο Συγκοινωνιών, ήρθε μαζί με
τον πρόεδρο της Βουλής, τον Πλατή από τη
Λαμία, για κάποια εγκαίνια στον Αλίαρτο.
Λέει ο Πλατής στον άντρα μου “Εγώ μόνο την
κορδέλα θα κόψω, και θα φύγω, θα έρθω
σπίτι σας να φάω. Πες στη Χρύσα να φτιάξει
ένα φαγητό”. Θυμάμαι, έφτιαξα ντολμάδες
και κοτόπουλο με πατάτες – είχαμε μιλήσει
πια τότε ξανά με τους γονείς μου… [we
therefore presume that Chrysa must have
followed her mother’s advice on how to
prepare such foods]. Λοιπόν, στο Χρυσό
είχαμε κτήματα με ελιές, κι εκεί βγάζουν αυτές
τις μεγάλες, τις λαδοελιές, μεγάλες σαν
φυρίκια. Ο Κονίτσας ήταν από την Αράχοβα,
κι εκεί έχουν κάτι ελιές τόσες δα. Στρώνω το
τραπέζι, βγάζω κι ένα βαθύ πιάτο με 10-15
ελιές. “Τι ’ναι αυτά;” ρωτάει ο Κονίτσας, “Ελιές
είναι” λέω. Παίρνει εκείνος δύο πιάτα, τις
μοιράζει με τον Πλατή, ξεκίνησαν πρώτα με
ελιές κι ύστερα έφαγαν» (ibid.).

We may observe that, despite Chrysa’s own social background, despite her husband’s professional status (he was the «Τμηματάρχης Προμηθειών» of the «Οργανισμό»), and despite their guests (both belonging to the political élite), the young lady would still choose to prepare a traditional Greek meal for the occasion. This suggests the ‘universality’ of the traditional Greek cuisine at the time – as to such reality, we may here quote the following text on the traditional eating habits of the European peoples in the 1970’s, which was published in a Δελτίον ΣΕΒ in 1979 and which went as follows:

«… “ΕΥΡΩΚΟΥΖΙΝΑ”: ΙΔΑΝΙΚΟ ΕΥΤΥΧΩΣ ΑΝΕΦΙΚΤΟ
ΓΙΑ ΤΙΣ ΕΝΝΕΑ ΧΩΡΕΣ – Διατηρούν τις γαστριμαργικές
τους παραδόσεις και την εδεσματική ποικιλία τους…
Η “Ευρωκουζίνα” – ευτυχώς – μπορεί να θεωρηθεί
χιμαιρική προοπτική. Εάν το πρώτο αυτό συστατικό
“Ευρώ” ταιριάζει σε πολλές επιτεύξεις και επιδιώξεις
της Κοινότητας (ευρωνόμισμα, ευρωδιαβατήριο,
ευρωμόρφωση κλπ. κλπ.) περί… ευρωορέξεως, δεν
μπορεί να γίνει λόγος. Οι Ευρωπαίοι εννοούν να
διατηρήσουν την εθνική τους κουζίνα, και να μη
αποστούν από τα γαστριμαργικά και συμποτικά τους
πάτρια…» (cf. Δελτίον ΣΕΒ, No 405, 15.5.1979, pp. 21-22).

Despite such ‘universality’ of the Greek popular cuisine, we should of course not forget that there was also a stark class-based differentiation in the quality and quantity of food consumed (cf. 23η προφορική μαρτυρία, ΚΑΠΗ Αλιάρτου, 6.7.2013, where the food served at the Kriba taverna – basically frequented by Aliartian workers – is described as follows: «… κουκιά με λάδι,… ρεβίθια και τέτοια, όσπρια. Για εργάτες»). Yet still, we may say that the traditional eating habits of the Greek popular masses had seeped through class differences and continued to be savored by the social élites. It was the practical knowledge of the popular masses and the universal appreciation of the end-product of such knowledge («λαδερό φαγητό», «ντολμάδες», «λαδοελιές», etc.), which the food industry could not ignore and which advertizing discourse would have to take into account.

When “modern” foods and tastes were to enter the Greek market, their promoters would be confronted with an already existing and well-established local food industry which was fully responding to and organically expressing the traditional eating habits of the popular masses. We may here consider one such local manufacturer, that of the «Βιομηχανία Συσκευασιών Ήλιος», a company born and bred in Greece and which therefore fully knew what the Greeks themselves knew when it came to the popular art of gastronomy (all data relating to this company are taken from http://www.ellines.com/epixeiro/7499-fusika-proionta-upsilis-poiotitas-apo-to-1919/#sthash.mzhniicw.dpuf). Established as early as 1919, «Helios» would even then be entering «μια αγορά που έτρεχε ήδη». It would specialize in the making of various spices for the highly seasoned Greek dish – as regards the 1920’s, we read:

«Όσο για την πελατεία, αυτή απαρτίζεται από
μπακάλικα και παντοπωλεία της εποχής, τα
οποία αγοράζουν αρχικά το εμπόρευμα χύμα
και κυρίως πιπέρι, κανέλα, γαρύφαλλο και
μπαχάρι, προϊόντα με τη μεγαλύτερη ζήτηση
την δεκαετία του ’20».

And with reference to the 1960’s:

«… καθοριστική είναι από τα μέσα της δεκαετίας
του ’60 η εισαγωγή στην αγορά τού καρίνο ως
μυρωδικό στο μαγείρεμα των κοτόπουλων».

However “manufactured” these spices were, or however “new” («εισαγωγή»), they were all produced on the basis of a close understanding of the highly traditional gastronomic tastes of the Greek popular masses – whatever “newness” was itself a careful development of these pre-existing tastes. As such, the products of «Helios» were either of the people or were organically related extensions/developments of their socio-gastronomic culture: here, we had no real ‘surprise’, let alone any “provocation” of the eating habits of Greeks. Generally speaking, foreign food companies entering the Greek market – and especially when it came to marketing their “modern” products – could not ignore either «Helios» or its well-established network of long-time consumers.

«Helios», moreover, had also developed its own special ways of promoting its products, placing special emphasis on its packaging methods. Speaking of the late-1920’s, we read:

«… [The founder of the company] κατάφερε
να αφήσει το στίγμα του σχετικά γρήγορα,
υιοθετώντας για την εποχή μεθόδους καινοτόμες
γύρω από το πλασάρισμα των μπαχαρικών…
Εκτός από το χύμα, άρχισε να λειτουργεί και
η ιδέα της καρτέλας. Μίας μεγάλης λευκής
καρτέλας, στην οποία κολλούσαν μικρά λευκά
φακελάκια, με διαφορετικά μπαχαρικά το
καθένα, σε κάθετη μορφή ανάλογα με το προϊόν.
Έπεφτε το ένα φακελάκι πάνω στο άλλο και ο
μπακάλης τράβαγε αυτό που ήθελε ο πελάτης
και του το έδινε. Ήταν ο πρώτος ο οποίος εισήγαγε
αυτή την καρτέλα και τη συσκευασία της εποχής».

By 1960-1961, the founder’s son undertakes to truly modernize the packaging process:

«Σαν απόφοιτος της Ιωνιδείου Σχολής και μετά
τελειόφοιτος της Εμπορικής Σχολής… [the son] εξ
αρχής έβλεπε με διαφορετικό μάτι την ανάπτυξη
της βιομηχανίας. Αρχίζει λοιπόν να ψάχνεται
γύρω από το μπαχαρικό, θέλοντας να ξεφύγει από
τα τετριμμένα. Και εκείνο το κάτι άλλο ήταν να
φέρει το ’60-’61 την πρώτη γερμανική μηχανή
συσκευασίας, σηματοδοτώντας μία κίνηση πρωτοπόρο,
 καθώς δεν είχε σκεφθεί κανείς ότι θα μπορούσαν
αυτά τα φάκελα που τα κολλούσαν στο χέρι να
συσκευαστούν σε μηχανή και μάλιστα 24 ή 36 φάκελα
ανά κουτί. Σε 3-4 χρόνια ίσως και λιγότερο, φέρνει
και δεύτερη μηχανή, ενώ στο ξεκίνημα της δεκαετίας
του ’70 υλοποιεί τη συσκευασία σε μπουκάλι και
πλέον αρχίζει το δούναι και λαβείν με τα σούπερ
μάρκετ…» (my emph.).

 

The influx of the foreign “modern taste” in foods (Roupa’s «ξενόφερτο», op. cit.) would therefore be faced with two pre-given realities: first, the as yet dominant traditional socio-cultural gastronomic practices amongst the popular masses; and second, a well-rooted local food industry that was already starting to modernize itself. The new advertizing discourse related to food products in the 1950’s and 1960’s would therefore have to try and maintain certain “balances” with respect to both of these intertwining realities.

Our observations thus far on Greek eating habits may seem to suggest that the “average” Greek would merely resist the “modern taste”: of course – and as in the case of all other “modern” products – nothing could be further from the truth (and that, despite what the Δελτίον ΣΕΒ had to say about the persistent traditionality of the European cuisine in the 1970’s, it being only half the story). We have seen how the “New Type”, being precisely that, would come to make its own decisions as regards things “modern” – we have noted how the ex-“Leftist” Nikolaidis (op. cit.) would assert: «Ο μέσος άνθρωπος… ήδη παίρνει τις αποφάσεις του», and his decision would be to enter the “modern world” of consumption, and thus of “modern taste”. Now, one could argue that such decision-making was somewhat “naïve”, in the specific sense meant by Freud – as he puts it: «οι άνθρωποι ζουν γενικά το παρόν τους σαν με κάποια αφέλεια» (op. cit., p. 77). But we can only accept such “naiveté” in the specific sense meant by a historian such as Hobsbawm – for him, «Τα περισσότερα ανθρώπινα όντα λειτουργούν σαν ιστορικοί: μόνο αναδρομικά αναγνωρίζουν τη φύση της εμπειρίας τους» (and therefore the long-term consequences of such experience remain, at least for some period of time, unknown, cf. The Age of Extremes…, op. cit., p. 329). But that does not at all stop them from making at least fairly measured decisions on the spot and for themselves. Thus, when the “average” Greek would decide to also turn to the “modern taste” – food included – he would demand that he know what he would be consuming (or eating). Neither turning his back to his traditional eating habits, nor shying away from experimenting with the “new”, he would act neither “naively” nor blindly.

As regards such demand for knowledge in the early-1960’s, Roupa (op. cit., p. 263) very interestingly notes (but without drawing the necessary conclusions):

«Ο ελληνικός λαός αποζητούσε την ενημέρωση
σε ό,τι αφορούσε θέματα “λάιφ στάιλ” και
σύμφωνα με τον Θεοφύλακτο Παπακωνσταντίνου
“κατά τη μεγάλη πλειονότητά του ήταν
επαρκώς ενημερωμένος”…» (my emph.).

Roupa and Papakonstandinou – the latter was writing in 1963 – may not use the term «ενημέρωση» in the exact same context as that which we are here discussing, though «λάιφ στάιλ» may be broadly taken to mean eating habits as well. But in any case we do know that the “average” Greek did want to be informed on new food products, at least judging by how food manufacturers, old and new, were responding to their market. We have already seen how «Helios», well back in the 1920’s, had been using the idea of its «καρτέλα» in its packaging system so as to help buyers and sellers, not only identify a specific spice, but also allow them to have a complete picture of the full range of spices available. By the 1950’s, in some similar – but slightly more advanced – manner, the ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ organ, Paragogikotis , would itself also be advising manufacturers to pay special attention to the packaging of their products, and with a special emphasis on the importance of informing consumers. In 1956, the periodical would carry an article entitled «Η καλή συσκευασία», and part of which read as follows:

«Είναι γνωστόν πόσο μεγάλη σημασία
αποδίδεται στην Αμερική στην καλή
συσκευασία, όσο και ασήμαντο αν είναι
το πωλούμενον προϊόν… Οι νέοι τρόποι
συσκευασίας αποβλέπουν εις το να ενημερώσουν
 αμέσως τον πελάτη περί του περιεχομένου,
 της ακριβούς ποσότητος αυτού, των ειδικών
 χαρακτηριστικών του και της αξίας του…» (cf.
 Paragogikotis, No 12,
Athens, April-May 1956, p. 47, my emph.).

Three basic observations may be made regarding this mid-1950’s text:

1. Here, it is not the ‘obsequious’ popular masses who are turning to the «ξενόφερτο», but the ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ organ itself – but, then, who in the Western world at the time could possibly deny the acquired knowledge of an American industry which stretched back to the 19th century with vast corporations such as those of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Harriman, Mellon, Guggenheim and, of course, Ford? (cf. J.K. Galbraith, The New Industrial State, op. cit., pp. 21-22).
2. What was such acquired knowledge telling the Greek manufacturer? To begin with, it was speaking of the importance of a «καλή συσκευασία» for whatever product, and was therefore pressing manufacturers to become ‘appearance-conscious’ as regards their products, and which brings us back to what we have said above as regards the need to re-educate Greek capital around the question of embodying “mass aesthetics” in their products.
3. But most importantly, such ‘aesthetic appearance’ would be «καλή» if and only if it also satisfied the need of the consumer for detailed information about the new product: «Οι νέοι τρόποι συσκευασίας αποβλέπουν εις το να ενημερώσουν αμέσως τον πελάτη…». We should not forget that much of Greek commercial capital was introducing the Greek consumer to foreign and as yet unknown products, and therefore the need for information on the part of the popular masses was well nigh inevitable. Much of Greek manufacturing capital was itself involved in assembling and/or finishing off the production of foreign products based on a ‘patent’, and therefore, here too, the need to inform was called for.

Now, if it was true that the popular masses did not as yet know the new products, it was as true that the manufacturers of these new products were themselves ignorant of how such masses would respond to their products – it would not do to simply try and “manipulate” a mass of people whose wishes remained unknown: you cannot “manipulate” a “vacuum”, and ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ suspected just that. Ultimately, therefore, the advertizing companies would themselves be urged by ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ to undertake an investigation of the needs of the Greek consumer: just as the popular masses had to be informed, so too, the advertizing sector would have to inform itself. The process would be a two-way dialectical interaction, and its central object would be to try to maintain a “balance” in the socio-cultural signifiers composing advertizing discourse.

The role of ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ in this process would be made difficult by an extremely complex set of circumstances and which, as we shall see below, would not prevent an appearance of highly “interventionist”, even at times insultingly “provocative” advertisements (though these would only be one part of the story). But before we examine the ‘ideology’ of ΣΕΒ itself – as this was articulated by Paragogikotis – let us very schematically simply point to some factors which made things difficult for ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ in the 1950’s and 1960’s to create and maintain “balances”:

1. As an “ideological organizer” of Greek Capital-as a-Whole, ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would try to co-ordinate that internally contradictory Whole by urging it to align its advertizing discourse with a mass of consumers who were themselves composed of internally contradictory social segments, ranging – inter alia – from the young “Amalia-type” to the older, war-scarred generations.
2. Within such Whole, there would be sectors of capital which, given their international strength and monopoly or oligopoly presence in world markets, could function “anarchically” when it came to articulating advertizing discourse (we use the term “anarchic” in a manner faintly reminiscent of its use by Marx in discussing Capital). Asserting their relative autonomy vis-à-vis the rest of Greek capital, their advertizing discourse would at times be highly “provocative” and “interventionist”, and such marketing techniques could also at times lead local advertizing companies to a mimicking of such techniques.
3. Other sectors of foreign or semi-foreign capital, planning to establish a more long-term presence in the Greek market, and engaged in competition with a traditionally well-rooted, endogenous non-monopoly capital – especially in the food and clothing industries – would opt for a more “compromising” advertizing discourse which aimed at “adjusting” to the special socio-cultural context of the Greek case.
4. There were many other – in-between – cases which would dominate numerically and whose advertizing discourse would be determined by specific factors such as: (i) the nature of the particular product they were promoting; (ii) the nature of their particular target-group; (iii) the degree of competition regarding the particular product; (iv) their habitual style of advertizing; and (v) their advertizing budget (though what one says in an advertisement is of course completely independent of whatever cost).

As is quite obvious, ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ could not possibly establish some uniform order of discourse within such internally contradictory disorder, and in any case the very nature of advertizing discourse itself, in its interaction with consumers, would be an ‘ideological’ battlefield of forward thrusts and retreating compromises. What ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would try to do, in the terrain of advertizing-discourse-as-a-Whole, would be to urge the advertizing sector to undertake an investigation of different methods of promotion; it would try to introduce new “models” of advertizing discourse meant to establish new relationships with the Greek consumer, and with a special emphasis on a “balanced” two-way relationship between producer and consumer. Much of this work on the part of ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ was done through the organization of seminars and lectures, to which various business functionaries were invited to participate. Here, in our attempt to examine how ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would try to balance the extremes of “provocative intervention” and “compromising adjustment”, we shall mainly focus on the printed material available in the periodical Paragogikotis .

Above, in our sketchy presentation of the history of advertizing in Greece, we had noted that ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ were, by 1958, in the process of establishing a “Greek Marketing Association”. Its stipulated object – «διά την βελτίωσιν των μεθόδων εμπορίας» – was to investigate methods which would determine advertizing discourse for the Greek context, and thereby regulate the field of discourse in a manner which would listen and respond to the needs of the “average” Greek.

Through such an “Association”, ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would try to explain to all sectors of capital operating in Greece that the Greek consumer was not a ‘tabula rasa’ or a ‘vacuum’ pliable according to the one-sided profit-needs of businesses. Quite unlike the Greek ‘Marxists’, it would not look down on any ‘alienated’ masses as potential objects of “manipulation” – rather, it would approach them as an up-and-coming subject which would soon be a social power to be reckoned with. And unlike individual capitals, ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ’s relatively all-encompassing «πανοπτισμός» (loosely in the Foucaultian sense, but only as applied to relations within Capital-as-a-Whole) would allow it to go beyond their single-minded thirst for profit. Precisely so as to introduce such concepts – and their concomitant business/promotional practices – to the Greek field, it would make use of what we have elsewhere referred to as the “Danish Model”. The presentation and discussion of such “model” would enable it to warn all individual capitals of the rising consumer consciousness of people such as the “Amalia-type” – a consciousness which would place demands on the quality of products. ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ’s Paragogikotis would try to prefigure such reality of the Greek consumer as a socially powerful subject by presenting to all entrepreneurs operating in Greece what was already happening in Denmark by the late-1940’s. As in Greece of the 1950’s, so also in Denmark of the 1940’s, manufacturers would at first try to ignore the wishes and needs of the “average housewife”. But that, explains  Paragogikotis, would cause a wave of dissent amongst Danish women-consumers, which would lead to their self-organization, as also to ultimate State intervention. It is of major interest here to observe how the central organ of Greek-based Capital adopts a thoroughly sociological approach – which any Marxist at the time would envy – as regards the reaction of the popular masses in the face of the abusive excesses of various capitals. By referring to the popular mobilization of the Danish woman-consumer, Paragogikotis is in fact trying to put itself – and especially individual capitals – in the shoes of the “Amalia-type” and her mother, calculating what these were capable of doing were Greek-based manufacturers to ignore them. Part of this long text reads as follows:

«Αι οικοκυραί εν δράσει…

Αυτό το κύμα των διαμαρτυριών προεκάλεσεν
το 1947 την σύστασιν της Επιτροπής Αγοραστών,
μιας οργανώσεως υποστηριζόμενης υπό του
κράτους. Η επιτροπή αυτή ζητεί όπως καταστή
δυνατή η αγορά καλλιτέρων εμπορευμάτων…
[etc]» (cf. Paragogikotis, No 13, Athens, June-August, 1956, p. 26,
my emph.).

In the case of Greece, it would only be by 1970 that the first consumer organization would be set up (INKA/Consumer Institute), and it was by 1982 that the ΚΕ.Π.ΚΑ. (Κέντρο Προστασίας Καταναλωτών) would also be established. It was not so much the establishment of formal consumer organizations that really concerned ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ – they would probably have welcomed that – but the possible “waves of dissent” amongst Greek consumers, and which could also take the form of at least unconsciously “boycotting”/staying away from certain products. For ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ, the only way to avert such circumstances was to call on individual capitals to maintain certain “balances” between themselves as producers and the “Amalia-type”/her mother as consumers. To get their message across to Greek-based capitals, they would again make use of the Danish case, which would show how Danish manufacturers would ultimately have to respond to consumer dissent, despite initial conflicts between the parties involved. In Denmark, manufacturers and traders had no choice but to respond to the dissent and to establish a certain compromising “balance” –Paragogikotis continues:

«Οι εμπορευόμενοι
 δίδουν προσοχήν.

Η Επιτροπή Αγοραστών αρχίζει αμέσως να
συνεργάζεται με το Εθνικόν Συμβούλιον Οικιακής
Οικονομίας, το οποίον αναλαμβάνει να δοκιμάζη
τα οικιακά είδη, δια να αποφασίση την απόρριψιν
ή την έγκρισίν των. Συγχρόνως απεστάλη μία
κοινοποίησις εις τους βιομηχάνους υποδημάτων,
υφασμάτων και προϊόντων διατροφής, η οποία τους
προσεκάλει να παρουσιάσουν εις την αγοράν
εμπορεύματα καλής ποιότητος και καλώς
εναρμονισμένα. Κατ’ αρχάς τα δύο ενδιαφερόμενα
μέρη ήσαν μάλλον το εν εναντίον του άλλου,
αλλ’ ολίγον κατ’ ολίγον επανεμφανίσθη είς υγιής
συναγωνισμός εις το εμπόριον και αρκεταί ιδιωτικαί
επιχειρήσεις κατ’ αρχήν, ακολούθως δε και αι
οργανώσεις των διαφόρων κλάδων της βιομηχανίας,
 ανεγνώρισαν το όφελος το οποίον θα είχον με την
 ικανοποίησιν των απαιτήσεων των αγοραστών»
(ibid., p. 27, my emph.).

Through the presentation of this “Danish Model”, ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ are in fact urging private capitals operating in Greece to do the following interrelated things:

• Take the needs of the Greek consumer seriously – listen to consumer demands («Οι εμπορευόμενοι δίδουν προσοχήν»).
• Enter into a relationship of cooperation («υγιής συναγωνισμός») with the consumer and adjust your products to his demands.
• Produce commodities that stand up to quality tests.
• Accept the idea of independent testing of products – allow State organs to undertake such tests.
• Allow State organs to act as go-betweens in your relationship with consumers.
• In fact, accept that State intervention is necessary to help maintain “balances” between you and the consumer.
• Generally, satisfy consumer demands («ικανοποίησιν των απαιτήσεων») – doing so will in fact benefit you too.
• Doing all this could give rise to difficulties and conflicts between you, the State organs, and the consumer – but remember such conflict will be temporary and will only occur in the initial phases of the process of adjustment.
• In any case, such process is inevitable («αλλ’ ολίγον κατ’ ολίγον επανεμφανίσθη…»).

As we shall soon see, ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ shall be saying the same things, not only as regards the quality of products, but also as regards the quality of advertizing discourse and methods of promotion. But, in any case, it is quite natural that if a product had to inscribe within itself the wishes and demands of the consumer, such material inscription would also be projected within the representations of the discourse. Here, manufacturers would not need to “intervene provocatively” through their advertisements so as to find potential buyers – on the contrary, advertizing discourse would here merely express the a priori wishes of the consumer. In such case, therefore, we would not have – as Adorno et al had wanted people to believe – a “manipulatively” imposed product “from above”: both product and the discourse promoting it would emanate (if not wholly, at least partly) from the wishes and needs of the popular masses (and, therefore, such discourse would also have to be in the language of the popular masses).

But if a manufacturer were to decide to produce a product which expressed the needs of the consumer, he would have to get to know such needs – and, as we have said, it would be one of ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ’s basic objects in the 1950’s and 1960’s to try to re-educate private capitals precisely on this matter. The “Danish Model” would be one of its educational means in the 1950’s – Paragogikotis would emphasize:

«Σήμερον συμβαίνει, συχνά, αι ίδιαι αι
βιομηχανίαι να απευθύνωνται εις τους
 αγοραστάς δια να πληροφορηθούν τας
 επιθυμίας των» (ibid., p. 27, my emph.).

Training Greek industry to re-educate itself on the needs and tastes of the Greek masses would be a complex and long-term project, and ΕΛΚΕΠΑ – founded in 1954 – would have just that as its aim. A ΣΕΒ Δελτίον of 1980 had this to say of ΕΛΚΕΠΑ:

«… χωρίς … να ασκεί ο ίδιος παραγωγική
δραστηριότητα, έχει κατά βάση εκπαιδευτική
 αποστολή: επιδιώκει να εκπαιδεύσει, να
επιμορφώσει, να διαφωτίσει και να
πληροφορήσει αυτούς  που παίρνουν τις
αποφάσεις…» (cf. Δελτίον ΣΕΒ,– 30.4.1980 – No  418,
p. 11, my emph.).

And further:

«Με τη συνεργασία ειδικών επιστημόνων
οργάνωσε βραχυχρόνια και μακρυχρόνια
προγράμματα επιμορφώσεως που
παρακολούθησαν πάνω από 60.000 άτομα»
(ibid.).

Such programs, in the form of seminars and workshops, were introducing businessmen to new concepts and paradigms to the Greek field: emphasis was placed on the participation of the consumer in what was being produced and on the demands of the consumer so that the final product (quality included) not be «απροσάρμοστο στις απαιτήσεις της αγοράς» (something we shall come back to – and cf. Δελτίον ΣΕΒ,  15.6.1978, No 383, pp. 27-28). As to consumer participation/consumer demands and the Danish paradigm, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ’s Paragogikotis  would write in 1956:

«Η ΣΥΜΒΟΛΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΙΚΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΟΥ –
Οι αγορασταί απαιτούν καλήν ποιότητα –
Χαρακτηριστικόν παράδειγμα εις την Δανίαν»
(cf. Paragogikotis, June-August, 1956,
op. cit., p. 26, their emph.).

The issue of consumer participation («συμβολή») – endorsed by ΕΛΚΕΠΑ and ‘taught’ to Greek businessmen by the 1950’s – essentially reflected the general conditions of the post-war “modern world”: ΕΛΚΕΠΑ’s position could be directly related to Habermas’ (op. cit.) interpretation of the period, which was said to have offered people those «ατομικές δυνατότητες επιλογής» and which went hand in hand with «συμμετοχή», etc.

In Denmark, consumer dissent would gradually translate into consumer participation and the ability to choose the kind of products people wished to consume – companies would be forced to adjust to such consumer demands:

«Βαθμηδόν καθώς ο ανεφοδιασμός και το
εμπόριον επανήρχηντο βραδέως εις ομαλόν
ρυθμόν [after the war], η δυσαρέσκεια την οποίαν
είχον προκαλέσει αι κακαί αυταί αγοραί,
εξεδηλώθη πλέον εις τους κύκλους των γυναικών,
ηύρε διέξοδον εις τον τύπον και προεκάλεσεν
διαβήματα προς τους εμπορευόμενους»
(ibid.).

ΕΛΚΕΠΑ was consciously introducing post-war Greece to a new relation between consumers and companies – the latter had to understand the former as a powerful subject which could exert organized pressure on manufacturers, and which could also make use of the mass media. It was precisely this two-way relationship between producers and consumers which would maintain “balances”, thus functioning as a safety-valve («διέξοδον»).

Without at all realizing the implications of what she is saying, Roupa (op. cit.) states with reference to the 1950’s and 1960’s:

«… ιδρύθηκαν κρατικοί και ιδιωτικοί φορείς
που μελετούσαν την καταναλωτική
συμπεριφορά…» (p. 261).

She goes on to provide us with useful information on the various organizations, bodies and institutions that were being established at the time, and sees in these the wholly “manipulative” intentions of the American “marketing model” («η κατανάλωση διεγείρονταν συστηματικά», cf. p. 260). And yet, she fails to understand that these institutions “studied” already existing popular attitudes – a historically-rooted a priori – and had to adjust to and maintain “ideological balances” with such reality. Thus, whatever degree of “manipulation” was checked and delimited by such socio-cultural reality.

If the product had to inscribe within itself at least elements of the a priori needs and tastes of the popular masses, such inscription would have to be represented in advertizing discourse – further, in cases where a product was a ‘standardized’ international product, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would again propose that it be promoted in a manner which would ‘speak’ to the consumer, and which would mean that the language of the discourse would have to be the language of the consumer – that, however, would presuppose a thorough knowledge  and respect of the socio-cultural mass practices of an “Amalia-type”. Further, and as already noted above (Streek, op. cit.), the mass ‘standardized’ product would itself give way to the “customized product”, and which would to a large extent “customize” advertizing discourse itself. In the 1950’s, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would try to re-educate Greek private capitals along this strategic line by focusing on the concept of the “market idea”. It was precisely such “market idea” which would constitute that «πεδίο μιας ασταθούς ισορροπίας συμβιβασμών» discussed above. We may here examine how Paragogikotis would present such inevitably U.S.-inspired concept in the 1950’s. In its January 1955 issue (No 6, pp. 33-42), the periodical would publish an article the central points of which may be summarized as follows:

• «Η προσέλκυσις του πελάτου είναι ολόκληρη τέχνη και χρειάζεται φαντασία» (headline) – both the reference to “technique” as also that to “imagination/fantasy” may suggest “manipulative” intentions. Yet still, we need notice the emphasis placed on the central problem of how to attract the attention of the consumer.
• The text, further, explicitly warns private capitals not to deceive the consumer: «δίχως ίχνος προθέσεως εξαπατήσεως … του πελάτου».
• To attract attention but without deceiving, the commodity should ‘speak’ to the consumer: «…το εμπόρευμά σας πρέπει να της μιλήσει [i.e. to the housewife-consumer]» (their emph.). This of course presupposes that the producer knows the needs of the consumer (and therefore the necessary specifications of the product), and it also presupposes that the promotion of the product knows the language of that consumer.
• Specifically as regards the promotion/presentation of products, this constitutes a whole ‘science’ based on the knowledge of what the “average” housewife wants: «Η ανάγκη να βρεθή τι θέλει η μέση νοικοκυρά ωδήγησε στην επιστήμη της παρουσιάσεως των ειδών προς πώλησιν». Here, it is clear that advertizing discourse and whatever other means of promotion can only be produced by mechanisms that have already imbibed and ‘scientifically’ evaluated the given material needs and psyche of the “average” housewife.
• It is such focus on the need to attract the consumer, on the need to avoid deception, on the need to speak the language of consumers, on the need to ‘scientifically’ gather data around popular needs, etc., which would allow ΕΛΚΕΠΑ to speak of and press for its central concept of “market idea” amongst Greek private capitals. This central concept – related to but not the same as “marketing mix’ (to be discussed below) – points to the utterly new and “modern” conceptualization of the relation between producers and consumers. The text suggests that there is the need for manufacturers, traders and promoters to give the consumer «μια μεγαλυτέρα ευχέρεια εκλογής “ιδεών αγοράς”…» (my emph.).
• At least for the Greek case, the implications of such a concept were truly revolutionary and would directly engage the “Amalia-type” in the unfolding of a new style of life. These implications were momentous for a number of reasons:
• A given product would be structured around a network of “ideas” forming its  own “market idea” in two ways: firstly, the product itself, as an “idea”, could take a variety of forms – thus, it would be up to the “Amalia-type” to select what it was she wanted from a range of different forms of the same product; secondly, the discourse promoting the product would also take a variety of forms, and again the “Amalia-type” would herself select which discourse form she would ‘speak’ with along this range of forms of discourse.
• This would therefore give the individual consumer the freedom to select and participate exactly as Habermas (op. cit.) has described it in examining the post-war period.
• As is obvious, the concept of the “market idea” was a spermatic form of what Streek (op. cit.) has referred to as the “customized product” of the post-1970’s (both “market idea” and “customization” involving selectivity and participation).
• There would be limits to the range of products and to the corresponding promotional discourses – such limits would constitute that constantly unsteady terrain of «ασταθούς ισορροπίας συμβιβασμών», and which would be a terrain of “provocative globalism” challenging “traditional provincialism” at the two extreme ends of the terrain. The “Amalia-type” would be one of the agents within such terrain – another agent would be ΕΛΚΕΠΑ; yet another would be the different sectors of capital operating in Greece, and so on.

Having said all this, the 1955 Paragogikotis article nonetheless does admit that such “techniques” would inevitably have a particular effect on the wishes of the consumer – they would go some way in “provoking”, though that would be a “provocation” of the wish to select. Alternatively, we may say that the “market idea”, presupposing a knowledge of the language and the wants of the consumer, could have a “manipulative” effect on him, but only in the more restricted sense that it could accelerate the act of choice (but which was itself “informed”, as argued above). As the text puts it, the use of «ιδεών αγοράς» would also mean –

«… μίαν ιδιαίτερη επιτάχυνσι εις την
επιθυμίαν του πελάτου να κάνη την
 εκλογή του» (ibid., p. 38, their emph.).

Going back to the 18th century, the Physiocrat Mercier de la Riviѐre had argued that «Ο σκοπός της ανταλλαγής είναι η απόλαυση, η κατανάλωση» (cf. Michel Foucault, Oι λέξεις και τα πράγματα, Γνώση, Αθήνα, 1986, p. 274). By the mid-20th century, in Greece as elsewhere, there would be a relative acceleration in the wish for such «απόλαυση», and this acceleration would be based on a relative “democratization” of consumer power. The April-May 1956 issue of Paragogikotis (No 12, p. 43), would make just that point. In a text entitled «Ένα κοινωνικόν πείραμα – Ο θεσμός της αναπτύξεως σχέσεων» [“A social experiment – The Relation Development Institution”], M. V. Pavlidis would write:

«Η αύξησις της βιομηχανικής παραγωγής
διέπεται από δύο βασικά φαινόμενα, την
αύξησιν της μηχανικής παραγωγής και
 την δημοκρατικοποίησιν της αγοραστικής
 δυνάμεως» (my emph.).

The ever-accelerating wish to select different forms of (de la Riviѐre’s) «απόλαυση» was not, therefore, simply a product of any “manipulative” advertizing discourse, and as that was semantically organized around its “market idea” – it was also and above all a product of that «αύξησιν της μηχανικής παραγωγής». Within such context, accelerating wishes were a manifestation of a relatively “democratized” consumer capacity, and which went hand-in-hand with a “democratization” of demand, participation and selection of products (we have already pointed to “mass aesthetics”, the “democratization” of fashion, etc.). The implication is that that «πεδίο μιας ασταθούς ισορροπίας συμβιβασμών» – and precisely as that was encapsulated in the pluralistic “market idea” – would be an essentially democratic terrain, and especially as the consumer power symbolic of the middle class milieu would be strengthened through the years. Even in the Greek “Police State” of the 1950’s and early-1960’s, and even in the period of the Military Dictatorship, the “Amalia-type” would be able to democratically assert her own consumer selectivity both in the product that she consumed and in the advertizing discourse that she would choose to listen to (the socio-cultural and economic levels of the Greek social formation would retain their relative autonomy vis-à-vis the political level). In any case, that, at least, was the strategic object of ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ – i.e. to maintain the relative autonomy and democratic interaction in relations between producer/promoter and the consuming masses. This does not mean that ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ were inherently predisposed to harbor whatever ‘democratic’ feelings towards the popular masses – they had no choice but do so in the face of the objective power of an “Amalia-type”, not so much qua-worker but much more so qua-consumer (and which constitutes a ‘reading’ of Greek social history completely alien to Greek “Left-wing” thinking – cf. our discussion of Greek “intellectuals” above).

Consciously or not, Roupa (op. cit.) follows the same old one-sided “Left-wing” paradigm (hardly ‘Marxist’ in any case) and thus completely ignores the “democratization” of both consumer demand and that of the terrain of advertizing discourse itself. Thus, her understanding of the role of what she calls “status types” is once again reduced to an ethicalist complaint: with reference to the promotion of modern “luxuries” in Greek films in the late-1950’s and early-1960’s, she speaks of –

«… ενός ελληνικού συστήματος προβολής
επωνύμων (“σταρ σύστεμ”) το οποίο πρόσφερε
πρότυπα για τον Τύπο και το κοινό»
(p. 265).

Terms such as «σύστημα προβολής» and «πρόσφερε» suggest an almost conspiratorially manufactured “status type” simply thrown in the faces of a Greek people hungry for whatever exotic “types” other than (or over and above) their own down-to-earth selves, and which would supposedly also yield an Orwellian-type «πρότυπο κατανάλωσης» (ibid.). The truth is that there really were, in the 1960’s, both “status types” and “consumer prototypes” – but there was a democratically-determined plurality of these, given the selective and participatory terrain of the “market idea”, itself determined by the dialectical give-and-take between at least certain private capitals and the “Amalia-type”. Put otherwise, within the post-war context of a potential upward mobility on the part of the popular masses, mass consumption and the “democratization” of consumer capacity would yield the “democratization” of “status types” as well – these very “types” gradually coming to define the middle class milieu.

In the course of the 1960’s so-called “Cultural Revolution” in China, Mao would decide to place “politics in command”, and ruin whatever possibilities for industrial development at the time – in stark contrast, in the course of the 1950’s-1960’s “socio-cultural revolution” in Greece, ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would place “the consumer in command”, and thus contribute to Greece’s one and only (short) industrial revolution. Consider, for instance, the following text published in Paragogikotis in 1956:

«Ο ΠΕΛΑΤΗΣ

… είναι το πιο σπουδαίο πρόσωπο…
δεν εξαρτάται από μας – εμείς
 εξαρτώμεθα από εκείνον…
δεν είναι ψυχρή στατιστική – είναι
άνθρωπος με αισθήσεις και αισθήματα…
 και με προτιμήσεις και προκαταλήψεις.
… είναι αυτός, ο οποίος μας αναθέτει
την ικανοποίησι των επιθυμιών του –
είναι δουλειά μας να τις ικανοποιήσωμε
επικερδώς δι’ αυτόν και δι’ ημάς»
(cf. Paragogikotis, April-May 1956,
p. 48, my emph.).

This text is of special interest for three reasons: firstly, it is a reproduction of an in-house manual published by a U.S. corporation in 1956; secondly, it was redistributed that same year to the representatives of Greek industry through EΛΚΕΠΑ’s organ, Paragogikotis ; lastly, and precisely because it functioned as a document addressed exclusively to Greek private capitals, it did not mean to appease the popular consuming masses – it rather constitutes the essential inside truths of industry, revealing how the latter had traditionally viewed the consumer and why this would need to be corrected. Especially as regards Greek capital, what it says represents the dawn of the “modern” relationship between producer and consumer, and does so by placing the consumer as the agent in command of the process of production and consumption (specifically as regards the transaction of what one produces and what one buys). Let us examine a bit more closely how it aims at re-educating Greek industry:

• It immediately places the consuming masses ‘in command’ by naming such people as «το πιο σπουδαίο πρόσωπο» – it therefore rejects the idea that the consumer is an open ‘tabula rasa’ to be filled in with “false needs” and “manipulatively” instilled wishes;
• It recognizes the determining power of the consumer and the dependency of the producer: «εμείς εξαρτώμεθα από εκείνον»;
• The consumer is an active subject – and therefore not a one-dimensional passive receptor – and cannot be reduced to a market statistic: «δεν είναι ψυχρή στατιστική»;
• It recognizes the socio-cultural, historically determined, a priori which defines the consumer: such a priori has forged a social psyche which has its own «αισθήσεις», «αισθήματα», «προτιμήσεις» and «προκαταλήψεις»;
• Capital, it is implied, does have its profit-making interests – but it is assigned by a historical subject (the consumer) to have its own wishes satisfied: it goes without saying that a “balance” between economic interest and pre-given wishes need be found: «μας αναθέτει την ικανοποίησι των επιθυμιών του»;
• In the field of the circulation of commodities, relations between capital (the so-called ‘dominant’ class) and the popular masses (the so-called ‘dominated’) are now turned upside-down – here, companies work for the popular masses: «είναι δουλειά μας να τις ικανοποιήσωμε»;
• The two-way relationship between capital and consumer is fully recognized: «δι’ αυτόν και δι’ ημάς».

These were the ‘inside truths’ that ΕΛΚΕΠΑ wanted to share with manufacturing and marketing capitals in Greece in the mid-1950’s: as we shall see, many private capitals would possess the economic clout and prestige to more or less ignore such truths; but as many would adopt “market ideas” which fully endorsed such truths, at times even religiously so. Either way, as the “democratization” of consumer capacity would gather momentum by the 1970’s and on, the middle class milieu, as a formidable consumer-bent socio-cultural force, would ultimately place itself in command (even at the political level with the rise of populist parties such as ΠΑΣΟΚ and ΝΔ, both of which would pursue policies bolstering over-consumption).

The idea of placing the consumer ‘in command’ through “market ideas” which gave people the democratic right to select and participate in the formation and buying of a product, etc. – all this stands in absolutely stark contrast to the way J. K. Galbraith (op. cit.) presented things in the 1960’s – consider the following quote:

“The eye sees a vast advertising and
sales effort employing elaborate
science and art to influence the
consumer” (p. 15).

And further:

“It sees huge sums expended for this
effort, an estimated $19.6 billion for
advertising in 1969” (ibid.).

One does not want to doubt the academic stature and penetrating analyses of someone like
Galbraith – on the other hand, and as already stated, one cannot mechanically apply Galbraith’s findings to 1960’s Greece. But perhaps one may here question what Galbraith himself has to say as regards “influencing” the consumer. Such “sales effort” – as he describes it – does not seem to have been all too easy a matter, simply judging by what was needed to be employed (science, art, and of course the billions of dollars setting up that “great machine”). Even in America, it seems, the “affluent” were not themselves that naïve and gullible. Naturally, in 1960’s Greece, the material conditions of life and the turbulently contradictory socio-cultural context would make such “sales effort” and such “great machine” even more complex. And that is precisely why ΕΛΚΕΠΑ had to spend time and money, not to “influence” the consumer, but to re-educate 60.000 business executives through the years so that the promotion of their products would take into account the “influence” exerted by the so-called “base” of society. Thus, at least as regards the Greek case, the process of “influencing” was a tri-partite flow of data: first, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ had to re-educate private capitals and their advertizing companies; second, the latter had to get to know and take into consideration the needs and wishes of the consumer; the third and final process of actually “influencing” people to buy a commodity would be activated through advertizing discourse, and then the “influence” of an advertizing campaign would have to be checked in terms of its success or failure. The measure of “influence” exerted by each of these parties – the ΕΛΚΕΠΑ educational seminars, the ability of the consumer to register his needs and wishes through his consumer behaviour as such, and the effectivity of the advertisement on the consumer – cannot be taken for granted. It is only hard empirical research on the various advertizing discourses that can tell us who in the last instance “influenced” whom and to what extent, such “influence” on the consumer never being a one-way matter. But ΕΛΚΕΠΑ had already decided that if capital was to maximize its profits, its advertizing discourse would have to be organized in a manner which put the consumer ‘in command’, as we have seen.

Having said all this, it must be quite obvious that our position here has absolutely nothing to do with that other position critically pointed to by Galbraith, which supports “the ultimate authority of the consumer” (op. cit., p. 16). But if there was no such “ultimate authority” on the part of the consumer, so also was there no such “authority” on the part of State and Capital. Both State and Capital as also Greek civil society itself, were too complex and internally contradictory to be reduced to whatever totalitarian enforcement of ‘taste’: the pluralistic “market idea”, being just that, allowed for an open and democratic struggle between all such parties as regards socio-cultural ‘taste’ (and which of course tells us nothing about the question of political rights in the 1960’s, that being a different kettle of fish).

Now, by the early 1970’s, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ’s philosophy of the “market idea”, meant to be inscribed in commodities and expressed in advertizing discourse, was to itself undergo a radical change in some (though not all) fields of advertizing. The concept of “market idea”, which had thus far been limited in its application to local capital – the “anarchy” of foreign multinationals having been beyond any control – would now merge with global, usually “interventionist” discourse. This fusion of concepts would come about given the mergers that would happen between local advertizing companies and international advertizing giants. But such discourse fusion and company mergers would not necessarily mean the dominance of the ‘foreign’ in advertizing discourse. Foreign-based advertizing companies, gradually rooting themselves in the socio-cultural realities of Greece, would develop their own “market ideas” and allow such “ideas” to enter into a dialectical engagement with the “ideas” of local advertizing companies – thus, new “balances” would have to be discovered between the new, foreign “market ideas” of advertizing discourse and those of their Greek counterpart. In that sense, the plurality of discourse would be further widened, and the range of selection for the “Amalia-type” would itself continue to broaden.

The fact that there had to be a dialectical engagement and finally a fusion of “market ideas” coming from foreign and local capitals – and therefore a fusion between global discourse and locally-based Greek socio-cultural discourse – would mean that the mergers and/or cooperation between different advertizing companies would yet again have to be accompanied by a massive re-education of all the parties involved. More than that, educational structures would have to be set up which would train a whole new generation of Greek professionals who would have to imbibe and condense within their skills this new advertizing discourse combining the global and the local in “balances” appropriate to the Greek market. Such youngsters – who were in fact the “organic intellectuals” of the middle class milieu – would have to create an advertizing discourse for products that had to avoid whatever «σφάλμα» vis-à-vis the demands of the market. That “market”, of course, was the up-and-coming middle class milieu, and when the ΣΕΒ Δελτίον was constantly urging both manufacturers and promoters in the 1970’s to avoid whatever was «απροσάρμοστο στις απαιτήσεις της αγοράς», it was of course thinking of none other than the milieu of the “Amalia-type”. The latter, of course, would itself be evolving in a manner which would combine in its newly-found «nous» both an ever-increasing proclivity for the global (and/or for the “European”) and for a natural conservation of its “Greekness”: the interplay between these would be highly complex, and it was just such complexity that the newly-trained Greek professionals would have to capture in creating the advertisements of the period (that being their “organic” function).

We need to briefly examine who it was that would establish such new educational structures in the early-1970’s, which advertizing companies would be involved, and why these parties were the appropriate forces to materialize objectives referred to above. Before we embark on such an examination, we should note that the accuracy of the data presented remains to be corrected or at least further verified – and in any case this study has never pretended to be a history of advertizing in Greece: we merely intend to present a general picture of events in the field of advertizing which would reinforce our position that advertizing discourse by the 1970’s would be a fusion of global and local representations, and which would be articulated by a new generation of socially “organic” professionals reflecting the needs and dreams of people such as the young Amalia Eleftheriadou. Advertizing discourse prior to the 1970’s would be a prefiguration of all such things to come.

The central organizing force behind developments in the early-1970’s could only have been ΕΛΚΕΠΑ itself. This organization would join forces with the «Ένωση Διαφημιστικών Επιχειρήσεων Ελλάδος» (ΕΔΕΕ) so as to set up structures for the training of young professionals in the field of advertizing. ΕΔΕΕ itself had been established in 1968, and one of its basic objectives had been to lay out a “code of ethics” in advertizing discourse – like ΕΛΚΕΠΑ since the 1950’s, its concern was to maintain “balances” between company profits and the rights of the consumer. Further, ΕΔΕΕ was an umbrella organization gradually bringing together important Greek advertizing companies, a number of which had merged or were in the process of merging and/or cooperating with foreign advertizing giants. We know that at least by 1973, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ and ΕΔΕΕ would have established the «Κέντρον Εκπαιδεύσεως Στελεχών Διαφημίσεως» (ΚΕΣΔΙ). At least eighteen advertizing companies operating in Greece at the time would participate in this major training project. According to the periodical Epikaira (3-9.10.1974, τεύχ. 322, p. 47), this list of companies would include «μερικές από τις πρώτες εταιρίες στη χώρα μας». The composition of some of these companies is evidence of the mergers that had taken place with foreign advertizing giants, and which would facilitate an articulation of global with Greek local advertizing discourse.

One of the most important members of ΕΔΕΕ participating in the ΚΕΣΔΙ training project in the early-1970’s would be ‘ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ’ [LEOUSSIS ADVERTISEMENTS] (data pertaining to this company have been drawn from a variety of sources: Epikaira (ibid.); protothema.gr (undated); G. Sotiropoulou agelioforos.gr (29.7.2014); To Vima [Το Βήμα] (15.03.1998); etc.). This company had been deeply rooted in the Greek socio-cultural context and was to gradually undertake the promotion of international products in a manner which combined both ‘global’ discourse content and a language reflective of the Greek popular masses. Founded in 1941 by a woman, Fotini Leoussi, it was then the 19th advertizing agency («διαφημιστικό γραφείο») operating in Greece at the time. By 1956, the company would be run by Leoussi’s son, Ioannis, and would be named «Ι.Ν. ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ» [“I.N. LEOUSSIS]. It would soon commence a series of advertizing campaigns promoting products such as the beer «ΦΙΞ» [“FIX”]. These campaigns were to so deeply influence the Greek mass popular ‘psyche’ – and would so effectively speak the language of such ‘psyche’ – that they were to become truly legendary in the minds of the popular masses. «ΦΙΞ» itself would become a symbol of local beer-drinking cultural practices, and it is impossible to fully understand the socio-cultural practices of Greeks at the time without also examining the role of a company such as «Ι.Ν. ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ». In 1966, the 23 year-old son Nikos Leoussis would enter the family business and, given his initial passion for philosophy, would first work as a «κειμενογράφος» for the company. By the 1970’s, this man would become a major leader of many young Greek professional-“organic intellectuals” whose aim it was to undertake a systematic research work into the needs, tastes and dreams of the “Amalia-type”, and thus to create advertizing discourses accurately reflective of such “type”.

Nikos Leoussis was to become chairman of ΕΔΕΕ and thus head the massive training of such young professionals in the advertizing field via ΚΕΣΔΙ in the 1970’s. He was the true principal pioneer of ‘market research’ in Greece, and would thus come to fulfill the original aims of ΕΛΚΕΠΑ’s project commenced in the 1950’s which, as we have seen, was to place the Greek consumer ‘in command’. But for Leoussis things would now be much more complex: heretofore, it was not merely a matter of convincing local capitals to place the consumer ‘in command’, but rather to implement such advertizing strategy in a context of a Greek advertizing sector which was gradually merging with international advertizing giants. The central aim of ΚΕΣΔΙ was to train its “organic intellectuals” in the creation of an advertizing discourse which would inscribe a “balance” between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ representations, and which would do so in a manner which fully expressed the complex socio-cultural milieu of the up-and-coming popular middle classes. Thereby, the “anarchically provocative” advertizing campaigns of foreign capitals would now also have to re-adjust their advertizing discourse within the parameters delimited by ΕΔΕΕ, which itself represented mergers between Greek and foreign-based advertizing companies. Given the cut-throat competition between various sectors of capital and given the uneven power between and within such sectors, the ΕΛΚΕΠΑ-ΕΔΕΕ-ΚΕΣΔΙ project – headed by Leoussis as chairman of ΕΔΕΕ – would not always be successful in standardizing the “code of ethics” of Greek-based advertizing discourse. Yet still, the Leoussis philosophy of advertizing would remain a steady ideological reference point. Such ideological reference point has been explained by Leoussis himself, and his understanding of the social function of advertizing discourse certainly surpasses all the so-called “Marxist intellectuals” put together – confirming the analyses of our own study, and in a manner reminiscent of the work of a Raymond Williams (cf. the latter’s Culture and Society, London, The Hogarth Press, 1978), Leoussis would enumerate the social functions of advertizing discourse as follows:

 «Την αποτύπωση που κάνει των κοινωνικών
 ρευμάτων της εποχής της. Την συμπύκνωση
 που κάνει των κοινωνικών προτεραιοτήτων,
 της ιστορικής συγκυρίας και της συλλογικής
 αισθητικής που ενσωματώνει»
(cf. G. Sotiropoulou, op. cit., my emph.).

It could only have been someone with a well-trained philosophical mind and who was at the same time as well-versed in the Greek socio-cultural reality, who could possibly capture the phenomenon of advertizing discourse in Greece with such sociological accuracy: Leoussis sees advertizing discourse as that which inscribes and condenses the priorities of the different socio-cultural strains of the popular masses themselves within a given conjuncture. That, of course, has been our own position all along this study. But what is of major importance is that it was exactly such philosophy of advertizing – as embodied in the thinking of the chairman of ΕΔΕΕ – which would be applied to the creation of advertizing discourse by both Greek advertizing companies and by those that had merged or were cooperating with the foreign giants, within ΕΔΕΕ.  Such philosophical reference point – which wanted and had to reflect the real socio-cultural trends and tastes of the “Amalia-type” – had to come to terms and re-discover “balances” with that all-American advertizing tradition encapsulated in the phrase “soap, sex and cigarettes” (cf. interview with Ms. F. Leoussi, in protothema.gr). By the early-1970’s and on, there would be a renewed emphasis on “market ideas” accompanying commodities and reflecting the «συλλογική αισθητική» («ο κλάδος μας βασίζεται στην ιδέα», as F. Leoussi would herself stress, ibid.), and this would apply even to the promotion of foreign products which had in any case always been carrying a ‘global’ image. Leoussis’ own company, «ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ», would work with more than 200 large companies selling “brand names”. Clients would include foreign companies such as BNP Paribas, Reckitt Benckiser, BDF, Unilever, Motor Oil, Lufthansa, and so on. It would be responsible for the promotion of the highly popular products of Wella, Nivea and Triumph. By the 1970’s, there would certainly be a deluge of foreign products entering the Greek market, but ΕΛΚΕΠΑ, ΕΔΕΕ, and ΚΕΣΔΙ would push for “market ideas” which would be functional to the needs of the Greek socio-cultural context – such functionality could only be ensured through a dialectical combination of ‘global’ and   ‘local’ advertizing discourse which would, in the last instance, effect that «αποτύπωση… των κοινωνικών ρευμάτων της εποχής…» within Greece. We know that one such major social grouping of the period would be young, fairly well-educated working females such as the “Amalia-type”. Leoussis knew that “type” – the Greek “Left”, in contrast, did not (or would simply refuse to accept its dominant presence). On the other hand, young ladies belonging to the “Left” would themselves naturally wear, say, Triumph underwear, and thus be more or less spontaneously – though quite paradoxically – participating (remember the Habermas position on participation and selection) in the “modern” socio-cultural practices of the day. Leoussis knew such “type” of ladies as well, and perhaps knew them better than they cared to know themselves: his famous advertizing slogan, «Τριούμφ, τα εσώρουχα που αγαπούν τη γυναίκα», would really speak their language as well. Quite appropriately, therefore, a To Βήμα article (op. cit.) on the life and work of Leoussis would be given the following title: «Να ονειρεύεσαι προσγειωμένα».

Leoussis knew the subjects/social agents of the Greek historical conjuncture of the 1960’s and 1970’s precisely because the object of his research – more specifically his ‘market research’ – would be that exact conjuncture: he studied and tried to communicate via advertizing discourse with the complexities of what he would call «το επίκαιρο». This is how he would put it:

«Η φιλοσοφία έχει σχέση με το διαχρονικό
και η διαφήμιση με το επίκαιρο. Το άγχος του
διαχρονικού είναι φορτίο στο επίκαιρο.
Ειδικά η πλατωνική φιλοσοφία, που έχει το
άγχος της αναγωγής στο ένα, δεν μπορεί να
έχει καμία σχέση με τη διαφήμιση»
(cf. To Vima).

We may make three interpretative observations on Leoussis’ overall philosophical world-view, as expressed in this quote:

• His suggestion that it is advertizing per se which relates to the «επίκαιρο» implies that advertizing discourse is the paramount discourse of the Greek popular middle class milieu: the needs, wishes and tastes of the “New Type” would be materialized, as a socio-cultural ideology, within the promised possibilities of any one advertisement. The representations and “status types” of advertizing discourse would be reproduced in whatever other discourse circulating in society, such as in the film industry, in the narrative texts of popular periodicals, etc. But advertizing discourse would remain paramount, because it would be here that representations had to be accurate enough so as to directly speak to the consumer and make him buy a specific product: it is only here that mass participation and selectivity would be enacted in real physical terms and in real space and time.
• His reference to «άγχος» is an excellent reading of Greek society of the post-war period and through to the 1970’s: as mentioned elsewhere, the specifically “Greek angst” – observed by people such as Varikas (op. cit.) – was a product, not only of the bloodbath of the Civil War, but also of the ensuing socio-cultural clashes we have been discussing above. Both for Leoussis and the Greek popular masses, such “angst” could only be transcended through the new and “modern” style of life promised by advertisements and materialized within the “Greek Home” of the “Amalia-type”. It would only be the advertising discourse addressed to the “New Type” and expressive of its current needs that would release people from the «φορτίο» of, inter alia, its historical past. As is well known, the “angst” of the Greek people would turn many post-war novelists and poets towards an exploration of essentially existentialist themes – similarly, Leoussis himself would, since the early-1960’s and on, be deeply interested in various existentialist philosophers of his time (cf. To Vima, op. cit.), and he would use such knowledge to help him understand the ‘psyche’ of the middle class milieu and to respond to its “angst” in its own language as inscribed in the advertizing discourse of the period.
• Leoussis’ rejection of the Platonic «αναγωγή στο ένα», at least in the field of advertizing, is fully explainable: the Greek crisis of conflicting socio-cultural practices in the 1960’s and 1970’s would mean that one could not reduce the complexities and contradictions of the Greek common «nous» into one monolithic “whole” (let alone reduce Greek society to a Capital-versus-Labour contradiction, as did the communist “Left”):advertizing discourse, as already discussed, would have to condense within itself all the variety of trends and tastes expressed by the popular masses, both young and old.

The «ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ» company – later the «ΟΜΙΛΟΣ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ Ι.N. ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ AE» – would both operate within such philosophical framework as regards the advertisements it created, and would articulate such framework vis-à-vis the advertizing giants that it would itself bring to Greece (AGB and CARAT by the 1980’s). But Leoussis himself, long-time leader within ΕΔΕΕ and member of the Executive Committee of ΣΕΒ, was not alone in his project to study the ‘psyche’ of the middle class milieu in the 1970’s, and thereby to put the consumer ‘in command’. For the sake of historical interest, we present below a few data on some of the ΕΔΕΕ-member advertizing companies which would, by 1973-4, be setting up and operating the training centre ΚΕΣΔΙ (most, not all, of this data is drawn from Epikaira, op. cit.; a number of company data have also been drawn from a wide variety of websites):

• McCann-Erickson (Hellas) L.L.C.: this company was linked to the giant McCann-Erickson, said to have created the modern depiction of Santa Claus in 1939 for Coca-Cola. As we shall see below, in examining ‘global’ advertizing discourse in Greece, Coca-Cola’s entry to the country in the 1960’s would be an especially problematic process, and which shows how both in Greece and in other countries around the world there would be a serious resistance to its globalization both as an addictive drink and as an all-American culture symbol. In fact, it would only be by 1979 that Coca-Cola would try to heal its “traumas” of the 1960’s and 1970’s with its “Have A Coke, And A Smile” campaign. It would also be this same advertizing company which would create the internationally famous “Gold Blend couple” advertisements for Nescafé, and which will also be further discussed below (such advertisements also circulated in Greece). This giant, 70 year-old advertizing company, usually ignoring local socio-cultural conditions around the world, would ultimately have to allow its “Hellas L.L.C.” subsidiary to join the ΕΔΕΕ and often comply with the latter’s “code of ethics”, etc.
• LINTAS: HELLAS: this ΕΔΕΕ-member was established in 1970. It was a subsidiary of the powerful LINTAS, which had itself been set up in the early-1920’s as Lever Brothers’ own advertizing agency. The latter would finally evolve into the Lever House Advertising Service. LINTAS: HELLAS, as a member both of ΕΔΕΕ and of the SSAB-Lintas International Advertising network, would have to create advertizing discourse specifically for the Greek popular masses and therefore fuse the LINTAS ‘global’ discourse with that of ‘local’ demands and expectations – it had to find “balances” between the discourse requirements of its mother-company and those of ΕΔΕΕ.
• Sigma ΕΠΕ: especially active in the 1970’s, this advertizing company would promote anything from films, to cars, to dolls, etc. It would promote both the Greek-produced Finos Films and foreign films. As regards the latter, one important manner in which it would adjust advertizing discourse to the needs and tastes of the Greek popular masses would be to alter the original titles of these films, and at times very radically so. In fact, Sigma ΕΠΕ in the 1970’s would be continuing and furthering the 1960’s tradition of Greek advertizing discourse promoting foreign films which had been “translating” theirforeign advertizing discourse – film title and other promotional representations – into the Greek socio-cultural context. As in the 1960’s, but in a more sophisticated manner in the 1970’s, Sigma ΕΠΕ would translate and adjust foreign film titles in a manner which would respond, inter alia, to the needs of Greek youth in the context of the sexual revolution underway (we shall come back to advertizing film-discourse in discussing “balances” in 1960’s advertizing discourse as a whole). As regards the establishment of the training centre ΚΕΣΔΙ set up by ΕΔΕΕ in the early-1970’s, Sigma ΕΠΕ (which fully participated in both structures), would have this to say in 1974: «Το ΚΕΣΔΙ αποτελεί τη μοναδική συστηματική προσπάθεια για τη δημιουργία διαφημιστικών στελεχών στην Ελλάδα». (cf. Epikaira, op. cit., my emph.).
• ABC ADVERTISING: this Greek advertizing company was established in 1966 and would continue its operations and thrive through to the 1970’s and 1980’s and on. It is an excellent example of an endogenous Greek capital in the field of advertizing which would remain Greek-owned throughout: despite coming face-to-face and competing with foreign advertizing giants within ΕΔΕΕ, it would value its own special knowledge of the buying habits and tastes of the Greek people and would assert its own independence as a purely Greek advertizing company. And yet, its own “market ideas” would not prevent it from promoting foreign ‘global’ products. On the contrary, its Greek-rooted independence would facilitate the promotion of just such products – in the 1960’s, it would be the official promoter of ROLEX, IBM and IBERIA. ABC would establish a long-term relationship with these three companies stretching to at least three decades. Still within the period of the 1960’s, it would further add to its list of foreign clients companies such as CITROEN, AMERICAN LIFE and AMERICAN EXPRESS, as also «τα τυράκια» PETIT NEGRE. Another company it would work for would be ΑΛΟΥΜΙΝΙΟΝ της ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ [ALUMINIUM of GREECE]. We know that in the 1960’s in Greece many people would be travelling overseas usually as immigrants or as “tourists” wishing to finally attain ‘permanent residence’ or citizenship in various countries – there would therefore be many airline companies operating in Greece, and ABC would be promoting the services of companies such as SAS (Scandinavian), CP AIR (Canadian), JAPAN AIRLINES and ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES. ABC would also come to promote certain IZOLA electrical appliances, and by 1976 it would be promoting the full range of products manufactured by IZOLA. Since the early-1970’s, it would be a pioneer in the “social advertisement” (for instance, in campaigns against cancer). Generally, between 1970 and 1975 – which is the period when mergers between foreign and local advertizing companies truly begin to happen – ABC focuses its attention on discourse “patterns” and “models” expressive of the Greek milieu at the time and organizes itself in and around such milieu, and it is for that particular reason that it shall join forces with ΚΕΣΔΙ to help train the new “organic intellectuals” who would undertake to research the Greek market in depth and create representations in discourse adjusted to such specific market needs. Thus, with reference to 1970-1975, the ABC company «οργανώνεται σε σύγχρονα με την εποχή πρότυπα και στελεχώνεται με ικανότατους συνεργάτες…». Further, and most importantly, it has been said of ABC that, «γνωρίζοντας καλά τα δεδομένα της Ελληνικής αγοράς» (my emph.), it would remain «μια ανεξάρτητη, αμιγώς ελληνική εταιρία». Thus, at least as regards ABC in the early-1970’s, it would not only be a matter of it having to compete with the foreign giants within ΕΔΕΕ: such giants would themselves have to maintain “balances” in their own advertizing discourse vis-à-vis that of ABC given the knowledge the latter had of the Greek reality.
• ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ: this company, like ABC ADVERTISING, was itself also purely Greek. Deeply rooted in the Greek socio-cultural reality since 1947, when it was founded by Takis G. Theofilopoulos, many of its advertizing campaigns were to become legendary (as in the case of ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ), and its discourse representations would be intertwined with the everyday lives of Greeks. For instance, it is said that «Οι διαφημίσεις για το “Τρινάλ” ξεσήκωσαν πολύ κόσμο» (my emph.), and the company would itself be referred to as the «διαφημιστική-θρύλος Αλέκτορ». And again like ABC, it would be very successful in promoting foreign products and services, not despite the fact that it was an endogenous company but precisely just for that reason. We know that at least by the mid-1960’s,  ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ would be promoting literally numerous foreign products and services such as the following: ADAMS S.A. – Τσίκλες; ADELCO – Καλλυντικά; AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF POULTRY INDUSTRIES – Κοτόπουλα και Γαλόπουλα Αμερικής; AMERICAN STANDARD – Είδη υγιεινής; BADEDAS – Αφρόλουτρον; BERKSHIRE – Γυναικείες και ανδρικές κάλτσες, εσώρουχα; CHAT NOIR – Καλλυντικά; ELNETT SATIN – Λακ μαλλιών; FARBWERKE HOECHST – Υφάσματα και Κουρτίνες; HOLLAND CANNED MILK – Γάλα; S.C. JOHNSON & SON – Εντομοκτόνο; KELVINATOR HELLAS – Ψυγεία, Ηλεκτρικά είδη; LANVIN – Άρωμα; MEBEA – Μοτοποδήλατα; OMOR – Σαμπουάν; PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS – Αεροπορικαί Συγκοινωνίαι; PANTENE – Λοσιόν μαλλιών; PHILIPS – Ξυριστικαί μηχαναί; QUAKER OATS – Κουάκερ; SCOTT PAPER COMPANY – Προϊόντα χάρτου; VIGORELLI – Ραπτομηχαναί; etc., etc. (cf., Apogevmatini, 6.Ι.1966, p. 3). The point here is that ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ knew exactly how it should have to approach the Greek housewife so that she be convinced to buy, say, an American chicken – at least in rural and semi-rural areas such as Aliarto, almost every second household had its own chicken coop and an advertizing company such as ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ well knew that its advertizing campaign promoting US poultry could not afford to adopt an arrogant “interventionist” discourse downgrading the traditional domestic poultry industry. It would be for the exact same reasons why local Greek manufacturers would themselves often prefer endogenous advertizing companies to promote their products rather than let an outsider do the job. Thus, ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ would also promote products for Greek companies such as the following: ΧΑΡ. ΒΛΑΧΟΥΤΣΙΚΟΣ – Κονσέρβες; Ε.Β.Γ.Α. – Γάλα, παγωτά, σοκολάτες; ΗΛΙΟΣ – Ζυμαρικά (the company already discussed above); Γ.Α. ΚΕΡΑΝΗΣ – Σιγαρέττα; ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ – Μεγάλα Καταστήματα; ΠΑΝΕΛΛΗΝΙΟΣ ΑΓΟΡΑ – Καταστήματα; ΠΑΠΑΣΤΡΑΤΟΣ Α.Β.Ε.Σ. – Σιγαρέττα; etc., etc. (cf. , Apogevmatini ibid.). And, in any case, were a Greek manufacturer to opt for the services of an international subsidiary, he would know that while it would be the mother company which would offer its marketing/technological know-how, it would be the Greek-based subsidiary which would truly know and speak in the language of the Greek masses in the final product of the advertizing discourse. In all, ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ would be an organic part of the everyday life of the Greek popular masses – its advertizing slogan promoting its own services would go as follows in the mid-1960’s: «ΑΚΟΜΗ ΚΑΙ Η ΗΜΕΡΑ ΕΧΕΙ ΤΟΝ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΤΗ ΤΗΣ», it being the «αλέκτωρ» (= cock) hailing the break of day. (Concerning the death of the founder of ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ, Takis Theofilopoulos, cf. Εφημερίς της Καλλιθέας, 14.3.1970, p. 2).
• ΓΝΩΜΗ Α.Ε.: this is yet another interesting advertizing company which was an ΕΔΕΕ member and which would participate in the establishment of ΚΕΣΔΙ in the early-1970’s. Perhaps the single most important fact about this company – and which tells us much about the role of well-educated “organic intellectuals” within ΕΔΕΕ – is that from 1963 it was headed by the important Greek artist, Georgos Bakirtzis. His philosophy of life and especially his approach to both art and advertizing billboards is of a quality equal to that of Leoussis, and they would both share a deep concern for directly communicating with the popular masses. Unlike Leoussis, he would ultimately turn his back to commercialized art (and therefore advertizing) and devote himself to art proper – though this too reveals the intellectual stature of a man involved in the world of Greek advertizing (for the direct connection between artists and the advertizing industry in Europe of the late-19th and early-20th century, as also regarding the role of billboards, cf. Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, pp. 344-345). Born in 1923, Bakirtzis would study at the Σχολή Καλών Τεχνών of Athens, and would further his studies at the Paris Ēcole des Beaux-Arts, specializing in the graphic arts and engraving. He would bring such skills to the Greek advertizing sector, and from 1945 through to the early-1960’s, he would be creating a wide variety of giant billboards especially for the cinema, though also for the promotion of other products as well. By 1963, as mentioned, he would become the «καλλιτεχνικός διευθυντής» of ΓΝΩΜΗ Α.Ε. As regards his contribution to the world of Greek advertizing, this is what has been said of his work as a whole: «Η παραστατική τεχνική του Βακιρτζή με τα έντονα ζωηρά χρώματα ανανέωσε και αναβάθμισε τη διαφημιστική εικόνα του κινηματογράφου και την αφίσα του δρόμου με τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε να προσελκύει αλλά και να δείχνει τον ανάλογο σεβασμό προς το ευρύ κοινό που απευθυνόταν» (cf. http://museumteriade.gr/greek-artist/Bakirtzis.asp, my emph.). His “respect” for the popular masses – expressed in an attempted “balance” between attracting the consumer and refusing to provoke him insultingly – is reminiscent of Leoussis’ own philosophy that advertizing discourse should express (and by implication respect) in condensed form the various tastes of the popular masses. In the case of Bakirtzis, it was not merely a matter of wanting to “approach” the «nous» of the popular masses – he was as much concerned with the need to contribute to the «αισθητική καλλιέργεια του κόσμου», and which of course relates to the question of ‘aesthetics’ and its democratization in advertizing discourse discussed above. While working for the Greek advertizing sector, such concern was to be materialized in his posters and giant billboards. The man would later turn to expressionist art forms focusing on the “isolation” of modern man, but his presence in the field of advertizing since the 1940’s is symptomatic of at least one dimension of the Greek advertizing discourse of the period. The advertizing company ΓΝΩΜΗ Α.Ε. would have this to say in 1974 as regards ΚΕΣΔΙ and its role in training and establishing Greek “organic intellectuals” in the field of advertizing: «… από το ΚΕΣΔΙ θα δημιουργηθή η γενιά των διαφημιστών του μέλλοντος» (cf. Epikaira, op. cit., my emph.).
• K & K UNIVAS: this company was deeply rooted in the Greek socio-cultural context of the 1960’s. It had been established in 1962 by a group of friends, basically F. Karabott and M. Katzourakis, and they would give their initials to the name of the new company, «K & K Διαφημιστικό Κέντρο Αθηνών» (or “K & K Athens Publicity Centre”). The company’s creation of advertisements in the 1960’s and the 1970’s would be organized around a very specific philosophy pertaining to advertizing discourse: such discourse would have to maintain a “balance” between, on the one hand, what it called an «ορθός λόγος», and, on the other, a «συνειδητή προσήλωση στις αρχές του Μοντερνισμού». The «ορθός λόγος» would mean that advertizing discourse would have to be honest and accurate in terms of the needs and expectations of someone such as the “Amalia-type”; its conscious emphasis on the «αρχές του Μοντερνισμού» would mean that it would try to express the steadily increasing proclivity on the part of the “Amalia-type” for the “modern”. But the implication is that whatever “modernity” could not override or ignore what was «ορθό» in terms of the real material needs of the “Amalia-type”, or at least as such needs were understood by the “Amalia-type”. In fact, the tense and uneasy “balance” between purely practical needs and “modernistic” tastes was precisely what was to define the «nous» of the “Amalia-type”, and K & K would try and capture this tension in advertizing discourse. Thus, K & K’s parallel insistence on the «ορθό λόγο» would be fully aligned with, for instance, Leoussis’ «συμπύκνωση των κοινωνικών προτεραιοτήτων», or with ABC’s concern for «τα δεδομένα της Ελληνικής αγοράς», or with Bakirtzis’ «ανάλογο σεβασμό», and so on. Such alignment of philosophies as to the form that “market ideas” should take in Greek advertizing discourse confirms that ΕΔΕΕ was pursuing a fairly uniform and conscious promotion policy meant to meet the specific needs of the Greek consumer. In 1973, Κ & Κ would join up with the international giant, UNIVAS, and it would be precisely as K & K UNIVAS that it would function as a member of ΕΔΕΕ and help establish ΚΕΣΔΙ, thus again allowing for an interaction of “market ideas” between a local company and an international giant. As regards the training project of ΚΕΣΔΙ, K & K UNIVAS had this to say in 1974: «Δίνει μια νέα ώθησι και πνοή δημιουργίας στη διαφήμισι του τόπου μας» (cf. Epikaira, op. cit.). We may add here that in the course of the Military Dictatorship, text-writers for K & K UNIVAS would include people such as Maria Karavia and the important playwright Iakovos Kambanellis, and which goes to yet again show the intellectual caliber of people involved in the creation of advertizing discourse at the time.
• HG ΕΡΓΟΝ: as regards ΚΕΣΔΙ, this company would state the following in 1974: «Ιδρύθηκε για τη δημιουργία στελεχών, ικανών να καλύπτουν τις ανάγκες της σύγχρονης διαφημίσεως» (cf. Epikaira, op. cit.).
• ΗΧΩ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΟΕ: again with reference to ΚΕΣΔΙ in 1974, this participating company would observe: «Τώρα η διαφήμισις δεν είναι προϊόν αυτοσχεδιασμού. Μόνο τα σωστά εκπαιδευμένα στελέχη μπορούν να βοηθήσουν στην πρόοδο της» (cf. Epikaira, op. cit.).

Other Greek advertizing companies – some of them also belonging to the first important advertizing companies in the country – which belonged to ΕΔΕΕ and participated in the ΚΕΣΔΙ project would include: ΓΡΑΦΙΣ ΕΠΕ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΩΝ, ΕΨΙΛΟΝ-ΕΨΙΛΟΝ, GEO, Interad Advertising & Marketing Ltd., K & O, Λάμδα Αλφα, Spot advertising Ltd., and Victory (their history remains to be researched by historical sociologists and/or economic historians).

ΕΛΚΕΠΑ and ΕΔΕΕ would summarize the objectives of ΚΕΣΔΙ as follows in 1974:

«Η διαφήμισις είναι πλέον σταυροδρόμι
Επιστημών … Η Ένωσης Διαφημιστικών Επιχειρήσεων
Ελλάδος σε συνεργασία με το ΕΛΚΕΠΑ ...
οργάνωσαν το Κέντρον Εκπαιδεύσεως Στελεχών
Διαφημίσεως. Το ΚΕΣΔΙ … Ο στόχος του; Να
Ετοιμάση … επιμελητάς προγραμμάτων, κειμενογράφους,
προγραμματιστάς μέσων…[etc.]»
(cf.Epikaira, op. cit.).

Such developments in the early-1970’s would mean the concentration and systematic structuring of an autonomous field of Greek advertizing practices, such autonomy being absolutely necessary so that ΕΛΚΕΠΑ and ΕΔΕΕ would be able to press for the articulation of advertizing discourse well beyondthe individual, private and highly competitive interests of various ‘isolated’ local capitals, and as well beyond the unregulated hegemony of various (not all) foreign capitals. Its presentation of the field of advertizing as a «σταυροδρόμι επιστημών» was meant to enlighten local capitals as to the very specific socio-cultural function of advertizing in Greek society, a function which could not be allowed to be abused by whatever ‘anti-social’ promotional intentions on the part of certain private capitals. Likewise, the fact that local and foreign advertizing companies were being brought together and organized under the umbrella of ΕΔΕΕ would itself facilitate the fusion of “market ideas” well beyond what ΗΧΩ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΟΕ was rejecting as «προϊόν αυτοσχεδιασμού», and which implied that the “market ideas” of advertizing discourse had to be “scientifically” structured on the basis of an interdisciplinary («σταυροδρόμι») analysis of the ‘psyche’ of the Greek popular masses.

We have already suggested that such attempts on the part of ΕΛΚΕΠΑ/ΕΔΕΕ would not always be successful, in the sense that not all advertizing companies would adhere to its socio-culturally determined specifications as to what constituted ‘appropriate’ discourse in terms of Greek market needs. In fact, if it is true that the terrain of advertizing discourse had always been a «πεδίο μιας ασταθούς ισορροπίας συμβιβασμών» between the advertizing sector and the “Amalia-type”, it would be just such exact terrain that would determine relations between, on the one hand, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ/ΕΔΕΕ and, on the other, advertizing companies powerful enough to ignore or circumvent whatever specifications. The struggle between such forces would be ipso facto ideological, not legal: it would have been practically impossible to legally force, say, the mighty McCann-Erickson, to comply with any “code of ethics” in its promotion of Coca-Cola in Greece. Thus, when, by 1977, ΕΔΕΕ was to come up with its own official «Κώδικα Δεοντολογίας», and establish an «Επιτροπή Κρίσεως» (with the object of judging problematic advertisements), it would well know that it was furthering an essentially long-term ideological struggle against any advertizing discourse carrying «σφάλματα» in its “market idea” vis-à-vis the Greek reality (cf. Δελτίον ΣΕΒ, τεύχ. 383, 15.6.1978, op. cit., pp. 27-28). Neither ΣΕΒ, nor ΕΛΚΕΠΑ, and not even ΕΔΕΕ itself – which ‘housed’ the mergers with the multi-national advertizing giants – possessed the legal tools or the economic clout to discipline advertisers breaking its «Κώδικα» – and yet, since ideological struggles are in the last instance settled by the socio-cultural conditions that inform and traverse them, the ΕΔΕΕ «Κώδικα» and its «Επιτροπή Κρίσεως» was something to be reckoned with, and it was reckoned with within that “balance of compromises” which at times put the needs and wishes of the “Amalia-type” in command, while at other times it tried to peripheralize such grassroots realities.

The 18 articles which make up ΕΔΕΕ’s «Κώδικα Δεοντολογίας» are extremely telling in that they fully confirm the manner in which we have read the historical intentions and functions of an organ such as ΕΔΕΕ. We may summarize the basic philosophy of these 18 articles as follows:

• They concern all products and services promoted, and which suggests the struggle on the part of ΕΔΕΕ to assert its own hegemony over the whole of the Greek advertizing sector;
• Such hegemony is meant to cover all the possible little details of advertizing discourse per se – thus, the “Code” concerns whatever words, numbers and images used in a discourse;
• Very importantly, advertizing discourse should not mislead the consumer through the creation of “impressions” (article 4);
• All advertizing discourse should be informed and checked by “social responsibility”;
• Above all, the representations of advertizing discourse – whatever their form – should not insult the customs and ethics of the Greek consumer (article 1).

It would be a variety of forces which would determine the tilting of the “balance of compromises” this way or the other: one such major force would be the “Amalia-type” – more specifically, it would be that “type’s” “closest thought and attention” (Galbraith) which would determine whether or not a particular product or service coalesced into (or was marginally ‘tolerated’ by) the up-and-coming Greek middle class milieu. ΕΔΕΕ had come to fully understand such Greek reality – hence the very first article in its “Code”, meant to “protect” both producer and consumer from the fly-by-night extravagancies of whatever arrogant insults thrown in the face of a historically-rooted Greek customs and ethics, and especially so in a historically sensitive period of time when such customs and ethics were gradually undergoing their own organic change themselves. For ΕΔΕΕ, such change was inevitable (we may remember here the K & K UNIVAS «συνειδητή προσήλωση στις αρχές του Μοντερνισμού»), but this could only but take the form of an internally-determined rhythm of organic change towards the “modern” which could not possibly simply defaceany “Amalia-type”. For ΕΔΕΕ, it was never a question of any “attack” on the “Amalia-type” – if only because such “type” could strike back in return.

Interestingly enough, at least some contemporary commentators on the question of advertizing in 1970’s Greece do actually, and more or less roughly, confirm our own approach. One such is the following:

«Η δεκαετία του ’70 αποτελεί το σημείο
καμπής τόσο στην ελληνική κοινωνία όσο
και στα άγουρα εφηβικά χρόνια της διαφήμισης
… Η διαφήμιση ανδρώνεται και επηρεάζει
εντονότερα την καθημερινότητα … Οι πρώτοι
περιορισμοί σε αυτή τη διαφημιστική επέλαση
τίθενται από τον Κώδικα Διαφημιστικής
Δεοντολογίας. Τελικά η διαφήμιση δαιμονοποιείται.
Γίνεται στόχος για όλα τα κακώς κείμενα και ο
αποδιοπομπαίος τράγος, κάτι βέβαια που την
αδικεί» (cf. “diafimisi” – http:// diafimisi…, op. cit.).

Such text offers hints of attempts at an “ethical delimitation” of advertizing discourse in the Greek society of the 1970’s, and hence somehow doubts a monolithic-unilinear effect on consumers. It also points to the «δαιμονοποίηση» of advertisements, which was itself a reality: while basically articulated by “Left” or “Leftish” intellectuals (as we have seen above), such thinking was to trickle down to the consumer. There was definitely nothing ‘wrong’ with such popular feeling: it only added to the critical evaluation of advertisements without of course in any way stifling consumption as such. More importantly, it was a response to that type of advertisement which unabashedly and unilaterally intervened in the lives of the Greek popular masses in a manner which provoked or even questioned their local, albeit transitional, ethics. In the sub-section that follows, we shall examine samples of advertizing discourse which certainly belonged to this “provocative-interventionist” type and which escaped the filters of advertizing discourse set up by structures and practices of, above all, ΕΔΕΕ. Before we examine such advertizing discourse, we shall here try to explain a bit more specifically how it was possible for foreign advertizing campaigns to simply escape ΕΔΕΕ specifications and promote products despite the Greek socio-cultural reality. It will not do to simply point to their economic might (such might does not necessarily ‘speak’ to well-engrained socio-cultural realities), and it will not do to simply describe the terrain of advertizing discourse as a shifting ideological struggle of “compromising balances”: why “balances” would, in the specific case of foreign-based advertizing campaigns, tilt emphatically towards their side, cannot be left unanswered.

The simple fact is that companies such as Coca-Cola (et al) were not at all fly-by-night enterprises targeting an easy meat and then disappearing from the scene of the crime. Despite the initial outcry against a product such as Coca-Cola in Greece – itself telling – the company was here to stay. Campaigns aimed at promoting such a product were ultimately so effective that one must admit degrees of “mimicking” global cultural stereotypes (related to such campaigns) on the part of the popular masses. The social historian needs to delve minutely into the variegated depths of such “degrees” and investigate how the particular “mimicking” practices articulated with the a priori socio-cultural Greek reality. But the perseverance and even multiplication of such “hard” promotional practices themselves (which we must remember constituted just one dimension of the terrain of Greek advertizing discourse-as-a-Whole) still calls for an explanation. What here needs to be explained, in other words, is this “dis-balancing” in the “balance of compromises” between the advertizing sector and the “Amalia-type”, as also a concomitant “dis-balancing” between ΕΔΕΕ and those operating outside the latter’s delimiting “Code”.

At least by the late-1970’s, ΣΕΒ would confront the major question of “marketing mix” (to which we have already briefly referred and which went beyond that of “market idea”) accompanying a marketable product. This “concept”, as we shall see, had direct material manifestations as regards foreign-based, multi-national advertizing companies, rendering such companies quite impervious to the grassroots demands of local “national” contexts such as that of Greece. In mid-1978, the Δελτίον ΣΕΒ would publish an important article which tried to explain to Greek local capital what such “marketing mix” (or “marketing mixe”, as it was also referred to) was all about – it wrote:

«… “Μάρκετινγκ μίξ” (μίγμα μάρκετινγκ) είναι
το σύνολο των στοιχείων της πολιτικής που
εφαρμόζεται σχετικά με το ίδιο το προϊόν
(χαρακτηριστικά, εμφάνιση, συσκευασία κ.λ.π.)
και σχετικά με την τιμή, τις μεθόδους προβολής
και διανομής του κ.λ.π.» (cf. Δελτίον ΣΕΒΝο 383,
15.6.1978, pp. 27-28).

This “marketing mix” was the central “tool” of foreign, multi-national advertizing capital, and Greek endogenous capital had itself to come to terms with it. But the manner in which the latter could use such “tool” would be different to that of foreign capital – its usage would have to correspond to its own, relatively limited outreaching capacities in the face of the foreign giants. For local advertizing capital, “marketing mix” would mean, on the one hand, that “balances” would have to be inscribed in the product itself (reflective of the needs of the “Amalia-type”) and, on the other, “balances” would have to be inscribed in the promotional discourse of such product (reflective of the ‘psyche’ of the “Amalia-type”). Above all, “balances” inscribed in the product would have to be reflective (and not at all refractive) of “balances” inscribed in the promotional discourse (and/or vise versa). Unless such «ορθότητα» (remember K & K, and despite its international links) or such «ανάλογο σεβασμό» (remember Bakirtzis) was effected within a product, within its discourse and in-between these two, the “Amalia-type” would ultimately come to reject both the “idea” of the product and the product itself. Put slightly otherwise, we may say that if the «σύνολο των στοιχείων της πολιτικής» applied to a particular product was not accurately reflected in the methods of the promotional discourse used for that product, there would be a non-correspondence between the two and which would ultimately cause a drop in the popularity of the product amongst consumers – this is precisely what ΣΕΒ would diagnose as a «σφάλμα του marketing mixe», where «σφάλμα» was defined as that which rendered a product «απροσάρμοστο στις απαιτήσεις της αγοράς» (cf. Δελτίον ΣΕΒ, ibid.). That, for ΣΕΒ, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ and ΕΔΕΕ, was the only feasible manner in which the “tool” of “marketing mix” could be put to use by local advertizing companies. And further, these ideological organizers of local capital also knew what it was that could possibly advantage local advertizing companies vis-à-vis the foreign giants: their footing in the field of Greek advertizing would be maintained and reinforced, not only if their advertizing discourse avoided the misrepresentation of products (policy applied to product in relation to policy of discourse), but also and especially if their discourse would ‘name’ the product in the “language” of the “Amalia-type” and that of the popular masses generally (policy applied to advertizing discourse as such).

Being fully aware that it was only such specific usage of the “tool” of “marketing mix” on the part of the local advertizing industry which could save the day in the face of the know-how of the foreign-based giants, ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ would, by 1979-80, set up a special «ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΩΝ», allowing the Greek “organic intellectuals” in the advertizing sector to have a systematic access to the needs, wishes and especially “language” of the “Amalia-type”, variables which in any case were in a state of continual flux and change (and especially so in the case of “language”, given nuances of new argot continually entering and enriching the talk of the middle class milieu – and which now constitutes a potential field of social research all of its own). Thus, a 1979 issue of the Δελτίον ΣΕΒ (Νο 402, 31.3.1979, p. 26) would publish an article entitled «ΓΙΑΤΙ ΕΠΙΒΑΛΛΕΤΑΙ Η ΣΥΣΤΑΣΗ ΜΙΑΣ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑΣ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΩΝ». The text would argue for the need to collect data on a nation-wide basis and covering all branches of Greek industry – the idea was that the usage of such a «ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΩΝ» would help determine the local “marketing mix” of products and their concomitant “market idea”, itself expressive of local advertizing discourse especially as applied to the «ανάπτυξη νέων προϊόντων» (ibid.) – being new products, advertizing companies would need to investigate the “Amalia-type’s” possible responses to such newness, etc. And similarly, a 1980 Δελτίον ΣΕΒ  (Νο 418, 30.4.1980, p. 11), would emphasize that access to ΕΛΚΕΠΑ data investigating the needs and tastes of the Greek consumer would be open to all up-and-coming members of the “organic intellectuals” creating the advertizing discourse of the new Greek middle class milieu – we read:

«… για να προωθηθεί αποτελεσματικότερα η
λειτουργία του σαν Κέντρου πληροφορήσεως,
το ΕΛΚΕΠΑ έχει συστήσει ειδική Μονάδα
Τεκμηριώσεως και Πληροφοριών. Η Μονάδα
αυτή είναι στη διάθεση κάθε επιχειρηματία,
επιστήμονα ή φοιτητή…».

We have emphasized that the local advertizing industry could only make use of the concept of “marketing mix” in such particular ways as described above – and we thus imply that such usage, while effective in communicating with the grassroots needs of the specifically Greek consumer, was nonetheless an inevitably limited tapping of the limitless potential of such concept of “marketing mix”. How else could such concept have been used? What extra usage was made of such “marketing mix” by foreign capital which was beyond the objective capacities of local capital? In its presentation of the concept, ΣΕΒ had pointed to a clear-cut but internally articulating distinction within such concept: on the one hand, there was a policy that had to be applied to the product as such (and which related to the product’s own characteristics, appearance and packaging); on the other hand, there was a policy that had to be decided with respect to variables outside the product itself, and which had to do with its price, its modes of promotion and its modes of distribution. As regards the inherent characteristics of any product, local capital could investigate and come to know exactly what policy it needed to apply, given its rootedness in the Greek socio-cultural reality – but as regards those external variables such a price, modes of promotion, ‘reachabilty’ and distribution, the strategies of Greek local capital could only be decided on the basis of its limited economic resources vis-à-vis those of the ‘anarchically autonomous’ multi-national advertizing companies, whose own economic resources were in fact near-limitless (their powerful presence could be felt both within ΕΔΕΕ, in which case their discourse could be somewhat checked by the presence of Greek advertizing companies, or outside of ΕΔΕΕ, where they would preserve their truly autonomous imperium).

The implications here are absolutely clear: powerful foreign advertizing companies had the luxury to use at times utterly “provocative” methods of promoting products without causing whatever «σφάλμα» in their own “marketing mix”, given their ability to sell cheaply, promote incessantly and distribute ubiquitously. We know, for instance, that Coca-Cola advertisements would appear in places least expected wherever in Greece, be these outposts perched on some god-forsaken mountain or in tiny haberdasheries, coffee-shops, etc. in the little villages surrounding Aliarto, and so forth. Such ubiquity, further, would stimulate certain specific dimensions of the transitional Greek ‘psyche’, these being the gradually awakening need for the “global” and the “modern”. The parochial or provincial dimensions of Greek socio-cultural practices would here quite ‘naturally’ respond to the foreign “exotic” but without maintaining any serious “balances” with the deep-rooted realities and, in the transitional period of the 1960’s and 1970’s, would lead to culture shocks which themselves exacerbated, inter alia, the clash of generations. But, we are saying, such “provocative-interventionism” in “market idea” was restricted to foreign giants who possessed the capacity to activate all aspects of the concept of “marketing mix” to full effect, allowing for the widespread popularization of their “brands”, and they would be doing so well outside the specifications of advertizing discourse delineated by ΕΔΕΕ.

But we further need to understand that such “provocative-interventionism” on the part of foreign giants was not just a result of their material capacity to launch truly widespread, incessantly bamboozling advertizing campaigns which luxuriated in a rampant cultural imperialism: intentional “provocation” in advertizing discourse went hand-in-hand with an as intentional, planned risk-factor which was – at least then – the built-in drive of all multi-nationals in their struggle to dominate their markets. C.C. Pocock, President of SHELL, expressed just such an inherent need for risk in an article published in Δελτίον ΣΕΒ on the 30th of April 1979 (Νο 404, p. 24) – he would put it brilliantly well:

«… η επιχείρηση ευημερεί μέσα στον
κίνδυνο…».

Put simply, when foreign advertizing companies were deciding to make use of “provocative- interventionist” discourse in promoting a product, they well knew they were breaking the rules of the local game – they knew all too well they were taking their risks and playing it dangerously in ignoring whatever socio-cultural “balances” defined the order of the day in Greece – for them, the “Amalia-type” was almost a guinea pig, or a laboratory of “life” on the shoulders of which various “global” representations could be tested. The risks such companies took would create uneasy balances between, on the one hand, ensuing culture shocks amongst the Greek popular masses and, on the other, the proclivity amongst such masses for the as yet unknown “global taste”. Depending on the product promoted, the catchment area of consumers, and the specific words and images used in a particular campaign, such uneasy balance could translate into a veritable cultural “imbalance”, whereby the “Amalia-type” could splinter into a variety of esoterically conflictual “anti-types”, thus causing psychological contradictions and dilemmas both at an individual and at a collective level (we shall examine such cases below, but we may simply point here to discourse which pointedly degraded all things Greek, or was coloured by vulgar sexual overtones which could degrade Greek females, or insulted the popular masses as a whole for their anachronism, etc.).

In direct counter-response to either uneasy balances or outright imbalances provoked by an alien advertizing discourse – which could disorganize both Greek society at a cultural level and the Greek local market at an economic level – it would fall on the shoulders of ΣΕΒ (but also of ΕΛΚΕΠΑ and of ΕΔΕΕ) to play a ‘homeostatic’ role within the Greek socio-cultural context. ΣΕΒ’s insistence on maintaining “balances” is evident in a variety of texts published in its Δελτίον – we here present just one sample (a policy-setting editorial) published in 1980, and which read as follows:

«Στον κοινωνικό και πολιτιστικό τομέα
εκτιμήσαμε ότι η στενή επαφή μας με
μια σειρά προηγμένες κοινωνίες θα
 γονιμοποιήσει τη δική μας παράδοση και
 πραγματικότητα και, χωρίς να αλλάξει
 τη φυσιογνωμία μας, θα την εμπλουτίσει»
(cf. Δελτίον ΣEB, Νο 426, 31.12.1980,
p. 1, my emph.).

And by 1982, when Greek society would be experiencing a deluge of things European as a result of entering the then ΕΟΚ, the Δελτίον would publish reports which would even urge for the protection of the Greek consumer – for instance, with reference to a meeting of ΣΕΒ’s Δ.Σ. on the 16th and 17th of December, 1982, and with respect to a speech delivered by Δ.Σ. member L.F. Koskos, the Δελτίον would report:

«… μίλησε με θέμα “Διάλογος καταναλωτών
και Βιομηχανίας και προστασία του
 καταναλωτή”…» (cf. Δελτίον ΣΕΒ,
Νο 446, January 1983, p. 3, my emph.).

It is beyond the intentions of this paper to examine the role of advertizing discourse from the 1980’s and on – by which time most or even all of what we have been saying above, regarding the relationship of the advertizing sector with the “Amalia-type”, would simply not apply – but the above quotes do point to the belated struggles on the part of ΣΕΒ to protect both Greek endogenous capital and the “Amalia-type”-qua-consumer from the overpowering “imbalances” that would come to characterize the Greek social formation both in the field of its economy and in the field of its socio-cultural practices.

Somehow prefiguring all this in the 1970’s, we may say that ΣΕΒ, ΕΛΚΕΠΑ and ΕΔΕΕ, while still maintaining their own strongholds in the Greek advertizing sector – especially with companies such as ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ, Sigma ΕΠΕ, ABC ADVERTISING, ΑΛΕΚΤΟΡ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ, ΓΝΩΜΗ Α.Ε. and others within ΕΔΕΕ itself – would nonetheless have to face the reality of foreign advertizing giants with their own “marketing mix” working at full throttle. We have said that their strategic but dangerously dis-balancing use of such “marketing mix” would allow them to both churn out a highly “provocative-interventionist” advertizing discourse (not only in Greece but globally) and at the same time be highly successful at making at least some of their promoted products extremely popular with the Greek popular masses. As already pointed out, there would be occasions when even dwarfish local advertizing companies would themselves be tempted to adopt similar advertizing techniques, but bar the “marketing mix” which only multinationals could activate, and thus without a comparable success. In the sub-section that follows, we shall examine that one type of advertizing discourse which we have identified as “provocative- interventionist” and which, in the overall map of Greek advertizing discourse, was not to always necessarily dominate, it being just one extreme expression in the “balance of ideological compromises” that constituted a shifting sand of ideological struggle, and wherein the changing socio-cultural practices and proclivities of an “Amalia-type” would be one determining agent.

GLOSSARY

NOTES:
● « δίχως ίχνος προθέσεως εξαπατήσεως… του πελάτου»: with no trace whatsoever of any intention wishing to deceive the client
● «… από το ΚΕΣΔΙ θα δημιουργηθή η γενιά των διαφημιστών του μέλλοντος»: it is from the Training Centre for Advertizing Executives that the future generation of advertisers shall sprout
● «… το εμπόρευμά σας πρέπει να της μιλήσει»: your product must speak to her
● «άγχος»: anxiety
● «αισθήματα»: feelings
● «αισθήσεις»: the senses/the sensory system
● «αισθητική καλλιέργια του κόσμου»: the aesthetic cultivation of the public
● «ΑΚΟΜΗ ΚΑΙ Η ΜΕΡΑ ΕΧΕΙ ΤΟΝ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΤΗ ΤΗΣ»: even daytime has its own advertiser (it being the cock, and hence the name of the company – «Αλέκτορ» meaning cockerel)
● «αλλ’ ολίγον κατ’ ολίγον επανεμφανίσθη»: (cooperation) gradually reappeared/was reestablished
● «αναβοσβήνουν σε χρώμα παπαγαλί και η ατμόσφαιρα γύρω πρασινίζει»: (the letters of the advertizing board) flash in a multitude of bright, intense colours and the surrounding atmosphere takes on a greenish hue (free translation)
● «αναγωγή στο ένα»: the Platonic idea that everything is reducible to “the One”, or to “the Whole”
● «ανάλογο σεβασμό»: due respect; pay equal respect to (cf. above)
● «ανάπτυξη νέων προϊόντων»: the development of new products
● «από τους μεγαλύτερους βαμβακέμπορους στη Λιβαδειά»: one of the major cotton dealers of Levadia
● «αποτύπωση… των κοινωνικών ρευμάτων της εποχής»: a reflection of the social currents of the epoch
● «απροσάρμοστο στις απαιτήσεις της αγοράς»: unaccommodating/maladjusted to the demands of the market
● «αύξησιν της μηχανικής παραγωγής»: increase in mechanical production/manufacturing
● «Βιομηχανία Συσκευασιών Ηλιος»: Helios, Greek pasta industry; the term «συσκευασιών» refers to industrial packaging
● «ΓΙΑΤΙ ΕΠΙΒΑΛΛΕΤΑΙ Η ΣΥΣΤΑΣΗ ΜΙΑΣ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑΣ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΩΝ»: why the establishment of a data bank is necessary
● «γνωρίζοντας καλά τα δεδομένα της Ελληνικής αγοράς»: knowing full well the hard facts of the Greek market
● «δαιμονοποίηση»: demonization
● «δεν είναι ψυχρή στατιστική»: (the consumer) is not a cold statistic
● «δι’ αυτόν και δι’ ημάς»: to the benefit of both him and us
● «δια την βελτίωσιν των μεθόδων εμπορίας»: for the improvement of marketing methods
● «διαφημιστική-θρύλος Αλέκτορ»: Alektor, the advertizing agency-legend (literal translation)
● «διέξοδον»: outlet, having recourse to
● «Δίνει μια νέα ώθησι και πνοή δημιουργίας στη διαφήμισι του τόπου μας»: it injects a fresh impetus and a creative inspiration into the advertizing of our country
● «είναι δουλειά μας να τις ικανοποιήσωμε»: it is our job/work to satisfy them
● «εισαγωγή»: introduction of the particular spice in cooking
● «εμείς εξαρτώμεθα από εκείνον»: we are dependent on him
● «ενημέρωση»: being informed, keeping up to date
● «Ενωση Διαφημιστικών Επιχειρήσεων Ελλάδος»: the Hellenic Association of Advertizing Agencies (EDEE)
● «Επιτροπή Κρίσεως»: Judging Committee
● «εργάτες»: workers
● «Η ανάγκη να βρεθή τι θέλει η μέση νοικοκυρά ωδήγησε στην επιστήμη της παρουσιάσεως των ειδών προς πώλησιν»: the need to find out what the average housewife wants led to the science of presentation/display of the goods to be sold (free translation; the text itself explains the central idea contained in the Greek version)
● «η κατανάλωση διεγείρονταν συστηματικά»: consumption was being systematically stimulated/provoked (implying that this led to consumerism, in a negative sense)
● «Η παραστατική τεχνική του Βακιρτζή με τα έντονα ζωηρά χρώματα ανανέωσε και αναβάθμισε τη διαφημιστική εικόνα του κινηματογράφου και την αφίσα του δρόμου με τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε να προσελκύει αλλά και να δείχνει τον ανάλογο σεβασμό προς το ευρύ κοινό που απευθυνόταν»: Bakirtzis’ graphic technique, with its use of intense and lively colours, renewed and upgraded the advertizing image of the cinema and the billboard in such a way as to attract attention but also – and at the same time – demonstrate its due respect for the wider public to which it was addressed (free translation)
● «Ιδρύθηκε για τη δημιουργία στελεχών, ικανών να καλύπτουν τις ανάγκες της σύγχρονης διαφημίσεως»: it was established so as to train executives who would be capable of meeting the requirements of modern advertizing
● «καλή συσκευασία»: good packaging
● «καλλιτεχνικός διευθυντής»: art director
● «καρτέλα»: label
● «κειμενογράφος»: copywriter
● «Κέντρο Προστασίας Καταναλωτών»: Consumer Protection Centre
● «Κέντρον Εκπαιδεύσεως Στελεχών Διαφημίσεως»: Training Centre for Advertizing Executives
● «κουκιά με λάδι,… ρεβίθια και τέτοια, όσπρια. Για εργάτες»: “broad beans cooked with oil,… chickpeas and the like, pulses. For workers”.
● «Κώδικα Δεοντολογίας»: code of conduct or good practice; code of (business) ethics
● «λαδοελιές»: olives
● «λάιφ στάιλ»: lifestyle
● «μαγειρεμένο λαδερό φαγητό»: dish cooked with oil/oily food
● «μας αναθέτει την ικανοποίησι των επιθυμιών του»: entrusts us with the duty to satisfy his/her wishes (alternatively: assigns us with the task of satisfying his/her wishes)
● «μερικές από τις πρώτες εταιρίες στη χώρα μας»: some of the leading companies in our country
● «μια αγορά που έτρεχε ήδη»: a market already in existence
● «μια ανεξάρτητη, αμιγώς ελληνική εταιρία»: an independent, purely Greek company
● «μια μεγαλυτέρα ευχέρεια εκλογής “ιδεών αγοράς”…»: a wider range of options pertaining to the selection of “market ideas” (free translation)
● «Να ονειρεύεσαι προσγειωμένα»: to dream, but with one’s feet firmly on the ground
● «ντολμάδες»: dolma, any of a family of stuffed vegetable dishes; especially stuffed vine leaves
● «ξέρουν»: they know
● «ο κλάδος μας βασίζεται στην ιδέα»: our sector is based on the (advertizing) concept
● «Ο μέσος άνθρωπος… ήδη παίρνει τις αποφάσεις του»: the average person is aleady making his own decisions
● «Ο σκοπός της ανταλλαγής είναι η απόλαυση, η κατανάλωση»: the object of exchange is pleasure – viz. the pleasure of consumption (free translation)
● «οι άνθρωποι ζουν γενικά το παρόν τους σαν με κάποια αφέλεια»: people generally live their own present with some sort of naivety (free translation)
● «Οι διαφημίσεις για το “Τρινάλ” ξεσήκωσαν πολύ κόσμο»: advertisements promoting “Trinal” (a degreaser/household cleaner) stirred up a lot of people
● «οι εμπορευόμενοι δίδουν προσοχήν»: the traders pay attention
● «Οι νέοι τρόποι συσκευασίας αποβλέπουν εις το να ενημερώσουν αμέσως το πελάτη»: the new modes of packaging aim at directly informing the client
● «Οργανισμός»: Lake Copais Organisation
● «οργανώνεται σε σύγχρονα με την εποχή πρότυπα και στελεχώνεται με ικανότατους συνεργάτες»: it is organized according to modern-day specifications/standards and is manned by the most competent of co-workers (free translation)
● «ορθός λόγος»: here, roughly in the sense of “reason” or “correctness”
● «ορθότητα»: correctness, similar to «ορθός λόγος» (as noted above)
● «πανοπτισμός»: being panoptic – in the sense of taking in all parts, aspects, etc., of something in a single view; all-embracing
● «πεδίο μιας ασταθούς ισορροπίας συμβιβασμών»: terrain of an unsteady balance of compromises
● «προκαταλήψεις»: prejudices
● «πρόσφερε»: offered
● «προτιμήσεις»: preferences
● «πρότυπο κατανάλωσης»: consumption pattern/model
● «σταυροδρόμι επιστημών»: a crossroads of the sciences
● «συλλογική αισθητική»: collective aesthetics
● «συμμετοχή»: participation
● «συμπύκνωση των κοινωνικών προτεραιοτήτων»: a condensation of the social priorities
● «συνειδητή προσήλωση στις αρχές του Μοντερνισμού»: a conscious commitment to the principles of modernism
● «σύνολο των στοιχείων της πολιτικής»: the sum total of the elements constituting the “policy” of any product
● «σύστημα προβολής»: star system
● «σφάλμα»: fault, error
● «Σχολή Καλών Τεχνών»: School of Fine Arts
● «Τα περισσότερα ανθρώπινα όντα λειτουργούν σαν ιστορικοί: μόνο αναδρομικά αναγνωρίζουν τη φύση της εμπειρίας τους»: most human beings function like historians: it is only in retrospect that they recognize the nature of their experience (free translation)
● «τα τυράκια»: the cheeses
● «Τμηματάρχης Προμηθειών»: Head of Provisions
● «το επίκαιρο»: that which is current; that which is relevant to the present
● «Το ΚΕΣΔΙ αποτελεί τη μοναδική συστηματική προσπάθεια για τη δημιουργία διαφημιστικών στελεχών στην Ελλάδα»: the Training Centre for Advertizing Executives constitutes the one and only systematic attempt to create pools of advertizing executives in Greece (free translation)
● «το πιο σπουδαίο πρόσωπο»: (the client is) the most important person
● «ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΩΝ»: data bank
● «Τριούμφ, τα εσώρουχα που αγαπούν τη γυναίκα»: Triumph [the brand name], the underwear that loves women (free translation)
● «Τώρα η διαφήμισις δεν είναι προϊόν αυτοσχεδιασμού. Μόνο τα σωστά εκπαιδευμένα στελέχη μπορούν να βοηθήσουν στην πρόοδο της»: Advertizing is by now no longer a product of improvisation. Only properly trained executives can assist in its progress.
● «υγιής συναγωνισμός»: healthy competition
● «φορτίο»: burden

THE “PROVOCATIVE-INTERVENTIONIST” ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE: AN EXAMINATION OF SOME SAMPLES

Our first example of “provocative-interventionist” discourse is only a rather ‘mild’ case expressive of such category, and which suggests that even within that particular category of advertisements there were various degrees of “imbalance” between the semantics chosen by the advertiser and the grassroots demands (themselves at times contradictory) or the socio-cultural realities (themselves variegated) of the Greek market. In 1967, the periodical Romantso would carry the following advertisement promoting a brand of toilet-paper:

«MELTEX… Λεπτό, λευκό, απαλότατο
χαρτί υγείας… Υγιεινή για σύγχρονους
ανθρώπους… Υγιεινή για μοντέρνους
ανθρώπους… Ζητάτε Μέλτεξ στη μοντέρνα
μπλε και κίτρινη συσκευασία»
(cf. Romantso, Νο 1248,
31.1.1967).

This advertisement, like so many others at the time, would place a distinct emphasis on the concept of “the modern”. It is meant to address itself exclusively to “modern” people – being for such type of Greek person, its discourse may be said to involve a somewhat discreet or somewhat latent attempt at dividing the Greek popular masses between those who were prepared to adopt or had adopted “modernity” as a style of life, and those who would still insist on past, anachronistic practices. Such a “reading” of this advertisement is of course subjective, in the sense that it all depends on who it is who does the reading of it – whatever divisive effect may not have been felt as such by the “Amalia-type” at all, and in fact such “type” may have even recognized itself in it. On the other hand, Amalia’s parents, bred in a rural environment and having been using the “primitive” practices of hygiene described above, could have felt alienated by a phrase such as «για σύγχρονους» or «για μοντέρνους ανθρώπους». But further, even Amalia Eleftheriadou could herself have felt some tinge of alienating provocation in that the advertisement, while promoting “modernity” in hygiene, completely ignores the fact that young ladies such as Amalia had no access to an indoor toilet, as was the case for most Aliartians at the time. While there is a definite truth in all such observations, they need to be qualified. If there is some degree of “provocative-interventionism” in the discourse of this advertisement, it would only be so for a limited and transitory period of time: gradually, and as already discussed, the product would become an absolutely natural need throughout Greece. Writing of the years 1966-1967, Maro Douka tells us that a related product, the «σόφτεξ» toilet paper, would even be available in the toilets of at least some factories – the narrator tells us how an employer would complain about the demands of her employees as follows:

«Μα τι στην οργή θέλουν; Ασπιρίνες θέλουν;
χαρτομάντιλα, γκόμενες;… Ως και σόφτεξ τους
έχει στους καμπινέδες. Τι διάολο θέλουν;»
(cf. Maro Douka, Ηaρχαία σκουριά [Ancient Rust]Κέδρος,
1980 [2nd edition], p. 25).

Apart from the fact that the “MELTEX” advertisement is only a ‘mild’ example of “provocative-interventionism”, and apart from the fact that its “provocation” is relative and only transient, it also is what we may call “culturally neutral”. The essentially “neutral cultural content” of its discourse lies in the fact that it avoids comparing the Greek socio-cultural reality with some other ‘superior’ foreign culture. Unlike so many other advertisements which we shall be discussing below, it is free of what Roupa (op. cit., p. 261) has referred to as the «μεταπολεμική ξενική επίδραση» or of the “Americanization” of the Greek way of life (cf. “diafimisi” – http://diafimisi..., op. cit., p. 1). Generally, then, we have here an advertizing discourse which is characterized by a slight and transitory “imbalance” and which steers clear of cultural provocation and bias, but which nonetheless does belong to that family of advertizing discourse which we have identified as “provocative- interventionist”.

Yet another sample of advertizing discourse which may be said to have balanced on the threshold of “provocative-interventionism”, though again only slightly or only ambiguously so, and which appeared as early as 1961 in Kathimerini , is the following:

«Princessa… Contessa… 2 ΨΥΓΕΙΑ
ΚΟΜΨΑ ΚΑΙ ΓΕΡΑ…
ΠΡΟΪΟΝΤΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΤΣΟΣ…
Ένα ψυγείο για πάντα…»
(cf. Kathimerini, 23.5.1961).

It is most probable that Amalia Eleftheriadou would not have had much access to a newspaper such as the Kathimerini, the latter not being too popular amongst Aliartians in the 1960’s. Still, advertisements which appeared in this paper were reproduced in more widely-read papers such as the Apogevmatini or the Akropolis, or they would be reproduced in the popular periodicals. Now, in this early-1960’s advertisement we observe that the quality of a product manufactured by a Greek company is related to foreign prototypes (Italian) by the sheer naming of such products: “Princessa”/“Contessa”. The element of “Greekness” is played down: what really matters is that the “PITSOS” [«ΠΙΤΣΟΣ»] fridges are «ΚΟΜΨΑ» and «ΓΕΡΑ» in terms of a Euro-Italian quality gauge. This constitutes a certain “imbalance”, suggesting a techno-cultural inferiority as regards things manufactured by Greek industry. On the other hand, we well know that the relative technological “inferiority” of Greek-made products was simply an objective fact. And we also know that the “Amalia-type” did herself attend to and nurture a growing taste for all things European – and which was itself a “natural” proclivity given the objective superiority of foreign technology, thus making such “Amalia-type” taste an objective fact as well. Thus, the “PITSOS” advertisement seems to contain a relative “imbalance” or “cultural bias” which only reflected certain objective circumstances.

If it be true that the discourse of this advertisement merely reflected an objective reality, there seems to be little reason why we need include it within the wider family of “provocative-interventionist” advertizing discourse. But here we need to place such advertisement within the wider context of the truly acute ideological struggle that was being waged in the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s over the quality of imported products vis-à-vis those of the endogenous manufacturing sector. As we shall further see below, the “Greekness” of a product such as a fridge would often be presented by the local advertizing industry as “the triumph” of a Greek company to manufacture best-quality products both for the local and for the international markets. Thus, to name your products in a manner which reminded the Greek public of foreign technology would be self-defeating, if not “provocative”, at least in the sense of undermining the ideological strategies of many local manufacturers. Unlike so many other advertisements promoting Greek products, therefore, the “PITSOS” advertisement here seems to be reinforcing the superiority of foreign technology while making no appeal to “the triumph” of Greek technology as such – and therefore the “balance” of its discourse gently tips towards a European-foreign bias. It thus expresses a mildly “interventionist” discourse and which mimics the discourse of multi-national corporations which at times equated quality to foreignness. Still, there is no real “provocation” as regards the tastes of the “Amalia-type” (though such “type” could itself also share in a sense of pride when it came to the local technological “triumph” – often enough, hundreds of Boeotian villagers would be working for companies such as IZOLA and be buying at discount prices the things they themselves had helped produce).

But not only did the “PITSOS” advertisement not directly “provoke” the “Amalia-type” – it in fact addressed itself to the Greek economic reality of the early-1960’s which such “type” experienced. It speaks of the “durability” of its fridges and is therefore aware of the “Amalia-type’s” need to buy products which would not have to be renewed too often, given the limited consumer capacity of a female “Clerk”. This does not in any way contradict what we have said above as regards the general trend to continually renew things on the part of the popular masses. For one thing, as regards the majority of people in the very early-1960’s, such renewing of products would usually be a move from the very “primitive” appliances to the first generation of manufactured products. Further, the renewal which would take place would usually cover products less expensive than that of a fridge. For the “Amalia-type”, the wish for renewal (which could here be fulfilled by buying a “PITSOS” fridge) would have to go hand-in-hand and be balanced with the need for durability. It would only be the further increase of consumer power by the very late-1960’s and the ultimate dysfunctionality of a technological device (rendered so by new technological innovations – cf. Antonioli above), which would lead the “Amalia-type” to a renewal of even her “modern” fridge. The Greek reality of the early-1960’s was therefore understood and acknowledged by this “PITSOS” advertisement: its phrase «για πάντα» played on the relative material needs of the consumer, and therefore adjusted its discourse to such needs. The same phrase, «για πάντα», would also address itself to the relative ‘aesthetic’ needs of the “Amalia-type”, assuring her that the advent of the new elegant style («ΚΟΜΨΑ») has come to stay. Of course, one could argue that such promise – «για πάντα» – is “manipulative” in that it is absolute, and which would make the discourse “provocative” for the “Amalia-type”. But that is to forget that such language is a sine qua non of whatever market transaction, in whatever social formation, and it is up to the freedom of the buyer to verify or qualify any promises of “absolute durability” through the mere usage of what has been bought.

We may summarize our evaluation of this 1961 advertisement of “PITSOS” fridges as follows: while there is a slight “imbalance” for Euro-technology and a silent devaluation of the “Greekness” of the product (and which therefore constitutes a negative “intervention” as regards the interests of endogenous manufacturers), it nonetheless expresses a slight “balance” for the material and ‘aesthetic’ needs of the “Amalia-type”. It is of much socio-historical interest that here we have an advertizing discourse which disadvantages the Greek manufacturing sector as a whole so that the European tastes of the consumer be satisfied. We know, of course, that Capital-as-a-Whole can often work against itself. And that was one dysfunction which bodies such as ΕΔΕΕ would struggle to redress.

………………………………

If the two above advertisements are samples of a transient or of only a slight “imbalance” between the purported intentions of the advertizing discourse and the degree of “provocation” that the Greek popular masses (or even endogenous capital) could digest, what follows are examples of advertizing discourse which may be said to be an almost full-blooded “provocation” of the popular practices of the Greek people. In 1964, the periodical Romantso would carry the following advertisement promoting the «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» serviette, and which could potentially have insulted at least a section of the Greek female population – it read as follows:

«Δεν ζήτε στον παληό καιρό…
για να χρησιμοποιήτε αναχρονιστικές
μεθόδους. Η εποχή μας απαιτεί μέσα
πρακτικά και προστατευτικά της
υγιεινής… Με την ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ στις κρίσιμες
ημέρες του μηνός έχετε απόλυτη
εξασφάλιση»
(cf. Romantso, No 1116,
21.7.1964).

There is a definite “interventionist provocation” in the discourse of this advertisement because it rejects as “anachronistic” the set practices of millions of Greek women of most age-groups in the early-1960’s. It “provoked”, because one section of the female population would continue using strips of cloth when they had their period. Pavlos Matesis, writing of the post-war era in his Η μητέρα του σκύλου [The Mother of the Dog, Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, Athens, 1990, p. 72), describes the use of such strips of cloth – his female character, «Ρουμπίνη», has this to say of the practice:

«… χρησιμοποιούσαμε πανί περκάλι, το
ράβαμε σε σχήμα Τ και τα μεταχειριζόμαστε
ξανά και ξανά μέχρι να ρέψουν. Άσε που τα
μπουγαδιασμένα τα κρεμούσαμε στο μπαλκόνι
ή στην αυλή, και όλη η γειτονιά ήξερε τις
ημερομηνίες μας. Και δώσ’ του κουτσομπολιό,
διότι μερικές γειτόνισσες κρατούσαν
λογαριασμό. Καλέ, σου έλεγαν φέρ’ ειπείν,
της Νίτσας του Καρατσολιά καιρό έχουν να
της έρθουνε, δεν είδα ρούχα απλωμένα, τι
συμβαίνει, καθυστέρηση, ή αρρεβωνιάστηκε;».

And further, the vast majority of women (approximately 80%) would take up and  continue to use the classical «χαρτοβάμβακα» for their needs. Whether as a result of habit, or so as to cut on expenditures, they would insist on such specific hygiene practices (some quite “primitive”, as in the case of the cloth; others not at all so, as in the case of the «χαρτοβάμβακα»).

The advertisement views their methods as symptomatic of a refusal to abandon the «παληό καιρό». And it goes even further: it seems to be telling the Greek female that she does not know the new epoch that has already dawned in Greece, and done so despite her. In that sense, it engineers an ideological divide and contradistinction between, on the one hand, “the epoch”, and, on the other, “the people”, as if it is not the latter that de facto constitute or make whatever “epoch”. This advertizing discourse is thus characterized by a show of the “global modernizing power” – expressive of the anarchically arrogant discourse of foreign advertizing giants (op. cit.) – which suggests that “modernity” belongs to it («η εποχή μας») and which those beneath such “power” had better adopt. The discourse could therefore alienate even the younger “Amalia-type”, who could have felt insulted by an advertisement that openly questioned a people’s awareness of the “modern times” that supposedly flew over their heads. And yet the “Amalia-type” could see herself – and finally even older women around her – naturally adopting the use of a serviette such as «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» without at the same time feeling that they were bending to the instructions of an advertisement which admonished them for their lingering “anachronism” («Δεν ζήτε…»). Here, if the particular product «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» was bought by the “Amalia-type”, it would have been done so given the “marketing mix” – as discussed above – which would accompany it. But much more importantly, the “Amalia-type” would have come to use whatever brand of serviette since such “type” as was Amalia constituted an organic part of the Greek process of “modernization”. It was of course foreign technology that offered such “type” the means for such “modernization” – it was that “type”, however, that was the historical agent of “modernization” in Greece. The products of so-called “capitalist technology” would have been no commodities at all unless the popular masses chose to consume them – it was precisely such fact that the «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» advertisement would wish to obfuscate in its show of “global modernizing power”, and in that sense the creators of such discourse would be in full agreement with the likes of Adorno and company, who very simply reduced the phenomenon of consumption to a practice imposed on people.

But the discourse of the «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» advertisement goes even further in its “provocation”: not only does it look down on a people who are supposedly blind to “modernity” – it also absolutely rejects their own «παληό καιρό». It thus fails to capture the socio-cultural reality of a people which combined their “traditionalism” and “localism” with the “modern”. As such, this advertizing discourse ignores the Leoussis principle that an advertisement should constitute a «συμπύκνωση… της ιστορικής συγκυρίας» (op. cit.), or ignores Bakirtzis’ insistence that an advertisement should show «τον ανάλογο σεβασμό προς το ευρύ κοινό» (op. cit.).

Now, as in the case of all or most ideological discourse, here too, the advertizing discourse of the «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» advertisement could only but also contain elements of a certain positive material content: the fact of a new, more comfortable and perhaps more hygienic serviette could not have been ignored by any “Amalia-type” as an unnecessary “luxury”. In that sense, even this “provocative-interventionist” advertisement cannot be rejected out of hand as mere “manipulation”.

Even more importantly, the “provocative-interventionism” of the «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» discourse had to contain elements within it which would control the “provocation” and delimit the cultural damage or shock it could effect – it would thus also contain elements of a positive ethical content, and which means that it would attempt to maintain a certain internal “balance” between its “provocative-interventionism” and the ethico-cultural codes of the Greek popular masses (and especially those of Greek women). How does it do this? The discourse shows a respect for the so-called “taboos” of the Greek woman of the 1960’s: it avoids using the term “period” in its choice of words – such word having been avoided by the popular masses generally in the 1960’s and even on to the 1970’s – and rather chooses to use the phrase «κρίσιμες ημέρες» as substitute. Specifically as regards this point, it abides by article 1 of the ΕΔΕΕ «Κώδικα Δεοντολογίας», which stipulates that the customs and ethics of the Greek consumer not be insulted (op. cit.). It here also abides by the Bakirtzis principle of «ανάλογο σεβασμό».

Thus, the general conclusions we may draw about this advertisement promoting the «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» serviette in 1964 are the following:

• It is characterized by a discourse typical of the anarchic advertizing giants which were able to “intervene” and “provoke” the Greek consumer given their “marketing mix”, and as such “mix” was reinforced by their global economic clout;
• Despite their economic might and autonomous discourse anarchy, the promoters of this product nonetheless still had to abide by at least some of the set principles of ΕΔΕΕ – the latter being, as already discussed above, an ideological apparatus deeply rooted in the socio-cultural practices of the Greek consumer and whose knowledge of this Greek terrain could not easily or not always be ignored. As we also know, ΕΔΕΕ was itself an umbrella organization which housed companies related to the advertizing giants, and which meant that its ideological position would influence such giants to some degree;
• Most importantly, the “provocative-interventionism” of the «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» discourse could be and was relatively checked by the very presence of the “Amalia-type”, such “type” being a consumer whose “thought and attention” had to be taken into account.

………………………………

Our next sample of “provocative-interventionism” is an advertisement promoting the Philips-manufactured “PHILISHAVE” in early-1960’s Greece. On December 25th, 1962, the periodical Romantso would publish the following advertisement:

«ΕΝΑ ΕΥΠΡΟΣΔΕΚΤΟ ΔΩΡΟ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΥ…
PHILISHAVE…
ΖΗΤΕ ΣΤΟ 1900 ‘Η ΣΤΟ 1963; –
Στις αρχές του 20ου Αιώνος το ξύρισμα
ήταν πολυτέλεια περιττή… σήμερα είναι
 καθημερινό καθήκον…»
(cf. Romantso, No 1034,
25.12. 1962, their emph.).

An electric shaver would not of course have directly interested Amalia Eleftheriadou herself, though she could have “dreamt” of presenting such a product as a Christmas gift, perhaps to her brother Leonidas, or to her father, or to some male friend. As elsewhere discussed, advertizing discourse would often grab the opportunity to make full use of the real circumstances of people so as to attract their attention – here, the Christmas season would yet again allow the discourse to speak of a «ΔΩΡΟ». How realistic would it have been for Amalia Eleftheriadou to have bought such device as a present for someone close to her? In 1962, when this advertisement appeared, the “PHILISHAVE” cost 400 drachmas – this would practically mean that Amalia would have to work for a whole six-day week so as to earn that sum in, say, 1968 (as we know, she would then be earning 65 drachmas per day at the A&M company, with an inflation rate of 0,3%; in 1962, the rate had stood at 0,4%).

It therefore seems quite questionable whether Amalia would have wished, at that period of her working-life, to have entertained the realization of such “luxury dream” – that the advertisement spoke of a «καθημερινό καθήκον» for Greek males could have perplexed or even alienated her. What the advertisement told her and her compatriots would not automatically ‘connect’ with the cultural and material reality of working people at Aliarto in the early-1960’s. Were Amalia to have presented a male Aliartian with the “PHILISHAVE” as a Christmas gift in the 1960’s, the receptor would most probably have been puzzled both with Amalia and with the gadget itself. Possibly out of respect for the gesture of the young lady, the recipient could have tried using it once or twice for a shave – and done so in jest – and he would then have completely abandoned the usage of it. And, quite naturally, Amalia would have been instinctually aware of such reaction. Further, and hypothetically speaking, were Amalia to have been prompted to buy such a gadget on the basis of the exact wording of this advertizing discourse, she would know that she would be presenting her male compatriots at Aliarto with a «καθήκον» they were supposedly unaware of, and she would  as much be burdening them with such a «καθήκον». In all, it seems that the “Amalia-type” would most probably have been repulsed by such an advertisement, and it would therefore be of some interest for our purposes to examine what lies behind such an example of all-sided “provocative-interventionism” which seemed to ignore both consumer capacity and consumer habits and tastes.

To begin with, the “PHILISHAVE” advertizing discourse openly doubts the common sense intelligence and above all the worldly awareness of the Greek popular masses – in a manner reminiscent of the «ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ» advertisement we have discussed above, it doubts the temporal consciousness of the Greek consumer and blatantly poses such consumer the question: «ΖΗΤΕ ΣΤΟ 1900 ‘Η ΣΤΟ 1963;». It asks Greeks, therefore, whether they think they belong to a period of time well prior to both of the two world wars or to the “modern age” of the “PHILISHAVE” – the electrical device is presented as symbolic of the “mature” world of the post-war “modern age” while Greeks are questioned as if belonging to the “infantile” primitiveness of a humanity just about to enter the 20th century, and which was a humanity which had little sense of its personal ‘aesthetics’ (question of shaving as a “luxury”). By implication, six whole decades could divide the Greek popular masses from the rest of the world, unless they made use of the “PHILISHAVE”. The obvious implication is an absolute “provocation” and an external “intervention” in the socio-cultural practices of a people who were themselves gradually and painfully trying to find their own way in a relatively autonomous process which was to construct the Greek middle class milieu. Whatever the accuracies underlying the questioning of this discourse about the realities of the Greek people in the early-1960’s, such questioning would nonetheless be dysfunctional vis-à-vis the socio-cultural realities and developments of Greek popular customs and habits, and the questioning itself would constitute a violation of article 1 of the ΕΔΕΕ  «Κώδικα».

On closer reading, the “PHILISHAVE” discourse goes even further: it throws an indirect insult to the Greek male as such and does so by pointing to his possibly “uncivilized” or “uncouth” state – that which is now a “duty” for males of the 20th century, still remains a «πολυτέλεια περιττή» for the Greek, unless of course he shaves daily with the use of a “PHILISHAVE”.

But it is not just that the discourse questions the common sense, the worldly awareness, and the habits of Greek males – it actually adopts a rhetorical stance which reminds one of 18th or 19th century colonialists in Africa trying their best to “civilize” the “natives”. Notice the sheer arrogance of a phrase such as «ΔΩΡΟ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΥ»: to anyone who has some knowledge of how British colonialists would first come into contact with the tribes of the African continent, he would surely be struck by certain similarities in the “civilizing process”. If the British would present the African tribes with “presents” such as little mirrors, the Philips multinational would present the “natives” of Greece with their own «ΔΩΡΟ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΥ» – in this case, an electric shaving gadget. The African would for the first time get the chance to see his face in a mirror; likewise, the Greek would for the first time get the chance to see his civilized, routinely shaven face in his own mirror. Both African and Greek would be drawn into the market-economy, etc. Of course, it would be historically inaccurate and methodologically wrong to wish to reduce the history of colonialism in Africa to what was happening in Greece in the post-war years – any equation of the sort would be to fall into the trap of a vulgar, usually “Left-wing” demagogy. But keeping this in mind, there are at least certain superficial parallels which one cannot simply ignore: we all know of the famous “White man’s burden” to “civilize” the African “savages”. Compare this to the “PHILISHAVE” advertisement: the latter does not simply try to sell a product by focusing on its material function as such – it relates the product to a clear concern for the cultural state of the Greek people, and sees itself as carrying the burden of having to “uplift” such state (expressive of the year 1900) to that of the glorious dawn of 1963 (the advertisement, we remember, had been published by late December 1962).

But there is yet still another aspect to that term, the «ΔΩΡΟ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΥ», which forces one to draw certain parallels between British colonialist thinkers such as Kipling (and the bearing of “gifts” to the African “savages”), and the “gift” which the multinational Philips wants to make available to the Greek people. Both the British colonialists in Africa and the “PHILISHAVE” advertisement in Greece did intend to “manipulate” the masses, though in different ways and for different purposes (and both were “interventionist” through their “imperial’ power). In the case of “PHILISHAVE”, which is what concerns us here, the sheer choice of the word «ΔΩΡΟ» can be psychologically “manipulative” in that it can be taken to suggest that Philips per se is distributing Christmas gifts – of the civilizing sort – to the popular masses of Greece (no matter, of course, who actually had to pay for these).

How does one explain the sheer “provocative” audacity and unadulterated arrogance of such “imbalanced” advertizing discourse? The company behind such discourse was no fly-by-night company, and even a half-educated shepherd in the Theban village of Domvraina would have heard of the “brand name”. But although the Philips company – at least as a mere “brand name” – had managed to penetrate and settle in the common «nous» of the Greek popular masses, it nonetheless remained – as an ‘imperial’ power – absolutely alien to such masses. The paradox is explainable: while Amalia Eleftheriadou had direct contact with the name of the Philips company via the “PHILISHAVE” advertisement which she could see and touch in the particular Romantso periodical she held in her hands, that same “PHILISHAVE” product itself would stem from an economic “leviathan” absolutely beyond her imagination. But if Amalia could not possibly “imagine” the reality of the “leviathan” that constituted Philips, neither could the latter itself grasp the corresponding “grassroots leviathan” which constituted the rich and complex contradictions of the Greek popular masses, and which would double the alienation. As we shall note below, it would only be after the mid-1960’s that the Philips company would see the need to turn to «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ» (cf. above, with reference to the later relationship between the Philips company and «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ») so as to be able to market its various shaving products to a wider public. In the early-1960’s, however, the Philips giant was swooping down on the Greek socio-cultural terrain with an “imperial” might and autonomy which blinded it from the reality. Its might and autonomy would place itself “in command”, not the “Amalia-type” and her male compatriots. Here, the advertizing principles of an ΕΛΚΕΠΑ or the later ΕΔΕΕ would be quite helpless.

What, in fact, constituted the “imperial” strength of a company such as Philips? The facts are more or less familiar. We know, for instance, that the Philips company was to come to employ thousands of people across more than 60 countries around the world. This Dutch-based diversified technological/electronic multinational company – with layers upon structural layers of ownership and control mechanisms across the globe – had set up a special division called the Philips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Unit. It would be such Unit which would manufacture the electric shaver “PHILISHAVE” in 1939. By 1948, it would be a US designer who would take over the designing of such shaver. Global sales would surge from 1951 and on, and by the 1960’s we would have the introduction of the “PHILISHAVE” battery shaver (not the one advertised in the Romantso periodical).

But what is of major interest to us is to see how such “imperial” power would behave – in terms of promotional strategy – when it would come to conquer a share in the US market following the post-war period. While, as we have seen, it would at first remain blindly arrogant to the socio-cultural tastes of the supposedly “peripheral” Greek popular masses, its promotional strategy in the ideological terrain of the mighty USA would be radically different. Here, the “provocative-interventionism” would completely disappear and a ‘delicate’ strategy of “compromising adjustment” would be immediately implemented – something which surely constitutes an irrefutable verification of our methodological approach in seeking to differentiate between the “provocative” and the “compromising” in advertizing discourse as determined by the objective socio-cultural a priori historical realities of a people. In the USA, the socio-cultural reality of the consumer – and especially given his major economic clout – could at no point in time be ignored, as it never in fact was, even on the part of that global “leviathan” Philips.

What was the post-war Philips promotional strategy of all its products (including shavers) within the USA? Its strategy, we have said, was ‘delicately’ compromising. Well, it would be so ‘delicate’ with the US consumer that it would be absolutely hard towards its own image. What was it that it would do to itself? Very simply, it would obliterate itself when presenting its products to the US consumer, and it would do so because that was exactly what such consumer demanded. The “Philips” name was not to be used at all in the USA because “a shift to the Philips name could have alienated those US buyers who were reluctant to purchase foreign brands”. (cf., inter alia, http://en.wikipedia.org). Thus, not only would it not “intervene” or “provoke”, it would in fact “adjust” its promotional strategy to the point of hiding behind the name “NORELCO”. And it was a real hiding game, because the brand name “NORELCO” actually stood for “North American Philips electrical Company”, but the “P” for “Philips” simply did not appear therein: the promoters would only make use of the “Nor” for “North”, the “el” for “electrical”, and the “Co” for “Company”. One could argue that here the Philips company was bluffing the American public – but that is to miss the point: it was bluffing people, but it was doing so to the point of annihilating itself as a brand in the representations of its own discourse. The real point is that the Philips advertizing discourse directed to the US public had no choice but to respect the “consumer patriotism” of such public, and which meant that Philips feared the possible reactions of such public were such “patriotism” to have been violated.

All this stands in stark contrast to what was happening in the early-1960’s in Greece – as we have seen, and judging by just that one sample of the “PHILISHAVE” advertisement, the Philips company would be adopting that highly “imperialist” discourse paternalistically meted out to its as yet “uncivilized” subjects: «ΖΗΤΕ ΣΤΟ 1900…;». But the question now is how such “subjects” would actually respond to such “provocation”.

The Greek so-called “anachronistic” popular masses would quite simply ignore both the “provocation” and the “PHILISHAVE” product. We have no statistics to verify such outright rejection of the electric shaver. But we can say that the vast majority of the popular masses in the 1960’s did ignore such Philips “Personal Care” gadget based on our knowledge of the everyday shaving habits of Greek males at the time. Here, at least, we may set aside the use of any statistical data and rather concentrate on the sociological observation of everyday practices in the early-1960’s.

To begin with, we may say that it was common practice amongst most Aliartian males, by way of an example, to go to their barber for a shave. According to the Aliartian barber (op. cit., interview, December 21, 2009), this would cost his clients a mere 2,5 drachmas in the early-1960’s. The whole procedure of getting a shave at the barber shop would be combined with an at times endless process of socializing amongst male friends. The barber, his client and a whole crowd of on-lookers, would engage in lively, gregarious discussions on matters which would include issues of politics (at times with a pinch of self-censorship), “social gossip” and, of course, women. The company could even play pranks on one another. Very importantly, the barber would also function as a strategic link in the chain of client-patron relationships between his clients and some member of the Greek Parliament (in the specific case of our Aliartian barber, the latter would be a “representative” of Demosthenes Kinias, an «Ένωση Κέντρου» MP – and cf. 4η προφορική μαρτυρία: Ευάγγελος Μουράτης, 16.3.2009, Αλίαρτος). As importantly, the barber shop would also function as an informal employment bureau, whereby the barber would connect people to employers such as Marakis, the A&M Mill-owner. Such socializing and self-help network, centered around a visit to the local barber for a shave, could not possibly have been violated by any advertisement promoting “PHILISHAVE”. The Dutch-based multi-national had no real inkling as to what was happening at the grassroots level, at least in places such as Aliarto. (With respect to shaving practices and how going to a barber for a shave was a non-“Western” habit in England even prior to WWI, cf. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, op. cit., p. 127).

Not all, however, would go to the barber for a shave, and of those who did, some would not always do so. In both the former and the latter cases, people would give themselves a shave using the traditional barber’s razor which, according to K.G. Pitty, had been discovered way back in the 16th century but which «είναι βαθύ, αποτελεσματικό στο κόψιμο του γενιού» (cf. Kyriaki G. Pitty, «Έρευνα της αγοραστικής συμπεριφοράς των νέων ανδρών σε σχέση με τα προϊόντα περιποίησης δέρματος του προσώπου», Πανεπιστήμιο Πειραιώς, 2006, and which includes some references to Greek shaving practices in the 1960’s). Be it due to sheer habit or be it due to the effectivity of such traditional instrument, many males would continue to use it even through to the 1970’s. As to traditionalism and shaving habits, we may here point to a 1925 text (in the form of a dialogue) where even the use of the razor, in whatever form, would be rejected when it came to the Cretan moustache. The weekly newspaper Astrapi [Αστραπή], published in Rethymno in the 1920’s, would carry the following text entitled «Το μουστάκι» [“The Moustache”]:

« “… Τραγικά είνε  τα πράγματα. Τραγικόν
είναι να βλέπης σήμερον τον άνδρα να
διαμαρτύρεται κατά της φύσεως ότι άνδρα
αυτόν εποίησε και ού γυναίκα…”.
[Response:] “Σαν να μου φαίνεται πως
θέλεις να πης για το κόψιμο του μουστακιού”.
[Counter-response:] “Μάλιστα… Οι νόμοι της
φύσεως, αδελφέ μου, έδωσαν εις τον άνδρα
μουστάκια, αλλ’ ο άνθρωπος κατεστρατήγησε
τον νόμον αυτόν ανακαλύψας το ξυράφι και
το DEPILATOIRE”» (cf. Astrapi, Νο 3,
1.5.1925, p. 1).

At least as regards Cretans, many of whom resided in Athens and Piraeus suburbs in the 1960’s, or had gone to Aliarto to work at the A&M Mill (Marakis himself a Cretan), one could say that a significant number would certainly have endorsed such mentality about shaving their moustache.

But that did not at all mean that the Greek male generally – and especially the young Greek male – was inertly stuck on past habit: people’s shaving habits would progress gradually and in a manner which linked or bridged their traditional shaving practices to the ‘new’ which the market would offer them. Thus, in the course of the 1960’s, many males would opt for a device which reminded them of the traditional barber’s razor but was much safer and easier to use, that of course being the Gillette safety razor (i.e. the cartridge blade razors). Unlike the electric “PHILISHAVE”, which required the use of electricity (something not at all available in the outdoor toilet) and which did not offer a ‘deep’ shave (cf. Pitty, op. cit.), the use of the Gillette safety razor would be an organic outgrowth of past shaving practices and would spread in the course of time. Like the young “Amalia-type”, its male counterparts would use their “thought and attention” to select what was both familiar (the blade) and practical (the cartridge). “Modernization” in shaving practices was therefore happening, but in a manner naturally delimited by the given socio-cultural context. The “provocative- interventionism” of the “PHILISHAVE” discourse would be generally ignored and young males would adopt a love-hate relationship with advertisements promoting Gillette. As regards such critical love-hate relationship with an advertisement promoting a device they would ultimately opt to use (the Gillette safety razor) we may here consider how one young man would ‘respond’ to such an advertisement playing on his little transistor while riding his motorbike:

«… – Κάτι συνέβη, ακούστηκε μια φωνή με
συγκρατημένη αγωνία απ’ το τρανζίστορ.
– Τι συνέβη; αναπήδησε ο Φάνης και φρενάρισε.
– Κάτι συνέβη στη Ζιλέτ!».

And to which the youth Fanis would respond:

«… – Άι στο διάολο ρε καριόλη, κι ανησύχησα».

But the commercial would continue:

«… Η Ζιλέτ πήρε πλατίνα, ένα μέταλλο τρεις
φορές σκληρότερο κι απ’ τ’ ατσάλι και το
χρησιμοποίησε για να σφυρηλατήσει μια νέα
κόψη Σούπερ Σίλβερ, μια κόψη ενισχυμένη με
πλατίνα και δημιούργησε ένα νέο ξυραφάκι…
Τώρα κάτι καινούριο στα ξυραφάκια».

And then Fanis, assured that nothing serious had really happened, would go on to simply and naturally ignore the commercial he had just been ‘conversing’ with (cf. Nikos Nikolaides, Ο οργισμένος Βαλκάνιος, Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη [4Η Έκδοση], Αθήνα, 1983, p. 50). But young males like Fanis in the 1960’s would rarely, if at all, take a gadget such as the “PHILISHAVE” seriously (let alone the insults of the advertising discourse promoting it). K.G. Pitty, in her study mentioned above, points to the practical pros and cons of using a razor-blade and to those of using an electric shaver. Such pros and cons may have been quite feasible, but such dilemmas were simply not entertained by the majority of the Greek popular masses in the 1960’s, and that should not simply be explained in economic terms (the 400 drachmas of the “PHILISHAVE”) – let alone in terms of a dogmatically economistic causal relationship. Their choice to either visit their barber for a shave, or to use a shaving instrument introduced to them by their fathers (or the barber himself), or to finally go ahead and buy themselves the Gillette cartridge blade razor – all this was part of a necessary cluster of habits gradually mutating according to its own rhythm and with the progress of time. Such habitual behaviour would of course be responsive to advertisements related to personal care – we would clearly see this when it came to Gillette – but it would not be responsive when both the product and the advertizing discourse would simply fail to place the social-cultural needs of the Greek male “in command”, and we have seen how the “PHILISHAVE” advertisement blatantly placed its own “civilizing” agenda in such “command”, despite the realities of the “Amalia-type” or those of a Fanis. In the case of the latter, his “models” of life were a complex mixture of the “Greekness” one found in the popular suburbs such as those of Petroupolis (one of the young man’s characteristic sayings would be «Ξύπνα ρε, αυτή η χώρα που ζούμε είναι το πιο ανώμαλο ρήμα του κόσμου… Βούρλο!», op. cit., p. 7), as also an adoption of the lifestyles of Marlon Brando (“The Wild One”) or James Dean (“Rebel Without A Cause”). If for Amalia Eleftheriadou the “PHILISHAVE” may have been fleetingly considered as a possible “Christmas gift” (despite its advertizing discourse), for Fanis the mere image that such object was related to would have been an anathema for the likes of him. If he would ever come close to considering the idea of giving himself a shave, he would automatically have opted for something like the more humble Gillette safety razor.

By 1974-5, and as was happening at a global level, the Greek market would introduce to the popular masses the BIC disposable razor, whereby for the first time the entire razor could be disposed of after a certain period of usage. Here again, the vast majority of Greek males would willingly adopt BIC for their shaving purposes – as in the case of the BIC ballpoint pen, so also here, the cheapness and practicality of such truly “modern” object would naturally attract people to it. The BIC disposables were especially popular among Greek teenagers, something which applied to the rest of teenagers around the world (or at least the so-called “Western world”). Unlike the pretentious arrogance of the “PHILISHAVE” advertizing discourse, the French-based BIC (itself directly competing with Gillette) would concentrate its promotional strategy on the simple functionality of the product, and would thus create advertizing discourse with what we would call a high positive material content – such “functional materiality” in the discourse would be a rather accurate reflection of the real qualities of the BIC disposable razor, and people would verify this in practice. BIC advertizing discourse would focus on the theme of “just what’s necessary” and, at a both local and global level, would speak of “The shave that saves”. Taking various forms in countries around the world, the discourse suggesting a salvaging of things would imply that users of BIC would be “saving” their skin, their time, as also their money.

Of course, the BIC company itself belonged to the category of global giants such as Philips, but it would nonetheless generally avoid a strategy of “provocative-interventionism”, specifically as regards the issue of “culture-bias” – we know that it would be an oversimplification to suggest that there was ever any iron rule which linked the size of a company to the form that its advertizing discourse would take (one can only speak here of some tendency, but which had its exceptions). In the case of the BIC company, its product as such – in this case, the simple disposable razor (though not only, if one also considers the ballpoint pen and the lighter) – had no real need for a culturally-biased “provocative- interventionism”. Further, the razor was a true child of “modernity” and that, especially given its capacity to “save” on physical exertion and money, and therefore represented a form of what we may call “populist modernity”. Importantly, it was also a gadget closely related to personal care and looks in an age of the sexual revolution in Greece, when young males were becoming increasingly self-conscious and eager to openly attract and experiment with the opposite sex. BIC products, therefore, also represented a specific “youthful modernity”. And the advertizing discourse of BIC products, in contrast to that of the negatively questioning “PHILISHAVE”, positively affirmed and reinforced the image of Greek youth and its wish to look handsome in a “modern” way.
And therefore, and again in contrast to the “PHILISHAVE” advertisement, the BIC razor would attract the full attention of the Greek popular masses, especially that of the young, though also of whoever wished to look young, whatever his age. Soon, even the “Amalia-type” would be buying it for herself: young ladies would use it to shave their legs and armpits, a practice also related to the sexual revolution.

Now, having said all this, we still need to point to a special element of BIC advertizing discourse which, while clearly distinguishing it from the “PHILISHAVE” discourse, nonetheless made it especially “provocative” in a very specific sense. Often enough, the BIC advertizing discourse could be “sexually provocative”, and could thus be said to have been violating the ΕΔΕΕ «Κώδικα» set out in the 1970’s. On the other hand, one could say that such particular advertizing strategy could get away with murder, so to speak, since it directly expressed the new sexual identity of Greek youth, given the overtly “sexual revolution” headed by such youth (as was happening in most of the post-war “Western world”).

At a global level and especially in the English-speaking world, the BIC low-cost plastic lighter would be popularized with the use of the obvious highly “sexually provocative” slogan, “Flick my BIC”. Advertisements on TV would show sensuous women urging cigarette smokers to “flick” their “BIC”. From what we know, at least in America, the sexual connotations of such discourse would become part of the popular national lexicon – something which must surely be of much interest to social historians and linguists alike. Now, such discourse would filter through to the Greek socio-cultural context, and especially given Greek youth’s dramatic re-definition and re-evaluation of its relationship to its body. The sexual insinuations of the slogan “Flick my BIC” – which of course suggests that a male is urged to “light the fire” of a female – would translate into the Greek slogan «ΑΝΑΒΕΙ… ΑΝΑΒΕΙ… ΑΝΑΒΕΙ», and which would be accompanied by the depiction of provocative females. Of course, the use of the Greek word «ΑΝΑΒΕΙ» would itself provoke the sexuality of itching youths, both male and female: as all Greeks know and as the Babiniotis Dictionary confirms, the word «ανάβω» can mean «προκαλώ ερωτικό πόθο» or «εξάπτω τις ερωτικές επιθυμίες» or, simply, «ερεθίζω». Likewise, Pavlos Matesis, in his novel Παντα καλά (Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, Athens, 1998, p. 110), would write this of a youngish lady:

«Ώρμησε, πρόλαβε και του άναψε το τσιγάρο
που εκείνος είχε βγάλει. Να σε ανάψω. Το
βάζει στο στόμα της, το ανάβει, εκείνη δεν κάπνιζε,
του το μπήγει στο στόμα, σαλιωμένο και
κοκκινιστό με κραγιόν. Άναψα και θερμοσίφωνο.
Λέει και περιμένει».

BIC advertizing discourse in Greece in the 1970’s and 1980’s was what it was given the grassroots reality of the “sexual revolution” – it reflected the needs of the youthful popular masses, and it thus “provoked” those who themselves “provoked” one another. The phenomenon, of course, would ultimately spill through to the rest of the various age-groups. If BIC discourse contributed to the “making” of such a “revolution”, that selfsame popular “revolution” would “make” the BIC discourse be what it was.

But if the BIC discourse “provoked” the youthful provokers in Greece, and thus engaged in an ideological two-way dialectical intercourse with them, it would nonetheless not forget to bolster such ideological content with a positive material content in its particular version of the Greek advertizing discourse. If outside Greece the BIC company would also place an emphasis on the simplicity and easy-to-use nature of its products, it would not underestimate the Greek people by dwelling exclusively on their new-found “sexual instincts”. In other words, if outside Greece it promoted its products as those that were “just what’s necessary”, in Greece we would have the concomitant «και απλουστεύει τη ζωή».

The BIC advertizing discourse in Greece was therefore not “interventionist”, in that it fully recognized the new, “modern” sexual habits of Greek youth, and thus did not land onto the Greek cultural terrain as an outsider questioning people if perhaps they still lived in the year 1900. To the extent that it was “provocative”, it did not insult either Greek youth or the national identity of Greek people as a whole (it rather complemented, especially Greek youth identity). There was therefore no “culture-bias” as was evident in the “PHILISHAVE” discourse. Further, and again unlike the Philips company, it did not simply ignore their given shaving habits, by presenting them with an electrical gadget which was alien both to the prevailing psyche of the popular masses and to the existing material conditions of such masses. Both in terms of ideological content and functional material content, the BIC discourse overlapped with and complemented the Greek socio-cultural conditions of the period. The “PHILISHAVE” advertisement was to fail on both these criteria, and would thus be generally ignored, and it thus represents an excellent example of how the “imperialism” of a giant would be checked by grassroots practices.

All this is not meant to suggest that the BIC products themselves were universally accepted by the Greek consumer of the 1970’s, and it is not meant to suggest that certain sections of the Greek population were not to be shocked or unnerved by slogans such as «ΑΝΑΒΕΙ» (as they would also be shocked by the “sexual revolution” itself). Firstly, dissent regarding such “sexually provocative” advertizing would automatically be expressed by “Left-wing” feminist activists who, while always in the minority (the “Amalia-type” would simply ignore them), would be especially vociferous. Their position would be expressed by texts such as the following in the 1970’s:

«Σεξουαλική επανάσταση. Μία έκφραση που
ακούγεται συνέχεια. Και κανείς δεν θ’ αμφισβητήσει
ότι είναι μία πραγματικότητα. Επειδή λοιπόν
υπάρχει αυτή η κατάσταση και αποτελεί ένα
πρόβλημα για τον κόσμο, ο,τιδήποτε έχει σχέση
με το σεξ τραβάει την προσοχή του και τα ΜΜΕ
εκμεταλλευόμενα την περίπτωση παρέχουν αφειδώς
το θέμα… Πώς το παρέχουν; Πορνογραφικά. Άλλοτε
με προφάσεις, άλλοτε ξεκάθαρα… Όταν η γυναίκα
θεωρείται σαν αντικείμενο ηδονής, είναι φυσικό
και οι σχέσεις που συνάπτονται με ένα υποτελή να
μην είναι ικανοποιητικές… [etc.]»
(cf. Δημοκρατική Ένωση Νέων Γυναικών,
 Η γυναίκα & τα Μέσα Μαζικής Ενημέρωσης,
Πύλη, Athens, 1979, pp. 42-43).

That, of course, was the received wisdom of the feminist “Left”, usually couched in a self-defeating logic: for instance, while accepting that the “sexual revolution” was an undeniable reality, this reality was a “problem” for the people, and since it was a “problem”, it attracted their attention, something which the mass media would exploit. For the feminists, people created their own “problem” and did so in a way which attracted them. While such logic must have surely confused the rest of the population, it nonetheless overlapped – in a dramatically paradoxical manner – with the attitudes of conservative puritans and “traditionalists”. But this would not mean that such categories of the population – feminists included – would not ultimately find themselves using the BIC products, be it a razor, a lighter or a pen. If in the 1970’s the BIC disposable razor was not universally adopted for shaving purposes, this was not at all due to the “sexually unethical” advertizing discourse which accompanied it. At least in the “periphery”, there was a category of males who would stick to the traditional habit of either visiting their barber or shave themselves using a barber’s razor, and that was simply indicative of the naturally uneven spread of “modernizing” practices in personal care: given personal and geographic circumstances, some could simply not keep up with the waves of renewal inundating such personal care practices. In 1977, a resident of the Boeotian village of Domvraina, on being presented with a BIC disposable razor, would boorishly ask in his Albanian dialect: «Τσί γιά άει; » (“What’s this?”). And yet, the man was both a “communist” and had spent long spans of time at Salonika working in the construction sector. His response had nothing to do with the “sexual unethicality” of BIC advertizing discourse – in fact, this rural resident had no ethical qualms about the fact that both his daughter and his son-in-law (themselves “communist”) were to become avid readers of Playboy). On the other hand, this rural-based quarryman and construction worker would have been literally infuriated by any idea that he happened to belong to the year 1900, which was what the “PHILISHAVE” advertisement was suggesting.

Unlike the “imperial” Philips advertizing discourse used specifically for the Greek case, that of BIC was essentially determined by its cut-throat competition with Gillette over throw-away pens and shavers: it was above all such competition which would force it to respect the socio-cultural context of Greeks, and thus avoid the “interventionist” insults of the “PHILISHAVE” discourse aimed at “civilizing” Greek “savages” (in the case of the Philips company, its market-share of diverse products had already been firmly carved out on an international basis). Interestingly, it would be in Greece itself that BIC products would be manufactured both for the local and the international market (the BIC factory would be located in the Theban industrial zone and would employ 120 workers in the 1980’s; it manufactured «Αναπτήρες–Καλσόν–Λεπίδες» – cf. «ΕΙΣΗΓΗΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΕΡΓΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΚΕΝΤΡΟΥ ΘΗΒΑΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΚΟ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΠΤΥΞΗ», undated/circa 1986). That it was the BIC-versus-Gillette competition which overdetermined the content of discourse of BIC products is further verified by the fact that BIC advertizing discourse focused on a “provocation” – apart from the “sexual” – which allowed consumers the freedom to pick and choose the best throw-away products they desired: its discourse openly compared the BIC razor to that of Gillette, and which would cause the latter to protest. While here too the BIC company would be violating the «Κώδικα» of ΕΔΕΕ, which prohibited all such provocative comparisons, it would again get away with murder since such openly “democratic” comparing of products could only advantage the consumer. Generally then, the BIC advertizing discourse would be as responsive to the needs of the Greek youthful popular masses as would the Philips advertizing discourse be responsive to the sensitivities of the American consumer.

As regards the “PHILISHAVE” advertisement itself, there remains just one further question: why is it that the “provocative-interventionism” of the Philips company discourse would be adhered to at the time despite its very limited acceptance within the Greek market? Apart from what has already been argued above, we may also make the following final observations:

• While its advertizing discourse was meant to address itself to the popular masses as a whole, it really could only attract – as it did – the economic and intellectual élites of the country in the early-1960’s. The Philips company would of course see this happening but would nonetheless pursue promotional policy reminiscent of Pocock’s “risk-factor” (op. cit.). We may presume that it was initially merely experimenting with the realities of the Greek market. Further, and perhaps more importantly, both the price and the exclusivity of a product such as “PHILISHAVE” would render it a “luxury” object meant to intentionally bolster the image of the Greek élites in the early-1960’s (these, of course, would not have lived in the year 1900). As to the tight relationship between élite social status and the electric shaver at the time, we simply quote here a text published in Mesimvrini (29.1.1966, p. 7), which certainly highlights such relationship in its own way – it read as follows: «Οπωσδήποτε, οι Ευρωπαίοι απολαμβάνουν μαζί με τους Αμερικανούς αυτές τις καινοτομίες, όπως … ζεστό νερό και την πρίζα για ξυριστική μηχανή στο λουτρό του ξενοδοχείου τους…».
• But in any case, the “marketing mix” of any Philips product was such as to assert its dominant long-term presence in the Greek market: the ubiquitous familiarity of the Philips brand would ultimately expand the catchment area of whatever product related to such brand. And the expansion of such area would inevitably happen with the rise of the middle class milieu, some elements of which would themselves gradually adopt the “PHILISHAVE” product (or developed variants of it) at some later stage.
• Related to the above, we know that the Philips company could always depend on the sheer diversity of its products (above all its array of electrical house appliances) so as to secure an ever-widening catchment area among the Greek popular masses. Given such manufacturing and marketing infrastructure, the company certainly possessed the economic base and security on which it could play its risky, experimental games.
• And yet, in the last instance, we know that the Philips giant, and despite all its overreaching power, would not be able to communicate its personal care products to the Greek popular masses unless it adjusted its discourse in a manner that spoke the language of these masses. As already mentioned, the Philips company would, by the mid-1960’s and on, turn to the all-Greek «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ» to help it expand its market for shaving products to the wider masses. As regards the ideology of advertizing discourse, therefore, it would be the Philips company that would bend to grassroots realities. Such a step, on the part of the Philips company, further confirms the relative social power of the “Amalia-type” as consumer.

……………………………

We may now proceed with our next examination of an advertizing discourse which appeared in 1960’s Greece and which was characterized by “provocative-interventionism” in a field which, as alluded to above, one would least expect to find whatever form of “interventionism”, let alone any cultural “provocation” – this field was of course that of Greek food consumption. On the other hand, and as we shall see, such “provocative- interventionism” did actually respond to some material reality of the early-1960’s: the particular form of such response, however, may be taken to be typical of a “paternalistic” giant conglomerate. In 1964, the Quaker Oats company would place the following advertisement in the periodical Romantso (and which would be representative of just one dimension of its 1960’s discourse):

«ΚΟΥΑΚΕΡ…
ΣΤΙΣ ΠΙΟ ΑΝΕΠΤΥΓΜΕΝΕΣ ΧΩΡΕΣ,
ΤΟ ΠΡΟΓΕΥΜΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΑΝΤΑ
ΚΟΥΑΚΕΡ…
Ξεκινώντας το πρωί νηστικοί
υπονομεύετε την υγεία σας…»
(cf. Ρομάντσο, τεύχ. 1104,
28.4.1964).

The Quaker Oats company had been formally established at the turn of the 20th century and thus, when its food products – using corn as its basic ingredient for all its commodities – were to enter the Greek market, it had already been in operation at a global level for well over six decades. Thus, this Chicago-based food conglomerate was yet another classical giant prone to a discourse of “imperialism”. More specifically, it usually equated the taking of a Quaker Oats breakfast to the eating habits of the “authentic” all-American family (it even sponsored full-length films to that effect) and would wish to transplant the “model” of such family – and its concomitant values and habits – to the rest of the world. Ultimately, the Quaker Oats family of brands would come to be owned by PepsiCo, itself perhaps an “imperialist” symbol of the American way of life (though, as we shall see in discussing Coca-Cola below, whatever references to an all-powerful “cultural imperialism” are a definite over-simplification).

Now, as regards Greece, the introduction of Quaker Oats products to the country was to take a very special form, and which did indirectly make an appeal – perhaps “manipulatively” so – to the persisting national consciousness of the popular masses. We see here a paradoxical case whereby an ideologically-laden all-American product would be launched within Greece by making use of certain popular symbols of the Greek people, such symbols amounting to the popular ideological “pride” of being Greek (a “pride” which had also stemmed from the nation’s stance against the Nazis). What had happened? We here need to consider the case of the legendary Greek immigrant to America, with the assumed name of “Jim Londos”. This man would become a very popular wrestler in the USA of the 1920’s and 1930’s, taking the American public by storm – his fame would filter through back to his fatherland and would translate into a symbol of national pride. Naturally, the health and strength of this champion fighter had been put down to his eating habits and especially to his consumption of Quakers in the morning. Sources pertaining to the life of “Jim Londos” have this to say about his eating habits and how this would help the Quaker products to enter the Greek scene – we read:

«[O “Τζιμ Λόντος”] … συνήθιζε να τρώει
κουάκερ, δηλαδή νιφάδες βρώμης και ήταν
αυτός η αιτία που άρχισαν να γίνονται οι
εισαγωγές αυτού του προϊόντος στην Ελλάδα»
(cf. Νεώτερον Εγκυκλοπαιδικόν Λεξικόν
 Ηλίου, vol. 12th, p. 532; as also http://
mathainoumeellinikiistoria.blogspot.gr).

We cannot pinpoint the exact period of time in which Quaker Oats was to become popular amongst the Greek popular masses, and especially so amongst kids (we do know, however, that oatmeal would be distributed to children in the 1940’s by the «Κέντρον Διανομής Γάλακτος» – cf., for instance, Πελοπόννησος, 11.7.1948, p. 3). But we can say that at least in the early-1960’s the legend of the American-Greek “Jim Londos” would be alive and well and living in the hearts of the Greek people. We know that Aliartian kids of the early-1960’s saw “Jim Londos” as a popular hero who had conquered the world in wrestling championships, and who had shown the Americans, amongst others, what a Greek could achieve. Many would keep pictures of him, usually from cuts-outs of popular magazines and newspapers. Their parents – especially fathers – would relate stories about him, often grossly exaggerating the facts. Naturally, if “Jim Londos” really chose Quaker Oats for his breakfast, Greek kids, whether at Aliarto or the Athens suburb of Kokkino Mylo, would wish to emulate him (many felt they would soon take his place). We do not know the exact extent to which the products of Quaker Oats had actually caught on at a place such as Aliarto at the time – many Aliartian children would still be eating a watered slice of bread with a coat of sugar (and perhaps sometimes cocoa) on it. Yet still, the Quaker Oats company was gradually preparing for its catchment area by “manipulating” the “Jim Londos” legend in a manner which is reminiscent of the techniques used at the time to promote products indirectly by simply naming them in what was supposed to be informative articles (cf. our discussion above with reference to the use of «ΠΑΤΡΟΝ» to promote a fashion-house; or the promotion of records through articles informing teenagers about the latest news regarding music trends). In a similar manner, then, the simple mentioning in whatever newspaper or magazine article of the fact that “Jim Londos” ate Quakers for breakfast – and we know such mentioning happened based on what is implied by the Λεξικόν Ηλίου – would have had an effect on readers which could possibly have been much stronger than that of any advertisement, given the supposedly factual element. With time, this supposed fact would be imprinted in the minds of Greeks, and while the legend of “Jim Londos” would fade, the brand-name would not (and that, given the rise of consumer power and the Greek emphasis on the need to eat well, as has been discussed above).

To further understand what Quaker Oats had really been doing in its attempt to indirectly promote its products in Greece by relating these to “Jim Londos”, we need to look at the matter a bit more closely. Firstly, it was implying that the success of the Greek wrestler was what it was given his ultimate “Americanization” – i.e. his adoption of American values, one such “value” being that he would consume Quakers just as all proper American families would. Secondly, and by extension, his success had been a result of the fact that he had joined in the rhythms of a highly “developed” society as was the grand USA. The implication, thirdly, was that if Greeks also wanted to “succeed”, they too would have to do the exact same thing, and which was to emulate, not only “Jim Londos”, but the ways and habits of the prototypes of US “development”.

Such incipient ideological discourse, which had tried to hook the popular impulse of “Greek pride” onto the need to imitate the habits of “developed” countries, was to raise its head by the 1960’s as an overt advertizing slogan. Thereby, it would be effecting an open “intervention” with respect to the content of Greek national eating habits (and the grassroots “localist” consciousness that went with it), and it would be “provoking”, in the sense of insulting, the Greek way of life and the rhythms of so-called “progress” which would inevitably express it at that particular time. Consider here the words of the 1964 Romantso advertisement”: «ΣΤΙΣ ΠΙΟ ΑΝΕΠΤΥΓΜΕΝΕΣ ΧΩΡΕΣ, ΤΟ ΠΡΟΓΕΥΜΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΚΟΥΑΚΕΡ». Such term – «ΠΙΟ ΑΝΕΠΤΥΓΜΕΝΕΣ» – would be completing the dotted lines of a general ideological narrative that went like this:

• You possibly think you live in the year 1900 – if so, we bear “gifts” meant to “civilize” you as a people (“PHILISHAVE”);
• Your «παλιός καιρός», however much you may insist on it, is to be fully rejected. And further, since it is you who are responsible for it, you and your “anachronisms” are to be rejected, unless you come to accept the demands of “our epoch” («ΚΑΜΕΛΙΑ»);
• Only those who come to yield to our modern epoch deserve to belong to that special category of people called «σύγχρονους ανθρώπους» (“MELTEX”);
• Such “modern people” belong to countries more developed than your own – such people belonging to such more developed countries necessarily («ΠΑΝΤΑ») eat Quakers;
• Look up to such countries, follow their example when it comes to having breakfast: imitate such countries and you will gradually arrive at their “model” of society. Such “model” is the penultimate “telos” of the whole of human history (as August Comte would of course put it – cf. Raymond Aron’s excellent essay on Comte, in his H εξέλιξη της κοινωνιολογικής σκέψης, Εκδόσεις Γνώση, vol. 1, 3rd edition, Athens, 1994, pp. 105-197).

We may assume that the creators of the 1964 Quaker Oats advertizing discourse for Greece had no knowledge of the thought of August Comte. But the latter, who was the 19th century ‘theologian’ of industrial progress as the “telos” of all of humanity, had had an important influence on 20th century positivist social thinking in the so-called “West”. For instance, and above all, the American W.W. Rostow would himself be a sort of ‘theologian’ for the US model of industrial development, presenting such development as the inevitable and penultimate stage of growth for any industrializing country in the world. His thought, which appeared and became popular in 1962 (with his famous book, The Stages of Economic Growth, Cambridge Univ. Press), was merely a representative articulation of the ‘common wisdom’ of most American intellectuals. As importantly, it broadly expressed the dominant policy and ideology of the US status quo in the 1950’s and 1960’s. We do not mean to suggest that all US corporations necessarily toed the line of either Rostow or of the US establishment, but it would certainly be of interest to compare the 1964 Quaker Oats discourse – «ΣΤΙΣ ΠΙΟ ΑΝΕΠΤΥΓΜΕΝΕΣ ΧΩΡΕΣ, ΤΟ ΠΡΟΓΕΥΜΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΚΟΥΑΚΕΡ» – with that of the 1962 Rostow theoretical discourse. We may here consider how Nikos Mouzelis presents the Rostow position on “development” – and which importantly went hand-in-hand with cultural development – in his book with the telling title Κοινοβουλευτισμός και εκβιομηχάνιση στην ημι-περιφέρεια (Θεμέλιο, Athens, 1987). Presenting the Rostowian position as the most spherical expression of the «νέο-εξελικτική θέση», Mouzelis writes:

 

«Πράγματι η νεο-εξελικτική παράδοση έχει
την τάση να θεωρεί τον “εκσυγχρονισμό” σαν
μια ευθύγραμμη διαδικασία που επηρεάζει
με ομοιόμορφο τρόπο την οικονομική,
πολιτική και πολιτιστική σφαίρα. Η προσέγγιση
αυτή παίρνει ως δεδομένο ότι καθώς η δυτική
τεχνολογία και κουλτούρα διαχέονται στον
υπόλοιπο κόσμο, οι “αναπτυσσόμενες” ή
“εκσυγχρονιζόμενες” κοινωνίες ανεβαίνουν
βαθμιαία την εξελικτική κλίμακα και ομοιάζουν
όλο και περισσότερο με τις δυτικές κοινωνίες
ως προς την οικονομία, την πολιτική και την
κουλτούρα τους. Απ’ αυτή βέβαια τη σκοπιά,
εκβιομηχάνιση και εξαστισμός, πολιτικός και
πολιτιστικός εκσυγχρονισμός, όλα συμβαδίζουν»
(p. 33).

Mouzelis’ critical assessment of the 1962 Rostow theoretical discourse (a discourse which by the way would have been endorsed by Marx, whose thinking was itself characterized by an evolutionist stage-by-stage “teleology” – and cf. also Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, op. cit., p. 126) allows us to explain the “provocative-interventionism” of the 1964 Quaker Oats advertizing discourse as follows:

• All forms of “modernization” and “industrialization” – i.e. whatever “progress” – can only but follow the unilinear stages of economic growth leading to the US model;
• This can only but mean a related “cultural progress” or a “cultural development” reminiscent of that of the USA;
• This would necessarily mean, inter alia, “culturally developed” eating-habits;
• This would mean that all Greeks, as they get up in the morning to go to school or work, must necessarily have their breakfast of Quaker Oats (try remember, the subsurface advertizing discourse would urge, the story of your own “Jim Londos”, who was in fact not really yours but ours).

As we can see here, academic theory and commercial practice do not at all make bad or strange bed-fellows: the economic theory of a Rostow and the advertizing practices of the Quaker Oats company must surely have here been indulging in some act of reproduction, however consciously or not. The match-maker, of course, was the well-read advertizing sector. But how well had such sector actually “read” the Greek popular masses at the time? To the extent that it could create advertizing discourse which “provoked” and “intervened”, its “reading” of the Greek people was that of an arrogant “emperor”. But that only tells us half the story.

The other half is given to us by what follows in the selfsame 1964 Quaker Oats advertizing discourse for the Greek population: «Ξεκινώντας το πρωί νηστικοί υπονομεύετε την υγεία σας». The Quaker Oats company had always presented itself to the Greek consumer as the epitome of “balanced” eating habits – its discourse has been specifically retrospective, continually reminding Greeks of the relationship between the consumption of the Quaker products in Greece and their long-term contribution to the health of the body – throughout the 20th century and even through to the early-21st, the Quaker Oats company would assert:

«Στην Ελλάδα, αγαπήσαμε τα Quaker από την
πρώτη στιγμή και συνδέουμε το όνομά τους
με την ισορροπημένη διατροφή»
(cf. www.quakeroats.com).

As regards the question of eating and health, both the 1964 advertizing discourse and the quote presented above suggest a concerned “paternalism” on the part of the Quaker Oats company addressed to the bodily health of the Greek population. But such “paternalism” in the 1960’s would hinge on a definite reality regarding the nutrition and health of the Greek popular masses. Thus, the Quaker Oats advertizing discourse in the 1960’s would combine – as so often happened in this type of advertizing discourse – a negative “provocative- interventionism” together with a positive material content which directed itself to an inescapable reality of the period. We have already said a few things about poverty in 1960’s Greece in examining the historical context («σκελετωμένα παιδιά», etc.) – here, we may add a few remarks as regards the issue of health, and to which the Quaker Oats advertizing discourse would duly respond.

We know that the decades of the 1940’s, 1950’s and at least the early-1960’s were a period of time when the popular masses would be threatened by what had then been called the «ασθένειες των φτωχών» (cf., inter alia, www.tovima.gr/culture). Bronchitis, tuberculosis and especially the malarial germ around the area of Aliarto would all be a lurking danger for the poor. All such health risks would be directly related to the question of nutrition and the realities of malnutrition. And it would be precisely for this reason that the Quaker Oats advertisement in 1964 would warn of empty stomachs and how that constituted an «υπονόμευση της υγείας σας».

To give us some picture of such health problems, we may make use here of the ‘Douridas Archives’ at our disposal (as we know, the «Ν.Γ. ΔΟΥΡΙΔΑΣ Α.Ε.» was an important textile mill in the Pyri area of Thiva, and which had employed hundreds of people residing in the villages of Boeotia). As late as 1983, the «ΝΟΜΑΡΧΙΑ ΒΟΙΩΤΙΑΣ» (and specifically the «Αντιδήμαρχος Θήβας») would send an official letter to the «Υπουργό Υγείας και Προνοίας» in Athens addressing the serious threats to health around the factory area. What is of special interest, of course, is that such health risks would continue right through to the early-1980’s, and which allows us to only imagine what conditions must have been like in the 1960’s – we read:

«Κύριε Υπουργέ,
… μετά από επιτόπια έρευνα διαπίστωσα τα
πάρα κάτω, τα οποία και θέτω υπόψη σας:
1/ Είναι, πράγματι, άθλιες οι συνθήκες κάτω
απ’ τις οποίες εργάζονται οι εργάτες στην
Κλωστοϋφαντουργία Ν. ΔΟΥΡΙΔΑ. Καμμιά μέριμνα
για την προστασία της υγείας τους δεν έχει παρθεί
απ’ τη διεύθυνση του εργοστασίου. Συνέπεια
αυτής της απαράδεκτης κατάστασης να
παρουσιαστεί το πρώτο κρούσμα τύφου βαρειάς
μορφής σε εργαζόμενο, με κίνδυνο να μολυνθούν
και άλλα άτομα, που θα μπορούν να μεταδώσουν
την αρρώστεια και στα μέλη της οικογένειάς τους.-
2/ Τα λύμματα του εργοστασίου απορρίπτονται
όπως βολεύει την επιχείρηση στη γύρω περιοχή,
με αποτέλεσμα ο περιβάλλων το εργοστάσιο
χώρος να έχει μεταβληθεί σε ένα τέλμα με
αναθυμιάσεις επικίνδυνες για την υγεία των
εργαζομένων και των κατοίκων της πολυάνθρωπης
περιοχής του οικισμού Πυρί της πόλις μας. Διότι
το εργοστάσιο, δυστυχώς, βρίσκεται μέσα στην
πυκνοκατοικημένη αυτή περιοχή. Επί πλέον
μολύνεται σε μεγάλη απόσταση και ο κάμπος της
Θήβας…» (cf. «ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ,
ΝΟΜΑΡΧΙΑ ΒΟΙΩΤΙΑΣ, ΔΗΜΟΣ ΘΗΒΑΙΩΝ, ΑΡΙΘ.
ΠΡΩΤ. 1254 [?]», 17.3.1983).

The purpose of quoting this text is definitely not to assess the work conditions of the Dourida factory at the time (and which would be outside our present field of interest): whatever assessment, to the extent that it involves the issue of health amongst Boeotians, would have to take into consideration the fact that the owners of the company, the Douridas brothers, were, at the time, fighting a losing battle against the competition they had to face vis-à-vis EOK giant corporations, ultimately rendering their own local Greek company “problematic” and which had to finally close down. And further, whatever assessment would have to keep in mind that the author of the above text represented the so-called “Left”-ΠΑΣΟΚ attack on all private capital at the time, and thus the approach to the Dourida management could only have been rather biased. But what is of interest here is the sheer reality of health conditions in the area as a whole, whatever be their actual causes. Further, the text does clearly point to the prevailing concern over the question of health and disease, and which would prevail throughout Greek society following the whole of the post-war period – the point is that it was to such real prevailing sentiment that the Quaker Oats advertizing discourse would be ‘talking’ to.

To further emphasize such prevailing popular sentiment of fear over the threat of disease, and which dated back to the 1940’s, we may here quote Pavlos Matesis, whose novel, Η μητέρα του σκύλου (op. cit.), focused on the years of the Nazi occupation and dealt with the scourge of phthisis both in its tragic and in its comico-tragic nuances – clearly indicating the extent to which the threat of such disease or its actual spread had entered the everyday lives of people, he writes:

«Ο Φάνης μας πήγε σπίτι τους μόνο μία
φορά, για ένα θέλημα, και η Αφροδίτη
τον έδιωξε, μη μπαίνεις μέσα του λέει,
έχω την ασθένεια. Τότε ασθένεια λέγανε
τη φθίση, πολύ της μόδας ασθένεια, και
στα μυθιστορήματα την έβαζαν, όποια
νέα την παρατούσε ο καλός της, πάντα
πάθαινε φθίση» (p. 47).

But if it be true that it was to such real context that the Quaker Oats company would be ‘talking’ to, it would be doing so according to its own hidden (though not at all ‘conspiratorial’) ideological agenda, such agenda being permeated with the arrogant “paternalism” of an “imperialistic” US conglomerate. As we have seen, the advertizing discourse targeting the Greek popular masses placed an exclusive emphasis on salvaging or reinvigorating “the Greek body” per se. For the Quaker Oats discourse addressed to Greeks, it was all a matter of moving in “stages” in the strictly Rostowian sense: first the Greeks would have to deal with their “physical” problems (those of animal survival, so to speak) and only later would they be able to develop themselves “mentally” or “spiritually”, as was already happening with certain other people – i.e. the US citizens above all – who had achieved a definite level of economic development allowing them to indulge in a “cultural progress” which “undeveloped” peoples like the Greeks were not as yet capable of mastering. To show how this “supremacist” ideology actually did function in the discourse of Quaker Oats, we may compare advertizing meant for Greeks with that meant for Americans. We have already seen how the Greek Quaker Oats advertisement quoted above would voice its deep concern over the question of the «υπονόμευση της υγείας σας». We may now contrast this to a number of Quaker Oats commercials meant specifically for the US market, and to do this we may consider four basic advertizing slogans starting from the year 1900 and going through to the 1960’s – these Quaker Oats advertizing slogans were the following:

• 1900: “Quaker Oats: FOR BRAIN AND BRAWN”.
• 1940’s-1950’s: “QUAKER OATS HELPS GROW STARS OF THE FUTURE”.
• 1960: specifically as regards American kids, Quaker Oats “keeps the mind bright and alert”; or it makes kids be “bright and alert for class work”.
• 1960’s decade: “You’ll soon see: THEY DO MUCH BETTER ON QUAKER” (depicting a fit and healthy teenager vaulting over a gym horse).

Put together, the ideological narrative of such a discourse – spanning a period of about seventy years – could be summarized as follows: Quaker Oats cares for both the muscular strength of American kids as also for their mental strength. It is the combination of these two attributes which yields the leaders (or the “stars”) of the future. As regards mental strength, the consumption of Quaker Oats helps the young American mind to be bright and alert in its years of educational training, thus preparing kids for their proper place in the world. But no one can be worthy of a leadership position unless one trains his body as well, and this can only be achieved through systematic gym exercising, itself facilitated through the consumption of Quaker Oats.

We notice that in the case of these US advertising slogans, the issue is not a mere question of helping “the body” to survive as such – it is rather the need to reach maximum mental and physical perfection so as to reach the status of a “star”. Now, one of course understands that objective material conditions in the USA were completely different from those of the war-torn Greek case. On the other hand, it was a subjective political choice, both on the part of the US establishment, and of Rostow, as also of the Quaker Oats company, to assume that a country such as an “undeveloped” Greece had to necessarily follow the evolutionary stages of “growth” that America itself had to go through, and that Greeks were therefore obliged to stick to a stage-by-stage cultural “program” which would ultimately usher them into the “American Dream” (this was never to actually happen). When the 1964 Quaker Oats advertizing discourse for Greece would omit whatever references to “mental” development, it would do so precisely because it assumed the Greeks were not yet ‘ready’ for such luxuries. And yet, the popular cultural practices of the Greek population, despite the war and the poverty, were as vibrant and rich as were those of any people (including the Americans). We know this was so for a couple of reasons: specifically as regards their eating-habits, Greeks would stick to their traditional cuisine, consciously resist foreign “manufactured” foods over a period of time, and when the time would come for them to adopt foreign cuisines, these would be adopted in a manner that involved an assimilation of whatever foreign by maintaining a delicate balance between their “Greekness” and their proclivity for the foreign. We shall shortly come back to their initial – though not merely momentary – resistance to foreign cuisines, but before we do so we need to briefly consider what all this means regarding the positive material content itself – spoken of above – of the 1964 Greek Quaker Oats advertisement.

If it be true that the Quaker Oats advertizing discourse contained a positive material content which addressed itself to a real problem, that same positive content was informed, as we have seen, by an ideologically biased paradigm. The case of the Quaker Oats discourse, therefore, further complicates matters with regard to any distinction that one may wish to make between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ content in advertizing discourse. But the complexity of this case is simply indicative of the fact that advertizing discourse as a whole cannot be reduced to either intentions of “manipulation” or to the neutral wish to inform. The Quaker Oats case clearly shows that material needs can be presented in a manner that serves ideological perspectives, whereby the Quaker Oats products for Greeks are not to ‘function’ in a manner meant for Americans. This discrimination of functions was of course not evident to the Greek popular masses, unless these had access to US versions of the Quaker Oats advertisement (which was highly unlikely), and which would have allowed them to engage in a comparison of sorts (something which few if any would have bothered to undertake).  We may say that, in the last instance, it would all come down to an ideological-cum-cultural struggle (most probably unconscious or semi-conscious) between the “Amalia-type” and the Greek Quaker Oat discourse as to what constitutes positive reality. That the Quaker Oats discourse ignored the matter of the Greek “BRAIN” (let alone the “BRAWN”) in the 1960’s would certainly not have stopped Amalia Eleftheriadou from furthering her own education, which she did and which was her own reality. That she stopped short of finishing senior high school because she had to go and work was also part of her reality, but that reality was obviously not a consequence of whatever advertizing discourse. Thus, the “Amalia-type” would view the ideologically-laden positive material content of the Quaker Oats discourse in a manner which would denude it of its so-called hidden ideological agenda.

This could suggest that the “Amalia-type” would be engaged in a mere passive response (that of simply ignoring) as regards the real truth of the Quaker Oats advertisement. To some extent, this is what actually happened. But we have spoken here (as also in discussing the case of Greek eating habits of, say, the Aliartian Chrysa Kyriakati) of an ideological-cum-cultural struggle between the Greek popular masses and the influx of the foreign cuisine. We may add here a number of remarks pertaining to the more active or perhaps even more conscious resistance of the Greek popular masses with respect to their gradual bombardment with non-Greek foods. It is really impossible to fully understand the initial reception of the Quaker Oats products by the Greek popular masses without considering what we have already called the dominant “universality” of the Greek traditional cuisine. Such “universality” would have its very deep historical roots. According to an excellent text written by Aikaterini Kamilaki in To Vima (cf. www.tovima.gr – most data that follow are drawn from this source, dated 24.12.2000), Greek eating habits were so deeply steeped in historical tradition that these could only but have made Greeks highly resistant to foreign products such as the all-American Quaker Oats. Greek eating habits were a convergence of traditions between the Eastern Byzantine tradition (originating from Asia Minor and Constantinople, and which would have an impact on the rest of Greeks after the 1920’s Asia Minor crisis) and the «λιτοδίαιτο» or «λιτή κουζίνα» of mainland Greece, and which itself dated back to ancient times. This formidable combination of the Byzantine cuisine with that of the ancient Attica cuisine would mean an as formidable insistence on given eating habits and thus a resistance to whatever non-traditional. Kamilaki entitles her text as follows:

«Το ψωμοτύρι, το λιτοδίαιτον της φυλής,
 οι αντιστάσεις των διατροφικών συνηθειών,
η ανακάλυψη της τοπικής κουζίνας»
(my emph.).

With reference to the period 1930-1960, she observes:

«… οι Έλληνες εκδηλώνουν εξαιρετικά μεγάλη
 συντηρητικότητα στα θέματα της διατροφής,
η οποία μάλιστα φθάνει στα όρια της
 αντιδραστικότητας» (my emph.).

Two important observations need to be made here: firstly, to the extent that the Greek popular masses were fighting to “conserve” their popular traditions and identity in the face of the “imperialism” of an “interventionist” US cultural policy pertaining to eating habits, their «συντηρητικότητα» would in fact be ‘revolutionary’ (in a loose sense, and certainly not in the dogmatic Greek “Left” sense): as in the case of the 1960’s and 1970’s African national liberation struggles – where blacks were struggling to salvage their history and identity in the face of a “supremacist” colonialism – so here too, Greeks would be doing more or less the exact same thing, though in a rather different context (it will not do to reduce colonialism to different forms of imperialism, etc.). Secondly, we note Kamilaki’s use of the term «αντιδραστικότητα», which of course suggests an active, perhaps quite conscious resistance to non-traditional foods – and which was not, therefore, simply a case of a negative passive refusal to consider foreign food-products, but rather that of a positive and conscious confirmation of their given traditional cuisine. The term “reactionary”, therefore, needs to be radically freed of the received wisdom of “Left-wing” demagoguery.

Kamilaki further goes on to point out that in the rural areas and at least up to 1970, traditional eating habits would continue to persist. This would happen despite the general trend towards modernization and the rise in consumer power. Indicative of such a situation is that the Greek popular lexicon would continue to include phrases such as the following:

«Ψωμί κι ελιά…»
«Ψωμοτύρι».
«Ψωμί με ψωμί».

Importantly, according to Kamilaki, eating habits which persisted in the rural areas would also do so in the urban areas in the first decades following the war. This would be especially so amongst the urban working people, and Kamilaki supports this by pointing to the well-known fact that the majority of urban dwellers at the time were in fact rural migrants with «παγιωμένες διατροφικές συνήθειες». Thus, the “Amalia-type”, stuck in-between a rural and a semi-urban area such as Aliarto, would certainly have stuck to a traditional meal.

Kamilaki, finally, tries to explain the “reaction” of the Greek popular masses to the foreign cuisine by focusing, not only on the formidable effect of a cultural tradition combining the Eastern Byzantine with the ancient Attica eating habits, but also focuses on the purely economic realities of the Greek social formation – as she writes:

«Σε μια κοινωνία όπως είναι η παραδοσιακή
αγροτική κοινωνία πριν από το 1960, με
περιορισμένες οικονομικές σχέσεις, η
κατανάλωση αγαθών περιορίζεται κυρίως
στην αυτάρκεια και στην ανταλλαγή.
Ελάχιστα επηρεάζεται από το εμπόριο και
τα διακινούμενα εμπορικά είδη».

Within such an economic context, it is difficult to see how a product such as Quaker Oats could have at all infiltrated the rural “periphery” of Greece prior to 1960. But what is of greater interest here is that it was not only – or not primarily – the economic reality that was truly determinant as regards Greek eating habits. Even as Greece in toto was to enter the market economy following the war, it would still be socio-cultural factors which would continue to determine the “reactionary” behaviour of the Greek popular masses to foreign eating habits: as Kamilaki has pointed out, the persistence on traditional eating habits would continue at least up to 1970.

On the other hand, eating habits in the decades following the war could not possibly have been absolutely static: there was certainly a gradual encroachment of the foreign cuisine – the circulation of the 1964 Quaker Oats advertisement testifies to this – and it is precisely such encroachment which constituted the terrain of cultural struggle we are speaking of. Yet another source examining the changing eating habits of Greeks places greater emphasis on such encroachment – according to a text entitled «Η διατροφή στην Ελλάδα» (cf. http://www.bestrong.org.gr, 28.3.2014), we read:

«Από τη δεκαετία του 1960 και εξής,
σημειώθηκαν στην Ελλάδα ταχύτατες
μεταβολές, οι οποίες άλλαξαν ριζικά
την εικόνα των διατροφικών αλλαγών
στη χώρα».

We may end our discussion of the 1964 Quaker Oats advertisement by summarizing our position as follows:

• The overtly “provocative-interventionist” discourse of this advertisement, which took the form of asking Greeks to imitate set stages of “cultural development”, would not have spoken to the “Amalia-type”: social engineering, and especially any cultural surgical engineering, could only have found itself operating in a superficially manufactured social vacuum – both Skinner (the question of “conditioning”) and Rostow (the question of “imitation”) saw all of reality in one-dimensional terms, as did Adorno and company.  Amalia Eleftheriadou’s epoch, which was one of innocent hope and gradually materializing aspirations, was a self-determining historical course moving according to its own relative autonomy. Yes, the time would come when the “Amalia-type” (and especially the offspring of such “type”), would take to thoroughly enjoying their Oats breakfast – but that would be a ‘time’ belonging to and created by that “type” (and which be the “type” belonging to the Greek middle class milieu). On the other hand, the Quaker Oats company had the luxury, the patience, and the expertise to wait for such ‘time’ of such “type”. That much is true.
• The concern of the Quaker Oats discourse for the health of the Greek population, as also for the latter’s fight against disease, could have attracted the attention of the “Amalia-type” and especially that of the Greek parent of the 1960’s. And that, quite despite the hidden ideological agenda of the Quaker Oats discourse, something which would largely have been ignored by the Greek consumer. Still, the initially limited economic capacities of the Greek popular masses would, in the early-1960’s, have made Quaker Oats a “luxury” for their kids. But people would jump to the opportunity of buying such healthily nourishing product for their children when they would attain the economic capacity to do so. They would do this for real reasons and not at all in response to whatever Quaker Oats promotional discourse (unless such discourse limited itself to the purely ‘informational’ function).
• Yet still, the Greek popular masses would not easily yield to advertizing discourse which doubted the “universality” of the Greek traditional cuisine – if there was one element which truly linked the Quaker Oats products to the Greek cuisine, it was that both included the use of corn as a basic ingredient, and Greeks would come to a gradual realization of that fact, and especially so when their family budget would allow them to come to such a realization. This would of course finally bridge the gap between the US and the Greek eating traditions.
• The bridging of such gap would mean that the Greek popular masses would ultimately come to accept the Quaker Oats diet, but that would constitute an assimilation of such foreign diet to the Greek traditional cuisine. This would mean the maintenance of some “balance” within the socio-cultural practices (and therefore the eating practices) of the Greek popular masses. This “balance” would be the natural creation of the Greek popular masses themselves, and it would be effected in the face of the inherent “imbalances” inscribed in the discourse of advertisements such as that of the 1964 Quaker Oats advertisement.

……………………………………

The Quaker Oats advertizing campaign of the 1960’s would mean that the importation of a utility product (food may be taken to be a “utility commodity”) into Greece would directly or indirectly be accompanied by an attempted importation of the ideology of the American way of life. We would, however, also have important cases of advertizing discourse which would attempt to sell the “American Dream” as such. In this case, the “product” was that “Dream”. This could take a variety of forms, but in most cases this would mean an attempt to promote the American way of life through the articulation of what we shall call “cultural brand names”. One such “cultural brand name” in the 1960’s was the case of Frank Sinatra. A consideration of such case, however, would show up the complexity of the issue which has been dubbed “US cultural imperialism”.

On May 8, 1962, the newspaper Kathimerini would publish the following “announcement”-cum-advertisement:

«ΩΔΕΙΟΝ ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΑΤΤΙΚΟΥ
… ΔΥΟ ΜΟΝΑΔΙΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ
ΤΟΥ ΦΡΑΝΚ ΣΙΝΑΤΡΑ… ΥΠΕΡ
ΤΟΥ ΝΟΣΟΚΟΜΕΙΟΥ ΠΑΙΔΩΝ “ΑΓΙΑ
ΣΟΦΙΑ” ΚΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΙΔΙΚΩΝ ΣΤΑΘΜΩΝ
ΤΟΥ ΔΗΜΟΥ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ…
ΑΜΦΟΤΕΡΑΙ ΑΙ ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΕΛΟΥΝ
ΥΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΥΨΗΛΗΝ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑΝ
ΤΗΣ Α.Μ. ΤΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ» (their emph.).

We shall examine this text for two basic reasons: firstly, it constitutes a sample of a 1960’s “announcement” which, while apparently being a mere neutral-sounding statement of a coming “factual event”, it is nonetheless laden with a deep, ideological content – as such, it actually “advertises” such ideological content (and we know that in the period of the 1960’s, many products and services were themselves promoted through factual-sounding articles – op. cit.). Secondly, and much more importantly, this Kathimerini text raises the issue of so-called “US cultural imperialism” (the “American Dream” as a “product” in itself), and the discussion of this phenomenon could serve as a framework for the further understanding of all “provocative-interventionist” advertizing discourse (such as that of the Quaker Oats company).

We may begin with a number of simple preliminary observations. One may say that the “Amalia-type” could probably have received such message of US-originating aid and solidarity with a measure of ambiguity. But further, Amalia Eleftheriadou would most probably have seen Frank Sinatra on the Aliartian cinema screen, or heard his songs on the radio, and she could have been deeply touched by both image and song – this definitely applied to millions of especially young people of various socio-economic backgrounds around the “Western world”. On the other hand, the «ΩΔΕΙΟΝ», the «ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑ» of the Greek Queen, etc., would be a world foreign to Amalia’s own everyday life. We may even speak here of two “parallel lives”: that of the Greek “élites” and that of a working youth (the “Amalia-type” and its male counterparts) gradually forging its own individual and collective identity.

But the question of ambiguity needs to be explained. It would be an over-simplification to suppose that the Greek popular masses simply rejected US material aid – such as the building of a new branch of the hospital «ΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΦΙΑ» or of an Athens nursery – due to their “anti-Americanism”. The latter cannot be taken for granted and itself needs to be understood in terms of the specific forms which it took (or did not). Further, while the «ΩΔΕΙΟΝ» and the social world which surrounded it did constitute the world of the “élite”, it will not do to suppose that the “parallel lives” we have spoken of were completely insulated unto themselves: the phenomenon of Frank Sinatra cut across all class and culture lines.

One could simply go around all such rather uncomfortable problems and as simply assert – as do so many contemporary commentators – of the veritable gate-crashing of the Greek socio-cultural context by the all-powerful forces of the “American way of life”. Just one such sample of the poverty of over-simplification is represented by the following quote:

«Η πληθυσμιακή έκρηξη μεγαλώνει την
αγορά. Καταλύτης η αμερικάνικη βοήθεια
και το “Σχέδιο Μάρσαλ” ανοίγουν το δρόμο
για την “Ανασυγκρότηση”, και μαζί, το
έδαφος για την εισβολή των αμερικάνικων
προϊόντων – και του αμερικάνικου τρόπου
ζωής» (cf. “diafimisi” – http://diafimisi.
wikispaces.com., op. cit., p. 1).

There is some ‘truth’ in such an approach, but it is a one-sided truth which blots out what really happened in Greece in the post-war years as regards the popular masses and the “Amalia-type”. We need to re-examine the impact of the Kathimerini text, and the event it announces to the Greek public, almost from scratch –and we say ‘almost’, because some hard research work has been done in trying to understand the role of US “cultural imperialism” in the Greek context, and which for many such context had been characterized by a Greek “anti-Americanism”. Interestingly, of course, a major paradox has escaped many contemporary analysts: how be it possible that the “American way of life” would come to dominate the Greek people when such people are themselves said to have been dominated by a rampant “anti-Americanism”? The contradiction is a glaring one – we shall try to resolve it by examining the role of what we have called US “cultural brand names” and the inevitable ‘constraints’ which delimited them.

Specifically as regards the Sinatra concerts in 1962 Greece, we need to begin at the beginning. The Sinatra concerts in Athens, which took place on May 18-19, had been preceded by a series of negotiations between Sinatra himself and Theodoros Kritas, who acted as ‘go-between’. Sinatra had insisted that he sing at the «ΩΔΕΙΟΝ ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΑΤΤΙΚΟΥ», a place then only meant for classical theatre companies, and Kritas had pointed this out to Sinatra. The latter, most probably so as to fulfill his own personal ambitions, had offered to provide all the gate money from his two concerts for philanthropic purposes, so long as he was allowed to sing at that «ΩΔΕΙΟΝ». We can already begin to suspect some tinge of all-American arrogance here: Sinatra presumed he had the power (which he in fact did) to both override Greek formal traditions and at the same time pose as “philanthropist” to the poor Greek people, something in line with the ideology which had accompanied The Marshall Plan (cf. Barry Machado, In search of a usable past: The Marshall Plan and Postwar Reconstruction Today, George Marshall Foundation, 2007). Kritas himself, in an article published in To Vima (cf. http://www.tovima.gr, 17.5.1998), had this to say of what had preceded Sinatra’s coming to Athens:

«[Ο Σινάτρα]… ήταν πρόθυμος να διαθέσει
όλες τις εισπράξεις και από τις δύο συναυλίες
για φιλανθρωπικούς  σκοπούς… Μετέφερα
την πρόταση του Σινάτρα στον δήμαρχο της
Αθήνας Άγγελο Τσουκαλά και στον πρόεδρο
του Νοσοκομείου Παίδων “Αγία Σοφία” Σπύρο
Δοξιάδη. Τους πρότεινα να ανελάμβαναν να
εξασφαλίσουν το Ηρώδειο για τις συναυλίες του
Σινάτρα και σε αντιπαροχή θα έπαιρναν τις
εισπράξεις. Έτσι κι έγινε. Εξασφάλισαν την άδεια
για την παραχώρηση του Ηρώδειου, τις δε μισές
εισπράξεις ο δήμαρχος τις διέθεσε για να κτισθεί
ένας παιδικός σταθμός, τις άλλες δε μισές ο
Δοξιάδης για μια καινούργια πτέρυγα στο
νοσοκομείο “Αγία Σοφία”…».

We dwell on this series of events because these encapsulate the real paradoxes of the issue of “US cultural imperialism” and which must have provoked the “thought and attention” of the Greek popular masses and especially that of the young “Amalia-type”. The paradoxes involved constituted a cluster of tangible contradictions all of which intertwined within themselves and which need to be carefully unraveled if we are to grasp the mind of the “Amalia-type”. The latter would inevitably be beset with a number of understandably mixed feelings – for instance, the young Aliartian lady would have asked herself:

• What are the limits to such all-powerful arrogance which gives this American the right to violate the formal traditions of a nation, such “nation” presumably possessing the sole authority over the usage of what belongs to its ancient heritage, i.e. the usage of the emblematic «ΩΔΕΙΟΝ ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΑΤΤΙΚΟΥ»? Such willful violation has never happened before to us: yes, the Germans flew their Nazi flag at the Parthenon, but they only did this with machine guns at hand.
• How is it possible that these Americans – a naïve and barbaric people devoid of history and tradition – actually buy their way into our ancient monuments and use them as they wish? To hell with these arrogant, materialistic bastards.
• But surely the building of an all-new branch of «Αγία Σοφία» is of a definite benefit to the people of Greece? All of us Boeotians have no choice but rush to Athens hospitals when we fall sick – this American shows concern for our real, everyday problems, and especially as regards the health and welfare of Greek kids.
• And listen to this great singer’s beautiful voice! He can easily be compared to our own great Kazantzidis – in fact, rumour has it that Sinatra and Kazantzidis have been secretly communicating with one another. And the American, it is said, looks up to the magic voice of our own Greek singer, and asks for his advice on singing techniques. Well, he can’t be that arrogant, surely.
• And listen to those Sinatra lyrics – although I can hardly understand most of what he says, he seems to be singing directly for me. Thank heavens that Domino and Vendeta and those other magazines take the trouble to translate foreign lyrics into Greek. Sinatra’s songs make me feel proud of my youth and feminine beauty. They are so full of promise and passion.
• And yet, I’d never be able to pass the gates of the «ΗΡΩΔΕΙΟ»: I have neither the time nor the money. “Our” Queen, of course, shall be there, but who cares for the hypocrisies of “high society”. I care about me.
• I don’t really trust the Americans and I don’t much trust the Queen. But I do trust my transistor and I shall enjoy my Sinatra popular melodies.

These would be the mixed feelings and thoughts of the “Amalia-type” as regards the Sinatra concert. Although not at all couched in the real language of such “type”, such questions as we have enumerated them do give us some idea of the type of mentality and sentiment one would expect of a young, fairly well-educated working lady of the 1960’s. It is true, firstly, that the use of the «ΗΡΩΔΕΙΟ» by a pop singer (as was Sinatra) had as yet been unheard of (one in any case sees this from the tit-for-tat bargaining that had to go on between Sinatra himself and Kritas). Secondly, most Greeks would have been unnerved by the miracles that the all-powerful dollar could work (as we shall further see below, many Greeks would see the dollar as a “symbol of evil”). Thirdly, and in contrast to all this, most Greeks would certainly have appreciated whatever economic aid, there being the urgent need for the actual re-construction of their country. Fourthly, and as regards the supposed Kazantzidis-Sinatra relationship, fabricated truths or mere rumours were being spread by the Greek press – and perhaps this was happening at the time so as to help “build bridges” between Greeks and Americans. But maybe such bridges were not really needed because, fifthly, masses of people in Greece had already identified themselves with the popular lyrics of the Sinatra songs. And finally, people had already “placed” Sinatra in their everyday cultural “space”, not by listening to him sing in places such as the «ΗΡΩΔΕΙΟ», but through their own radio (or through records) at home or wherever they happened to socialize. Before we embark on an analysis of this contradictory state of affairs, it would be of some interest to dwell briefly on a few extra observations regarding the Sinatra concerts as such.

Sinatra’s presence in Greece had stirred up a whole lot of noise in the Greek press: there were reports on how he had wanted and managed to have a whole hotel complex to himself, how he had met and socialized with Greek Royalty, and so on. The two concerts had themselves created a certain atmosphere in Athens and thereabouts: Sinatra’s voice, it was said, was actually heard even in the area of Piraeus itself (although this too may have been yet another press-instigated rumour). Importantly, the concerts were part of a wider Sinatra project to help the peoples of post-war Europe, and their “philanthropic” intention had been made clear by the manner in which they had been promoted across Europe – they had constituted the “All (of) God’s Children Tour” (cf., inter alia, https://www.setlist.fm). This had been related to the so-called “Spirit of Sinatra” (perhaps reminiscent of the all-American, Coca-Cola-created Santa Claus, itself a benign “Spirit”): it was such “Spirit” which was the agent of a series of benefit shows for the Greek war relief project. Following the May 1962 concerts, Frank Sinatra was to receive the ‘Gold Key’ of the City of Athens, something which could be interpreted as a quasi-political act. It would perhaps be of some interest to note here, as does To Vima (op. cit.), that the “services” of such “Spirit” would, by 1985, be fully acknowledged by the US Administration – as the newspaper wrote in 1998:

«Το 1985 του απονεμήθηκε το Μετάλλιο
της Ελευθερίας από τον τότε πρόεδρο και
φίλο του Ρόναλντ Ρίγκαν».

It is also of interest to note that, in the course of the 1962 concert at the «ΗΡΩΔΕΙΟ», Sinatra would at some point blurt out the following little ‘admonition’ (but which must surely be interpreted as some sort of all-American ‘joke’):

«Τόσα χρήματα πήρατε από το Σχέδιο
Μάρσαλ και αφήσατε το θέατρο σ’ αυτά
τα χάλια!» (cf. To Vima, op.cit.).

The Sinatra remark was most probably a cute way of remarking on the ancient (as opposed to “modern”) grandeur of the place. But he was at the same time reminding Greeks of how much “modern” America had been a benefactor of the Greek people (and which would of course include his own “philanthropic” gesture towards Greek children). Very indirectly, he might also have been pointing to the state of Greek material conditions at the time («σ’ αυτά τα χάλια»). In any case, the “Spirit of Sinatra” style is here somewhat reminiscent of a paternalistic arrogance meted out to underlings in need of the “provocative- interventionism” one detected in certain advertizing discourse (the joke itself was of course “provocative” in its sub-surface semantics). Sinatra could both acknowledge the glorious ancient heritage of Greeks and at the same time remind them of how only “the power of the dollar” could guarantee the reconstruction of their country as a whole (and which suggested an inevitable “intervention”).

It is important to remember that while all this was happening at the «ΗΡΩΔΕΙΟ», the “Spirit of Sinatra” – and especially what we shall call the “cultural brand name” of Sinatra as global US “star” – was hovering all over the country at the time (both preceding, and during and well after the concerts of 1962). We know that at the same time as the concerts were happening, the Greek people were also receiving an all-round bombardment of Sinatra films. For instance, it was in 1962 that the Western Comedy “Sergeants 3”, and which starred Sinatra, was on at the cinemas (its Greek title being «Οι 3 Λοχίες»). It was also in 1962 that Greeks watched “The Manchurian Candidate”, again starring Sinatra. Of course, both the “Sinatra Spirit” and the Sinatra “star” as a “cultural brand name” were hovering, not only all over Greece, but over the whole globe (at least as regards the “developed” or “developing” world). And it was explicitly that very “globalism” of Frank Sinatra that was “sold” to the Greek popular masses. The promoters of Sinatra films in Greece would assume – and perhaps rightly so – that Greeks would not want to be ‘left out’ from the general trends of the “modern world”, something which would have definitely applied to Greek youth across most social strata. We may observe such “globalist” orientation (to be discussed in some more detail further below) in the following advertizing discourse promoting a Sinatra film comedy in 1966 – and which ran as follows:

«Όλη η Υφήλιος γελάει…
με την τελευταία ΥΠΕΡ-ΕΥΘΥΜΗ
ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΙΑ
της
ΓΟΥΩΡΝΕΡ ΜΠΡΟΣ (WB)
“ΠΩΣ ΝΑ ΠΕΤΥΧΕΤΕ
→… ΣΤΟΝ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟ ΓΑΜΟ ΣΑΣ
→… ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΣ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ
*MARRIAGE ON THE ROCKS*
ΕΓΧΡΩΜΟΝ – ΠΑΝΑΒΙΖΙΟΝ
ΠΑΡΑΓΩΓΗΣ 1965-1966
Το ΠΩΣ…;
Θα σας το πουν
ο ΦΡΑΝΚ ΣΙΝΑΤΡΑ… [etc.]»
(cf. newspaper cutting, circa 1966,
name of paper unknown).

While, as we have suggested, the promoters of this Sinatra film aimed at tapping the proclivities of the Greek masses for the “modern-global”, the degree of their success as promoters and discourse-creators would be delimited by a number of factors which they would unconsciously ignore, and which relates to the complex issue of “US cultural imperialism” and its relevant effectivity. While the film itself could have been enjoyed by the Greek cinema audiences, this would be so despite – not because of – the particular promotional discourse. We may here simply consider a couple of aspects of the advertisement. Firstly, it assumes that the American sense of humour («ΥΠΕΡ-ΕΥΘΥΜΗ») was a necessary expression of “global humour” («Όλη η Υφήλιος γελάει»), and which itself supposedly ‘spoke’ to the specifically Greek popular sense of the comical. No serious research work has been undertaken on the post-war Greek taste pertaining to humour – but if one simply peruses through the popular publications of the period, one realizes that humorous texts and cartoons mainly (though not exclusively) commented on themes sprouting from the Geek context: these would address themes such as the advent of young foreign tourists in Greece; the clash between traditional and modern habits; the new sexual consciousness, etc.). Secondly, the advertisement focuses (as does the film itself) on the ways and idiosyncrasies of the American marriage relationship, and assumes that Greeks’ experience of marriage and divorce could be reduced to that of the American way of doing things. We shall have to come back to a discussion of this particular Sinatra film, but one can already sense the cultural tension that could have characterized whatever attempt was being made to reduce the “American way of life” (or the “global” style) to the realities of marriage in 1960’s Greece.

And yet, it was just such “provocative-interventionism” that hovered over the 1960’s Greek cultural context, and which allows us to speak of the phenomenon of “brand-building” as regards US “stars” such as Frank Sinatra. More specifically, it allows us to speak of Frank Sinatra the “star” as a “cultural brand” and which may be seen as one important aspect of US “cultural brand-building” at the time and with specific repercussions on that Greek cultural context. Generally as regards the concept of “brand-building”, we may note that such process was never the exclusive child of some mastermind conspiratorially operating behind the backs of the public – we may simply remind ourselves here of what had happened to the “Philips” brand in America itself (op. cit. re. “Philishave”), where we had a clear case of brand destruction, and which meant both a de-branding and a re-branding of all Philips products in the USA, given the ‘patriotism’ of at least some American consumers. In the case of Sinatra as “cultural brand” operating in Greece, we shall see that there was no need for any brand destruction as such (at least for some period of time), and that for the simple reason that the “Amalia-type” – which was busy “building” itself as the new middle class milieu – was able to shape the Sinatra “brand’ in its very own terms. If, in other words, Frank Sinatra was being manufactured as a “cultural brand name” for, inter alia, the “Amalia-type”, the latter was re-manufacturing such “brand” in its own consciousness in a manner which suited the needs and tastes of its milieu.

But such ultimate re-manufacturing on the part of the “Amalia-type” was not to be much evident in the manner in which the Sinatra image was being promoted by popular publications in the 1960’s and 1970’s, where we would have a particularly “imperialistically provocative-interventionism” in the discourse of such promotion (though here too there would be, as we shall see, serious internal contradictions within Greek political discourse pertaining to US “cultural brands”). As in other cases discussed above, the Sinatra “brand name” was most often promoted, not through specifically designated advertisements as such, but through factual texts reporting on the lives of American “stars”, thus supposedly achieving a maximum communicative effectivity of awe amongst the readers of popular publications. In 1965, for instance, the periodical Vendeta would present Sinatra as an almost other-worldly “star” belonging to the “royalty” of Hollywood – its article on Sinatra and the other select few would be entitled as follows:

«Οι 10 “Βασιλείς του ΧΟΛΛΥΓΟΥΝΤ”…»
(cf. τεύχ. 6ον, 18.6.1965, p. 42).

If Greeks had their “own” Royal Family, there were at the same time those other “stars” of a “Royal Family” reigning at a global level from their Hollywoodian palaces and meant to define the cultural tastes of the rest of the world. We know, of course, that such other-worldly all-American “Royalty” would ultimately itself have to bend to the changing tastes of youth culture, and which by the early-1970’s would lead to a relative peripheralization of the Sinatra “cultural brand”. Thus, the process of brand destruction (or, as we shall more accurately name it ‘brand fatigue’ below) would gradually come to apply to the case of Sinatra as well, especially at a global level. But in any case the “myth” of Sinatra, manufactured in the 1960’s in Greece, would continue to feverishly reproduce itself at the time. One reason for this was the material success of Frank Sinatra himself, which would obviously appeal to the materialistic culture of the Greek up-and-coming middle class milieu. To the extent that Sinatra represented the “American Dream”, this would undergo an extrapolation whereby the Greek middle class milieu would set for itself the task of materializing its own “Greek Dream”. The “Amalia-type” could only but empathize with the great ‘rags-to-riches’ Sinatra story. Thereby, the “provocative-interventionism” of whatever “US cultural imperialism” would be re-translated in its own, Greek terms, and thus turn the Sinatra “brand name” on its head. In 1965, the periodical Domino film would perpetuate what it called «Ο μύθος του Σινάτρα», and would perpetuate such myth by emphasizing the man’s almost limitless material power:

«… όταν θυμώνει αγοράζει…
ουρανοξύστες»
(cf. τεύχ. 389, 7.8.1965, p. 23).

Such mythical material power would have made as little sense to the “Amalia-type” as would the labyrinthine power of a giant such as the Philips company. But, as mentioned, Amalia Eleftheriadou and the middle class milieu which she embryonically expressed, would naturally have appreciated the fact that someone as poor and ‘insignificant’ as was herself could actually move up the social ladder of wealth and stardom. This was a myth closely attached to the Sinatra “cultural brand name” – and yet, it was a myth which bore its seeds of social truth. We know that very many Greek film stars and singers had themselves started off as real have-nots and were able to finally reach the pinnacle of stardom and wealth (Kazantzidis being just one such case). Newspapers and periodicals in the 1960’s would hammer away at this Sinatra ‘rags-to-riches’ myth, it being a concomitant part of a “cultural market idea” which subsumed within itself both a positive material content (the wish for and possibility of social success) and a negative ideological content (provocative “US cultural imperialism”). We present here just one sample promoting such myth of a ‘rags-to-riches’ millionaire “star”, and which was published in the daily Akropolis in 1965:

«ΜΙΣΟΣ ΑΙΩΝ ΖΩΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΘΡΙΑΜΒΩΝ…
Πριν από πενήντα ακριβώς χρόνια, στις
13 Δεκεμβρίου του 1915, στην μικρή τότε
πολίχνη Χόμποκεν, στις όχθες του ποταμού
Χιούστον, γεννιόταν ένα μικροσκοπικό
αγόρι. Ο πατέρας του ήταν Σικελός και η
μητέρα του μία χωρική της περιοχής,
πάμπτωχοι και σχεδόν αγροίκοι, που ελάχιστη
προσοχή και φροντίδα έδειξαν για το νέο
παιδί που απέκτησαν, ένα ακόμη αριθμό
στην μία δωδεκάδα που είχαν ήδη τότε…
Το φτωχό εκείνο Σικελόπουλο που γεννήθηκε
χωρίς μοίρα στον ήλιο στις όχθες ενός αμερικανικού
ποταμού, σήμερα είναι ένας από τους
λαμπρότερους και πιο πλούσιους καλλιτέχνες των
Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών και τ’ όνομά του είναι
γνωστό σε κάθε γωνιά της Οικουμένης. Γιατί
πρόκειται απλούστατα, για τον Φρανκ Σινάτρα»
(cf. Akropolis, 15.12.1965, p. 2).

This myth of «Φράνκυ», albeit promoted through a discourse of “provocative- interventionism”, would definitely have ‘spoken’ to the imagination of the “Amalia-type”. And yet that which ‘spoke’ was a “US cultural brand name” which would ultimately culminate in one mighty brand of brands, i.e. the “Frank Sinatra Enterprises”. It was precisely that aspect of the Sinatra “cultural brand” – i.e. that it constituted an American cultural export – which would yield a negative ideological content in the whole promotional campaign surrounding Sinatra the “star”. As a cultural export, the “brand” was definitely expressive of what has been called “US cultural imperialism”. And Frank Sinatra had been a representative of such “cultural imperialism” because both as singer and as actor he had come to embody the “All-American Boy” carrying the ideological values of the “All-American way of life”. It has been suggested that even his globally popular songs were part and parcel of “All-American music”. And one may go even further and suggest that the specific form of “entertainment” which the Sinatra shows offered were themselves immersed in American pro-capitalist ideological content, and which would have to lead us to a re-evaluation of what we have said above regarding the new sense or new wave of post-war entertainment in Greece (cf. our discussion of Panselinos, Papanoutsos, etc., above). In fact, one could even point to Sinatra’s famous 1969 song, “My Way”, and suggest that the lyrics of such discourse were merely promoting private enterprise and therefore “capitalism”. Ultimately, such argumentation would continue, the Sinatra-induced style of “entertainment” would be a propagandistic “interventionism” in the lives of a people who had displayed strong signs of collective action through the popular ranks of ΕΑΜ-ΕΛΑΣ, and whose destiny was not to “do it” in their own “individual way” but rather to establish a “popular democracy” in their own country.

Such an approach, which has of course belonged to the Greek “Left”, secretes an orrery of confusions. To begin with, any suggestion of a successful US “intervention” in the way Greeks entertained themselves does not explain how such “imperialist interventionism” was able to simply “dissolve” the as yet quite recent ΕΑΜ-ΕΛΑΣ experience of collectivism. But much more importantly, it cannot reconcile the fact that, while large sections of the Greek popular masses had endorsed the Sinatra songs, they would nonetheless continue to maintain strong anti-American sentiments.

Now, the mere fact that the Greek popular masses would persist in such sentiments clearly suggests that the manner in which they ‘received’ and “lived” the Sinatra “cultural brand name” was not at all in the manner expected of them by whatever political/propagandistic intentions on the part of the US establishment. What the “Left” would fail to understand was that the Greek people would adapt their love for Sinatra songs to their own life-experiences and to their own popular consciousness, and which was a consciousness of impulsive sentiments against, inter alia, certain things American. This would check or redefine whatever intended policies of US “imperialistic interventionism”.

But such popular impulsive sentiments, much to the chagrin of the “Left”, would have little to do with Party theoretical dogmas and whatever strictly political systems of thought of the ΕΔΑ-type “intellectual”. If there was any anti-American sentiment in the consciousness of the “Amalia-type” – as there was – this had little to do with whatever “-ism”. The “Amalia-type” consciousness, for instance, would not be characterized by any dogmatic aversion to the function of American multinational corporations in Greece: its thinking would not be informed by any concern for the tax-evasion of such companies or by the manner in which these would “exploit” the “proletariat”. What concerned the “Amalia-type”, as also the rest of the working people of Boeotia, was the basic question of landing a job – or otherwise abandoning everything for, above all, America itself (mass immigration to the USA).

And yet, this essentially “apolitical” popular anti-American impulse was such as to neutralize whatever “US cultural imperialism” was embedded in the Sinatra “cultural brand”. Such neutralization would be clearly verified by events in the 1980’s, and which would show that “brands” such as that of Frank Sinatra had done nothing to peripheralize or check Greek anti-American feelings. Of course, by the 1980’s, such popular sentiments would be expressed via the Party Political System (especially but not exclusively through ΠΑΣΟΚ), but this would only be due to the ‘weakness’ of Greek civil society and the veritable domination of the Party System. Giannis Boulgaris has analyzed this in some detail – inter alia, he writes:

«Από την πρώτη φάση της Μεταπολίτευσης είχε
γίνει σαφές ότι τα κόμματα θα αποτελούσαν τους
πρωταγωνιστές της Δημοκρατίας που γεννιόταν.
Η διαπίστωση μπορεί να γίνει πιο κατηγορηματική:
 η πολιτική αντιπροσώπευση της κοινωνίας θα
 μονοπωλούνταν από τα κόμματα … η κοινωνία των
πολιτών ήταν αδύναμη»
(cf. Γιάννης Βούλγαρης, Η Ελλάδα της
 Μεταπολίτευσης,Θεμέλιο, 2001, pp. 43-44,
his emph.).

What had happened by the 1980’s period was that the Party Political System had usurped a pre-existing social sentiment of anti-Americanism which was not strictly “political” (or “party political”) per se: such sentiment would characterize the majority of the popular masses whether these belonged to the “Left”, the “Right”, the “Centre”, or somewhere in between all three such ‘poles’ (for anti-American feelings amongst the popular “Right”, cf. Boulgaris, op. cit., p. 221, where he refers to such anti-American «δημόσιο αίσθημα» permeating that of the so-called «συντηρητικής κοινής γνώμης»).

One needs to fully understand the very specific sense in which the Greek popular masses would nurture an “apolitical” anti-Americanism which would allow them to both relish the lyrics of a Sinatra song (or the taste of Quaker Oats) and at the same time not allow themselves to be “alienated” by the Sinatra “cultural brand” of the 1960’s and 1970’s, or fall victim to some “All-American style of life”. And this would further allow us to come to some understanding of how the “Amalia-type” would relate and respond to the “provocative- interventionism” of promotional/advertizing discourse as a whole.

What was that content of grassroots consciousness amongst vast sections of the Greek popular masses which would allow them to both listen to Sinatra and yet remain impervious to whatever elements of an “imperialistically”-inclined “provocative-interventionism”? We know that such a pertinent question cannot be answered unless one undertakes hard research work in the field of social history or social anthropology, and in Greece the discipline of any historical sociology itself remains underdeveloped. And yet, Zinovia Lialiouti, in her study, “Anti-Americanism in Greece (1947-1967): Criticizing the American way of life” (cf. www.Ise.ac.uk, 2007) presents us with an excellent description (not, however, an analysis) of such anti-American grassroots consciousness. Based on a variety of primary sources (the press of the period), she tries to delineate such consciousness in a manner which verifies that the anti-Americanism in Greeks was a cultural impulse, not a political ideology, let alone a theory, and which therefore allows us to subsume such impulse under the rubric of the “Amalia-type” consciousness.

Lialiouti’s research work allows her to draw a number of conclusions which underline the complexity and internally contradictory nature of such Greek grassroots consciousness – some of her basic observations include the following:

• She writes: “There is, of course, admiration and envy for the ‘American dream’, but distrust remains” (p. 3, my emph.). We have already mentioned the materialistic culture of the Greek middle class milieu, and which would explain this “admiration” and “envy”. And yet, this would not mean that the “Amalia-type” would blindly and unilaterally slide into the so-called “one-dimensional” model (Marcuse et al) of the “American way of life”. Lialiouti’s primary sources show that Greek popular consciousness would, when all was said and done, “distrust” such way of life. As interesting, Lialiouti’s examination of the Greek press at the time, with its various ideological orientations, shows that such “distrust” applied to both the “Left” and the “Right”, as also the “Centre”. Such “distrust”, therefore, was not informed by a particular political ideology, it being a rampant feeling rooted in the socio-cultural practices of the Greek social formation.
• The Greek popular masses, Lialiouti finds, actually looked down on the Americans as a mass of people devoid of history. She writes: “The Greeks view this lack of [New World] history as some sort of cultural inferiority” (p. 4, my emph.). And she goes on to point out that Greeks would see Americans as “inferior” given their lack of any long-standing (or ancient) American tradition. This is presumably an incredible point to make, but would be so only for an outsider: Greeks who lived the 1960’s and 1970’s in Greece know full well how much they would all scoff at the Americans as a people, or even as a savage people. We know that villagers at the Boeotian village of Domvraina, just by way of an example, would mock and deride Greek-Americans who came to Greece on holiday or who had simply decided to return for good to their motherland. All such people would be dubbed «χαζοαμερικάνοι», or «βουτυρομπεμπέδες», etc., by the natives. But it remains an incredible point if one contrasts this real, grassroots ego-boosted attitude to that of the “provocative- interventionism” and the “imperialist” haughtiness of advertizing discourse promoting products such as “MELTEX”, “KAMELIA”, “PHILISHAVE” or “QUAKER OATS”. We have seen that Greeks would resist the consumption of foreign foods given the established existence of a native cuisine rooted in socio-cultural practices which expressed a long-standing history and tradition (the Eastern Byzantine, the ancient Attican) – they could only but look down on food products devoid of such history and tradition, and thus stigmatized by what Lialiouti calls the “cultural inferiority” of Americans. And yet, multinational giants which insisted on promoting their products via a discourse of “provocative-interventionism” seemed to be unaware of such Greek grassroots sentiment (we know that ΕΔΕΕ would later try to correct precisely that). It is impossible to understand the role of so-called “US cultural imperialism” (or the Sinatra “cultural brand-building”) without also considering the inbred feeling of Greek “supremacy” vis-à-vis the “All-American way of life”. Put otherwise, it would be impossible to understand how the “Amalia-type” would relate to “provocative-interventionism” without keeping in mind that the “imperialist” arrogance of foreign giants would unknowingly be confronted by the assumed “cultural superiority” of native Greeks themselves. The latent clash between these two strains – that of certain foreign advertizing discourse and that of Greek popular sentiment – would be an inexorable reality: but there would be a tit-for-tat relationship between them (as we shall see in the case of the Sinatra “cultural brand” itself).
• Closely related to the above, but going some steps further, Lialiouti finds that Greeks considered Americans as an “extremely naive” people, but who could at the same time be “cynical”, believing that the ends justify the means (p. 13). As regards the “naïveté” of the American personality, this could somehow relate to what Lialiouti has referred to as the deemed “cultural inferiority” of Americans and the poverty of their historical experience. Such presumed “naiveté” would often be stretched to the point of considering Americans as being inherently “stupid”. For many native Greeks, the Americans (their Presidents included) would be people who could hardly chew gum and walk at the same time – the latter joke was especially meant to describe Gerald Ford’s IQ, who became U.S. President in 1974.  On the other hand, the presumed “cynicism” of Americans – and which would be a cause of the “distrust” that Lialiouti has noted – was based on an understanding that Americans would do anything so as to achieve wealth and power. Greeks were aware of the rumour that even their beloved Sinatra had made it to the top through his associations with the Mafia world (his origins were in any case Sicilian). And all Greeks knew of the Watergate scandal and of American world politics (Vietnam included): whether belonging to the “Left” or the “Right”, Greeks would see the ‘corruption” of both American politicians and businessmen. Lialiouti’s examination of the Greek press, covering only the period up until 1967, nonetheless shows us that such Greek sentiments had prefigured those of the 1970’s and 1980’s and would cut right across all political ideologies. The question that naturally arises is the extent to which the “Amalia-type” would have been convinced by “provocative- interventionist” advertizing discourse created by such “naïve” fools and dangerous cynics. But the extent of her acceptance or non-acceptance of such discourse tells us little about whether she would choose to ultimately buy or not buy a packet of Quaker Oats.
• Closely related to the issue of American “cynicism”, Lialiouti also observes that the vast majority of the Greek popular masses viewed the dollar as a “symbol of evil” (pp. 10-11). This all-pervading sentiment could only but have checked whatever effects might have been intended by advertisers who overtly emphasized the “Americanism” of the product being promoted (as in the case of Quaker Oats). As we shall see further below, the Greek popular masses would ‘denude’ the Sinatra “US cultural brand” of much of the American “evil” which it denoted and merely keep for themselves that part of the Sinatra cultural phenomenon which expressed them as Greeks, and especially as the young “romantic individual” type of Greek (cf. our paper on “Romanticism” as an ideology of the 1960’s).
• American “evil” would also be related to the promotion of “criminality” by Hollywoodian films. Lialiouti summarizes her findings on this matter as follows: “Hollywood is considered to be one of the causes of criminality and both the press of the Centre and the press of the Left suggests that the government should forbid the import of these films… a journalist [of Avgi, 1956] describes a film with gangsters and Frank Sinatra starring: “on the screen … the wrecks of the American way of life…” [etc.]…”. (pp. 23-24). Generally, both the press and public sentiment were of the view that it is the “law of the jungle” which characterized the “American way of life” and that films such as those starring Sinatra were initiating Greek youth to a lifestyle of “gangsterism”. We know of course that the “Right” was itself against “gangsterism” and “teddyboyism” and the ΕΡΕ Government would pass the well-known and rather controversial Law 4000 against «Τεντιμποϊσμό» in 1958 (cf. quotes from Boeotian newspapers above). Now, to the extent that elements of “teddyboyism” were definitely evident amongst sections of Greek youth, could we say that the latter had themselves adopted “Americanism” as a way of life, and had thus fallen victim to variations of the Sinatra “cultural brand’? Nothing could be further from the truth. We may here briefly consider the Fanis character mentioned above (cf. N. Nikolaides, Ο οργισμένος Βαλκάνιος, op. cit.): if the “teddyboy” Fanis would adopt “The Wild One” as one of his heroes, he would do so, not because he had been “Americanized”, but because such symbol was against the US establishment itself, as it was against all establishments. As a Greek youth, the “teddyboy” Fanis was experimenting in ways which would help him to re-define his relationship to the State, and would be making use of symbols such as Marlon Brando, James Dean and Che Guevara, all of whom were distinctly anti-American establishment. And it is perhaps as important to stress that the “Fanis-type” was not at all a carbon-copy reproduction of his anti-American “Cool Hand Luke” symbols: the Greek youth had hardly any idea of what a supermarket looked like, which would set him apart from the anti-Americanism of “The Wild One” (Nikolaides, op. cit., p. 120), and he would always remain emotionally attached to his family, despite tensions, something which would again set him apart from “The Wild One” (Nikolaides, pp. 94, 180, etc.). In any case, if there was any one “type” of 1960’s Greek who would be radically opposed to the All-American “provocative-interventionism” of whatever advertizing discourse, that type would have been the “Fanis-type”. And if Greek popular sentiment would be anti-American because Hollywood glorified “gangsterism”, the “Fanis-type” would be as anti-American, though in his own way and for his own particular reasons, all of which were related to the post-war “youthful revolution” taking place both in the USA and Europe.
• According to the Lialiouti research findings, Greek popular sentiment was anti-American because the “American way of life” was also considered to be “morally corrupting” (p. 18). It is such sentiment which is echoed in Matesis’ allegorical novel, Ο Παλαιός των Ημερών (Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, 1994), when he writes: «Είχε εντολή Θεού η κυρα-Μαλαβίτα να τιμωρεί την ασχημία. Και την ανησυχούσε αυτός ο Αμερικανός, ξάδερφός της αυτός, είχε να τον δει από έξι χρόνων αγοράκι, και τώρα είχε επιστρέψει άρρωστος από την Αμερική στο χωριό του, τη Βροντού, και δημιουργούσε ακολασία» (p. 76, my emph., and cf. also p. 91). Such way of life was perceived to be the cause of sexual immorality (the “sexual revolution”), of the generation gap, and of individualism (the latter phenomenon being especially emphasized by the “Left”). The point here is, not whether it was the “American way of life” which was or was not the objective cause behind such phenomena, but that Greek public opinion, in all its contradictory manifestations with respect to such phenomena, would place whatever ‘negative’ symptoms of such practices right at the doorstep of America itself. Apart from the Lialiouti findings, we may here also quote a 1966 text from Apogevmatini which related the “sexual revolution” to the Hollywood film industry (although its approach in this particular case was surprisingly quite mild) – it read as follows: «Ο ΚΙΝΗΜΑΤΟΓΡΑΦΟΣ … απεκάλυψε πρώτος το σεξ, σε όλη την λαμπρότητά του – αν επιτρέπεται η έκφρασης. Είναι περίεργο, αλήθεια, αλλά πρέπει να αναγνωρισθή ότι ο άνθρωπος έλαβε μέρος στην σεξουαλική επανάστασι μέσω της εικόνος. Στην συγκεκριμένη περίπτωσι που αναφέρομε, ο κινηματογράφος, ήταν εκείνος πού άνοιξε τα μάτια του κόσμου… Έτσι, λοιπόν, ο κινηματογράφος εδημιούρησε τις βασίλισσες του σεξ» (cf. Apogevmatini, 31.1.1966, p. 3). This would explain why Greeks were prone to relating “moral corruption” to images shown in Hollywoodian films and which would further boost their distrust of the “American way of life”. Now, as in the case of “criminality” discussed above, we may again raise the question as to whether those actively engaged in the Greek “sexual revolution” were victims of “Americanization” and “US cultural imperialism”. As in the case of “teddyboyism”, the “sexual revolution” was not at all a symptom of “Americanization” as such – quite the opposite: we need to remember that the phenomenon of “Woodstock”, for instance, represented an “alternative culture” (in the Raymond Williams sense) within the so-called “American way of life”. And further, the anti-Vietnam War movement constituted an “oppositional culture” directly questioning US “imperialist” policies. In fact, the problem with the concept of the “American way of life” is that it forgets that, at least as regards the 1960’s and 1970’s in America, there never was any one, monolithic “way of life”. Generally speaking, the American-style “sexual revolution” stood as an “alternative” to or was openly “opposed” to the US “imperialist culture brand-building” which was being exported to the rest of the world. Greek youth who were engaged in their own “sexual revolution” would pick and choose elements from the American, British or French “youth movements” and re-style these according to their own needs and pre-given cultural contexts: the cultural elements they assimilated were such as to supplement the picture of the anti-American sentiments of their parents, though the latter distrusted things American for their very own reasons and which were based on the “moral” sentiments as presented by Lialiouti. This generalized anti-Americanism of the Greek popular masses was therefore a grassroots ideology sub-divided within itself and which would yield the much-despised generation gap. And yet, as discussed above in examining the Greek middle class milieu, such culture gap between age-groups would gradually be bridged with the improvement of material conditions and the rise of a democratized consumerism. Greek 1960’s and 1970’s youth would sense that the new material conditions allowed them to re-define their relation to their body (the “sexual revolution”) and their relation to the State (the “teddyboy” culture) – as such they were the precursors of the Greek middle class milieu which would always remain “distrustful” (Lialiouti) of whatever “All-American” paradigms. The “Amalia-type” does not represent the extremes of so-called “sexual corruption” or of “teddyboy” reaction – but as a mean average “type”, Amalia Eleftheriadou was the spinal cord of “the new” and her sentiments regarding “All-American” paradigms would be of the type described by Lialiouti.
• While, in the 1950’s and 1960’s the Greek older generations were anti-American in sentiment for ethico-cultural reasons, and while Greek youth were anti-American through the anti-establishment paradigms they were adopting, the Political Parties of the period were themselves anti-American specifically as regards their socio-cultural discourse. The “Left” would curse all things American because “Americanism” would be devoid of Marx (or of class consciousness); the “Right” would warn against “Americanism” as a style of life because such life would be devoid of the Christian Orthodox Christ (cf. J.F. Revel & M. McCarthy, Without Marx or Jesus, Paladin, London, 1972). The “Left” would not care less that “The Wild One” stood against the US status quo – Marlon Brando was not representative of the “proletarian” type. The “Right” would of course emphasize that the USA represented the “Free World” but would reject the immorality of Hollywood films, these running, as they did, against the ethics of the Greek Orthodox Church. On this point at least, the work of Lialiouti is excellent: she finds that both the “Left” and the “Right” were anti-American from one common position – that of a “moral conservatism” (p. 20), and which was a dogmatically-based “moralism” that had little to do either with the impulsive sentiments of the public in general or with the social experimentation of Greek youth. Alternatively, while such anti-American “moral conservatism” would not have appealed to the Greek youth, it could have appealed to the older generations, but unless one belonged to the hard core “Left” or “Right”, such an appeal would merely reproduce the impulsive anti-American sentiments of the older generations. With the advent of consumerism, even these older generations would gradually come to abandon most forms of either “Left” or “Right” “moral conservatism”, at times even outdoing even their own children. And yet, the anti-American sentiment would continue to thrive even through to the early-1980’s amongst both old and young, and which would determine the complex relationship between the Greek popular «nous» and whatever “provocative- interventionism” in advertizing discourse and in Sinatra-type “cultural brand-names”.

Specifically as regards the 1960’s Greek (pro-“Free World”) “Right”, we may ourselves add that such “Right” was engaged in an ideological endeavour to actually debunk the Sinatra “cultural brand” and – something which is surely of great interest and which further verifies the Lialiouti findings – to actually debunk the “American way of life” itself. We may consider what the “Right-wing” Apogevmatini had to say of a Sinatra film already referred to above, «Πώς να πετύχετε στο δεύτερο γάμο σας» – it would, in 1966, review this film as follows:

«… μια άκακη σάτιρα μιας ωρισμένης
αμερικανικής οικογένειας και κυρίως
 μιας ωρισμένης αμερικανικής νοοτροπίας.
 … Δεν υπάρχει μήτε ύψος, μήτε βάθος…»
(cf. Apogevmatini, 4.1.1966, p. 2,
my emph.).

That, we need note once more, is the pro-American “Right” talking, and doing so in the very midst of the Cold War: for it, the Sinatra “cultural brand” is the “organ” of a specific “way of life” devoid of whatever “cultural heights” and whatever “cultural depths”. And it is part of a mentality that is ‘specific’ unto itself («μιας ωρισμένης») and therefore not global, let alone Greek.

Such a critical approach on the part of Apogevmatini was certainly not an isolated attack on just this particular Sinatra film. In 1965, to take yet one other sample, the newspaper would as critically review the Sinatra film, “None But The Brave” (Greek title: «Τιτανομαχία στον Ειρηνικό» or «Τιτανομαχία του Ειρηνικού»), and which was produced and directed by Sinatra himself and wherein he starred. The paper would write:

«Η “Τιτανομαχία” είναι ένα μελόδραμα,
χωρίς πολλή φαντασία και χωρίς πρωτοτυπία
… η ταινία δεν έχει μήτε ρυθμό, μήτε νεύρο.
Οι τύποι στρατιωτών και αξιωματικών,
σύμφωνα με τα πιο ευτελή κλου»
(cf. «ΑΠΟΓΕΥΜΑΤΙΝH», 12.10.1965, p. 2).

What we see here is the absolute decimation of the Sinatra “brand name” coming from the “Right”. And it was a triple decimation: Sinatra was being debunked both as producer, and as director, and as star. The manner in which the film presented the US military, it is said, was itself «ευτελής». It is important to note that such an attempt at decimation and brand-destruction was taking place just three years following the 1962 Sinatra concerts in Athens. What the ‘”Right” was in fact doing was attempting to destroy the “brand-image” of an “All-American” giant who happened to be a “philanthropist” willing to help Greek children (“All of God’s Children”) and who, in helping with the “Reconstruction” of war-torn Greece, had received, as mentioned, the ‘Gold Key’ of Athens. But the underlying implications of that ‘specific’ American «νοοτροπία» and that peculiar way of life could not be digested by the Greek “Right”, for reasons already mentioned.

Finally, we may briefly quote that bastion of 1960’s “Right-wing” thought – the Akropolis – simply so as to show how it viewed American films. With specific reference to Hollywood, it wrote:

«… της μπλαζέ και κορεσμένης πλέον
… αμερικανικής κινηματογραφουπόλεως»
(cf. Akropolis, 18.12.1965, p. 2).

But it was not so much what the “Right” or the “Left” thought about America which constituted the real determining force behind anti-American sentiments. Such grassroots sentiments were above all the product of radical differences between Greeks and Americans as regards socio-cultural practices and values, and which may be put down to the radically different histories of these two peoples (though the Americans were more of a ‘melting pot’ of cultures than ‘a people’). Again, Lialiouti’s research work allows her to draw the following interesting conclusion – as she puts it:

“The Greek dignity (‘filotimo’), and the
inability of Americans to understand it,
becomes the dividing line between the
two people” (p. 14, my emph.).

It would be this “dividing line” which would delineate Greek grassroots sentiment and which would polarize the vast majority of the Greek popular masses vis-à-vis the “American way of life”. It would be such “dividing line” which would lead Greeks to “distrust” Americans for their “cynicism” and the “evil” of their dollar. This would make Greeks look down on Americans for their “cultural inferiority”, and which could protect them from the extremities of any “provocative-interventionism” as expressed in advertizing discourse.

Now, the idea that the Greek popular masses were characterized by a pervading “filotimo” may be rejected out of hand as a mere “myth”, and anyone who lived in Greece in, say, the 1960’s, would find that such «νοοτροπία» could have been both present and absent. But that is to miss the point completely. The point here is that “filotimo” as a myth actually did characterize the “psyche” of many Greeks, and we know that it is such “myth-making” via which a people moves through – and “makes” – its history. It is that which constitutes its historically-determined self-fabricated “truth”, and it may be compared and contrasted to the “cultural brand-building” which stemmed from the discourse of multinational advertizing giants (their “provocative-interventionism”, for instance). Both popular “myth-making” and capitalist “brand-building” contain their own positive material content in their discourse and their own negative ideological content (in the case of popular “myth-making”, for example, it could take the form of chauvinism). Their respective “truths” would depend on which side of the mountain one finds oneself, as also on the extent to which one has the power to assert his truth. To the extent that the Greek popular masses were characterized by an anti-Americanism (as Lialiouti does show), that “filotimo” which supposedly characterized them – qua myth – would operate as a “dividing line” vis-à-vis the “American way of life”. (As regards the “truth” of “myths” in society, cf. Declan Kiberd, “Introduction” to James Joyce’s Ulysses [Penguin Books, 1992, p. xxi], who writes: “… myths embodied people’s immediate response to their physical experience and were not seen as fictive by their adherents”).

Such “dividing line” would, as Lialiouti has found, take the form of looking down on the Americans as “culturally inferior”, and which could be taken to be a form of chauvinism, as suggested. And we have also suggested that such form would constitute a negative ideological content in the discourse of such popular sensibility. And yet, this negativity must be interpreted in a relativistic sense: that which was negatively addressed to the Americans – the Greek “dividing line” – was absolutely positive for the Greek popular masses themselves. Here, the so-called “chauvinism” of Greeks needs to be interpreted as an ideological tool of self-protection against the potential threats posed by the “provocative- interventionism” of US “cultural imperialism”. Thus, when Pavlos Matesis (in his Πάντα καλά, Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, Athens, 1998, p. 353) presents the ‘common’ Greek as saying, «… δεν έχουν αίσθημα μέσα τους … οι Αμερικάνοι», such Greek would be simply protecting himself against the possibility of bending to the “All-American” discourse of “cultural brand names” (which was itself guilty of selling its own “cultural superiority”). And we should of course also note that such self-protective chauvinism which refers to the ‘absence of sentiment’ amongst Americans was not at all some political critique of US imperialism emanating from whatever political theory. Lialiouti’s research work, which is basically a ‘list’ of Greek anti-American sentiments, verifies the essentially apolitical nature of Greek grassroots anti-Americanism, at least for the period we are examining.

But this whole situation of the post-war period we are describing was riddled with a double paradox. First, we know that despite the well-rooted anti-American sentiments of the Greek popular masses, Sinatra as an American “brand name” would continue to be used in at least some advertizing discourse. And second, Sinatra the singer would be loved by large sections of the Greek population.

As regards the Sinatra “brand name” in advertizing discourse, we may say that its “provocative-interventionism” would persist and run parallel to the near-chauvinist anti-American “dividing line” simmering in the minds of the Greek popular masses. Advertizing discourse would respond to such “dividing line” by presenting Greeks with Sinatra as the “All-American” macho and the “All-American” cowboy. His “brand” would reflect the he-man strength of the US “Empire”. In fact, Sinatra would be the epitome of the “BRAIN AND BRAWN” leader-“Stars” which had also been promoted in Quaker Oats discourse (op. cit.), and to which Greeks were expected to look up to. Evidence of such Sinatra “cultural imperialism” and “provocative-interventionism” in advertizing is ample, and may be detected in “global” advertizing discourse which circulated not only in Greece but across Europe and around the “Free World”. Take, for instance, the “Jack Daniel’s Sinatra Select” advertisements promoting the “Gentleman’s Drink”. This was a Tennessee whisky which truly fitted the Sinatra “brand image”, and as such “image” was endlessly being promoted in popular periodicals and newspapers. While Sinatra was supposed to be a true American “Gentleman”, he would also be presented as drinking incessantly, getting violent, and throwing his all-American weight around (let us here remember the Domino allusion to Sinatra’s bouts of violent rage, «όταν θυμώνει…», op. cit.). The entrepreneurial “brains” of a rags-to-riches “gentlemanly” Sinatra would be combined with an image of the “brawny” drunk bent on anti-social aggression. That, at least, was the Sinatra “image” peddled by popular periodicals, and which in some way reflected US discourse of American global power (i.e. “gentlemen” millionaires + aggressive military might). It is interesting to note that in fact Frank Sinatra would often be used by the advertizing industry to promote different brands of liquor. For instance, the “classic American beer”, Budweiser, would be advertized by Sinatra, such “classic” being in keeping with the man’s “All-American image”. And further, the Chivas Regal Scotch whisky would be directly associated with his name, even to the point of sponsoring his various performances. We know of course that the habit of drinking had to go hand-in-hand with that of smoking, and so Sinatra would be used in the Chesterfield Cigarette advertisements. And there would be little point in doubting the “All-American” semantics involved in such promotional discourse: Ronald Reagan had himself promoted the same cigarette brand at some point in time. Finally, it would be as interesting to note that there is a whole list of Sinatra songs which mentioned brand name products in their lyrics as such (for instance, ‘FORD’ would be mentioned in the song, “That Lady is a Tramp”, cf. http://www.amiright.com, where some of the above data are drawn from).

Given the pervading anti-American sentiment which we have described above, it would perhaps not be too difficult to gauge the reaction of the male counterparts of the “Amalia-type”, at least as regards the US “cultural imperialism” and/or “provocative-interventionism” embedded in the discourse of such type of advertisements. On the other hand, and as we shall further discuss below, such discourse would not necessarily alienate the Greek popular masses from Sinatra the singer per se. And yet the “marketing mix” of such powerful “brand name” advertisements would be such as to render them inorganic vis-à-vis the needs and tastes of the popular masses: both the ‘image” being projected and at times the product itself would not connect with the Greek public. Apart from the fact that something like a bottle of Scotch whisky would be well beyond the economic reach of the popular masses at the time, such popular masses would consider Sinatra’s heavy drinking bouts as anti-social behaviour and which would be a symptom of some form of mental disorder. As we have seen in discussing the case of Nikos Troughas, the A&M Mill worker at Aliarto – and who was definitely the most beloved of all truly heavy drinkers in the area (cf. our papers on Nikos Troughas) – his daily binges were part and parcel of a cultural practice constituting the specifically Greek social phenomenon of «μαγκιά», and which was devoid of all aggression and of whatever anti-social behaviour. In fact, the closely related social phenomena of «μαγκιά» and that of the «βαρελόφρωνες» (heavy drinkers of traditional Greek wine at tavernas), were an absolutely organic part of Greek grassroots culture, and which were completely alien to the Sinatra-style of drinking (for an example of the organic role of the «βαρελόφρωνα» in Greek society, cf. the weekly cartoons of Ρομάντσο at the time). It is a historical fact that in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the cultural context of drinking wine would not include the term ‘alcoholic’ in its popular lexicon at all (bar exceptional cases, which would be peripheralized) – as such, the Sinatra-style drinking would be rejected as a symptom of what Lialiouti has called US “cultural inferiority”. It is within the context of such near-chauvinist anti-American sensibility which would make Greeks declare that the “naïve” Americans – precisely because they lacked history, culture and tradition – did not know how to drink, that they drank without the necessary «μεζεδάκι» (tidbit), and that they were victims of what doctors would call ‘alcoholism’. And therefore, and exactly as was the case with “PHILISHAVE” (op. cit.), products such as Jack Daniel’s and Chivas Regal Scotch would remain “luxury” products and the “All-American image” these went with would be alien to the popular masses. It is true that in certain villages of Boeotia there would ultimately emerge that poseur “type” who would try to mimic the “cowboy style” of the Sinatra “cultural brand”. In Domvraina, for instance, one would, by the 1980’s, see a shepherd-peasant riding his truck as if he were on a horse and sporting clothes somewhat reminiscent of the American cowboy. But these would be peripheral types and would almost always be the laughing stock of their compatriots. (For a truly brilliant historical analysis of the so-called all-American “cowboy culture”, cf. Eric Hobsbawm, «Ο Αμερικανός Καουμπόης: Ένας Διεθνής Μύθος;», in his Θρυμματισμένοι καιροί – Κουλτούρα και Κοινωνία στον 20ο αιώνα, Θεμέλιο, 2013, pp. 277-293).

But the lovers of Sinatra songs – usually, though not exclusively, the young, romantically-inclined “Amalia-type” – would not at all be the laughing stock amongst the popular masses. This brings us to the second paradox – such paradox constituting an important challenge for any historical sociology, both in abstract theoretical terms as also in terms of dealing with the primary sources. The problem, of course, is how it is possible to explain this seemingly unlikely ‘marriage’ between, on the one hand, a given anti-American sentiment amongst the Greek popular masses and, on the other, a love for the Sinatra song, itself reflective of a US “cultural brand”. Both were real realities and both are simultaneously evident in the selfsame social strata. This particular historical riddle cannot be resolved unless we move a bit further with our definition of the term “cultural brand” or that of “cultural brand-building”. A number of preliminary points need to be made. Firstly, and at a rather abstract level of analysis, we need to distinguish between advertizing discourse meant to promote a particular product, and discourse embedded in the distribution of cultural “services”. Reducing the latter to the former would not allow us to identify their possible difference of frameworks: in the case of cultural services, one may distinguish between different dimensions in the “brand name” of such services per se, something which would not be absolutely similar to the respective multi-dimensionality of discourse promoting a product. Put very simply, the “Amalia-type” would not necessarily respond to the consumption of, say, a “KAMELIA” serviette, as she would respond to the “consumption” of a Sinatra song. While buying a serviette would be induced by a clear material necessity, listening to and experiencing a song would of course be an expression of a different kind of necessity, i.e. entertainment. This would mean that the dimensions that a “brand name” could take in the fulfillment of a material need would not necessarily be the same as in the case of a “brand name” fulfilling the impulse for entertainment. While such different dimensions would and did inter-mix (constituting what we have called the “mass aesthetics” of the Greek middle class milieu), these dimensions can be analytically distinguished. This would allow us to re-define the term (Sinatra) “cultural brand”, and thus understand how such “brand” could dialectically interact with the anti-American “myth-making” in the Greek socio-cultural context, and thereby effecting that ‘marriage’ we have spoken of.

We may attempt a re-definition of the term “cultural brand”, and more specifically a re-definition of Sinatra as a “brand name”, by seeing such “cultural market idea” as a living entity, literally speaking. The “Amalia-type” would literally “live” such entity in the full sense of the word, down to her very groin. Here, it would not be a case of selective “thought and attention”, but rather a case of selective impulse whereby the Sinatra song would be a cultural experience in itself. The “brand name” would here be checked and re-formed by that experiential impulse as such, and would thus be rendered relatively autonomous of the intended semantics of the original “brand name”. But it would be rendered autonomous precisely because the potential dimensions of such “cultural brand service” would allow for such autonomy.

Which would be the dimensions of the Sinatra “cultural brand”? And which of these would create ‘ideological spaces’ allowing for their possible ‘usurpation’ on the part of the “Amalia-type”? At least four dimensions may be identified, sometimes conflicting amongst themselves and sometimes not, and each of which would have its own specific functions. These dimensions may be enumerated as follows:

• The semantics and representations of what has been called “US cultural imperialism” – the function in this case obviously being political, and which must be understood in the context of the then “Cold War”;
• The semantics and representations of the Sinatra “cultural brand” used exclusively for the promotion of a product – here, the utility of a product would be closely intertwined with the already existing “cultural service”. The consumption of a bottle of whisky, for example, was meant to be done in the “Sinatra-style”. The primary function here was to sell the product, and would complement the above function.
• The semantics and representations expressed in the lyrics of Sinatra songs, which would also – at times – include the mentioning of specific brand products. Generally, the function here was to “entertain”, but in cases where some brand product was mentioned, we would have a double function, i.e. both sell and “entertain”.
• The semantics and representations of Sinatra songs determined by the global grassroots demand for “pop music” amongst the youth of the period, and which was part and parcel of the dynamics of a “revolution” which for the first time in history posited individual youthful identity as a social category in itself and for itself. Here, the central function was to “entertain” youth in a manner which celebrated the triumph of the individual “everyman”, and would do so in a post-war context where that youthful “everyman” was in any case celebrating his new-found identity with or without Sinatra.

This brings us to the whole question of “entertainment” in the 1960’s and how such cultural grassroots practice could neutralize at least certain elements of “provocative- interventionism” in a “US cultural brand” as was that of Sinatra. We have already said a few things on youth entertainment in 1960’s Greece (cf., inter alia, our paper specifically devoted to the various forms this would take at the time). But here we may present the phenomenon of “entertainment” in a manner which radically revises whatever approach seeks to reduce the Sinatra “cultural brand name” to a “manipulative tool” of American imperialism. Perhaps one of the most important recent attempts at revising our understanding of “entertainment” as a historical phenomenon has been the work of Irving Fang who, in his A History of Mass Communication (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997), examines what he sees as a transition from mass consumption to mass communication. Fang places the phenomenon of “entertainment” within the context of a long-term historical process. Within such general perspective, he identifies six “revolutions” in the field of communication, these “Information Revolutions” being the following:

• 1st: writing;
• 2nd: printing;
• 3rd: mass media;
• 4th: entertainment;
• 5th: the “Toolshed Home”;
• 6th: internet.

At least as regards the “developed” or “developing” world of the 1960’s and 1970’s, we may comment that the “4th Revolution” of mass entertainment would, for the very first time, involve masses of people in directly participating in their own personal celebration. Such “entertainment” of one’s own self, such celebration at least outside the workplace, would be a symptom of the popular optimism of the post-war period.

We are suggesting that this “entertainment” would take place at least outside the workplace, and we say this because “entertainment” could also take place within it, and thereafter those who had participated would normally be penalized if caught red-handed by a supervisor. We may here refer to the various pranks that employees would play on one another within the A&M Mill factory (cf. Γιωργία Κρεμμύδα interview, May 10, 2009, op. cit). And we may also refer to various penalties imposed on Dourida workers for “entertaining” themselves during work-hours. We briefly mention here just two samples (drawn from the Dourida company archives):

«ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΙΣ
Ανακοινούμεν ότι, οι εργάται πλεκτηρίου
Φανελλών Χρυσάντζας Δημήτριος και
Καραμάνος Άγγελος, τιμωρούνται με πρόστιμον
εκατό (100) δρχ. ο καθένας, διότι την 24/7/78
και … ώραν 19,15 ευρέθησαν παρά του Κου
Μπαρμπούνη να αστειεύονται εν ώρα εργασίας.
Έκ του γραφείου προσωπικού…
Έν Θήβαις τη 25/7/78».

«ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΙΣ
Ανακοινούμεν ότι, οι εργαζόμενοι εις το συνεργείον
συντηρήσεως 1) Νικολούτσος  Θεοφ. 2) Πολυτάνας
Νικ. 3) Πρεβεζάνος Ηλίας, τιμωρούνται με πρόστιμον
100 εκατό δρχ. ο καθένας διότι την 13/9/78
συνελήφθησαν από του Κου Αν. Μπαρμπούνη να
ακούνε μουσική εντός αυτοκινήτου εν ώρα εργασίας.
Έκ του γραφείου προσωπικού…
Έν Θήβαις τη 18/9/1978».

It would of course be silly to assume that the period of the 1960’s and 1970’s in Greece was a time of no work and all play. And yet, this rampant popular optimism of the period must be placed in the context of Fang’s “4th Revolution”, and it is precisely within such “Revolution” that the Sinatra “cultural brand” should also be seen, this being one of its dimensions which we have identified above. The specifically Greek popular optimism would take the form of the “Greek Dream” which, while somehow reminiscent of the “American Dream”, would nonetheless be relatively autonomous of it, given the grassroots anti-American sentiments discussed (and also given the objectively determined material limits of such “Greek Dream’). It would be within its own relative autonomy that it would co-opt dimensions of the Sinatra “cultural brand” to celebrate the rise of the Greek middle class milieu. Here, the “Americanism” of Sinatra would fade and the young Greek “Amalia-type” would identify itself as such, usually with a strong strain of “romanticism”. Such fading would never be absolute. To the extent that elements of US “cultural imperialism” would persist in the manner that the “Amalia-type” would experience the Sinatra songs, this would constitute the negative ideological content of the Sinatra “brand-name” as “lived” by Amalia Eleftheriadou. But such negative content would take second place in the face of the positive grassroots ideological content of an “entertainment” constituting the “4th Revolution” and celebrating a new-found individuality – that which we have identified as the “New Type”.

The at times internally contradictory dimensions of the Sinatra “cultural-brand”, we are suggesting, would be impulsively usurped and co-opted by the “Amalia-type”, such type also being anti-American in sentiment. The contradictory dimensions creating an ideological “space” for usurpation and co-optation are evident in the discourse of many Sinatra songs. While, on the one hand, Sinatra would be meant to be the “All-American Boy” creating “All-American music”, he would, on the other hand, be challenging prior distinctions between “high culture” and “popular entertainment”, the latter now coming to embody the superiority of the “everyday image” of the “everyman” in his new-found post-war virulence and optimism. As has so often been said, Sinatra songs were a patent for the popular song, and therefore a patent for “pop” and the “swing era”. It would be such patent that would “entertain” the “romanticism” of the “everyman” in post-war Greece, and which would include the feminine “romanticism” of a working person such as the “Amalia-type”. As we have discussed elsewhere, the “romanticism” of the young popular masses would by-pass the flaccid “romanticism” of a Romantso in Greece and link up with a “sexual revolution” which would scandalize the older generations generally, and the Puritanism of both the “Left” and the “Right” in particular. Sinatra’s “pop”, as a patent, would be part of this socio-cultural process in Greece: it would “swing” Greek traditional conventions out of their pre-war orbit, but without effecting any real denial of the “Greekness” of such experience and without ever helping to overcome the impulse of anti-Americanism as felt by Greeks.

Such usurpation, co-optation and selective reformulation of the discourse of Sinatra songs by Greek youth in the 1960’s and 1970’s would mean that there would be no need for any process of “brand destruction”. We know and have discussed how both the “Left” and the “Right” had tried to decimate the Sinatra “cultural brand”, but this would not meet with any success at all. But specifically as regards the Sinatra “brand”, this would ultimately be faced with a “brand fatigue” – and it is absolutely important to emphasize that such “fatigue” would come about as a result of new tastes determined by the grassroots forces of the “cultural revolution” of youth around the “Western World”, as also in Greece itself. While it had been impossible to re-brand, decimate or peripheralize the Sinatra “cultural brand” by the “Left” opposition or by the “Right-wing” State, it would be the workings of the so-called “base” which would finally undo such “brand”. Whatever “provocative- interventionist” discourse would be embedded in the Sinatra discourse, this too would be washed away given the changing tastes of the youthful popular masses.

We know what it was that would finally lead to the Sinatra “brand fatigue” – we know that much, but many commentators (especially those of the “Left”) have had difficulty in interpreting the phenomenon of such “fatigue”. It would of course be the oncoming wave of “Rock” culture which would gradually peripheralize the Sinatra “brand name”. The question has always been whether cultural trends have been imposed from “above” or have sprouted from “below”. But the term itself, “fatigue” (coined by the advertizing industry itself), seems to suggest that it is not a question of so-called Ideological Apparatuses getting tired of their own discourse – that would be quite ludicrous in itself. Chris McDonald, in his Rock Music and the Middle Class (Indiana University Press, 2009), has argued that, to begin with, it had been the technological developments which would lead to changes in the meaning of musical instruments, and which would provide the technical infrastructure for developments in grassroots popular taste as such. In that sense, one can see the limited role of the advertizing industry itself in such process. Rock culture would mean a further democratization of the mass media, this time even covering voices from the margins of society. This had not been possible within the ideological ambit of the Sinatra “cultural brand”. Further, and again unlike the Sinatra “brand”, Rock would come to express counter-cultural values, these being symbolic of the youthful “revolution” amongst the popular masses. But the wide democratization represented by Rock culture would mean that it was able to wed a popular style to the genteel aspirations of the up-and-coming middle classes, while at the same time feeding the needs of the experimental sexual aspirations of youth.

It would be inaccurate to assert that McDonald’s work has gone as far as we are suggesting – we are basically using some of the data he provides and are weaving these into the historical findings of Eric Hobsbawm (cf. The Age of Extremes…, op. cit., especially chapter XI). The latter has come up with observations on Rock culture which could have more or less applied to the Greek case – for instance, he writes:

«Οι πιο δραματικές πολιτικές εξελίξεις,
ιδιαίτερα στις δεκαετίες του ’60 και του ’70,
ήταν οι κινητοποιήσεις της ηλικιακής αυτής
ομάδας [i.e. youth] που στις λιγότερο
πολιτικοποιημένες χώρες πλούτισαν κυριολεκτικά
τις εταιρείες δίσκων, όταν αυτές πωλούσαν το
75–80% της παραγωγής τους – συγκεκριμένα η
μουσική rock – σε καταναλωτές ηλικίας
δεκατεσσάρων με είκοσι πέντε ετών» (p. 415).

Greek conventional wisdom – and especially that coming from the “Left” – would of course be enraged by any suggestion to the effect that 1960’s Greece belonged to the category of the less “politicized” countries, and that Greek youth would be more interested in entertaining itself with Rock music than the politics of ΕΔΑ. And yet, as we have tried to show elsewhere (cf., inter alia, our paper on Greek 1960’s music), the “Amalia-type” would not be informed by any specific political ideology. Maybe even more importantly, we need to stress that whatever political upheaval was taking place at the time, such upheaval was not an expression of youth consciousness (as in the case of France or the USA) – it was rather a continuation of the divisions of the Greek Civil War in the 1940’s.

In Greece, in any case, “Rock and Roll” culture amongst youth would be especially influenced by the British version of that trend, which would be popular amongst working people and be part and parcel of the “teddy boy” movement, both in Britain and in Greece. The espousing of Rock culture amongst Greek youth would come to effect the “fatigue” of the Sinatra “cultural brand”. McDonald has himself argued that Rock had had the power to “colonize” other musics. In Greece, as elsewhere, it would be the escalating “frenzy” and grassroots spontaneity of the youthful popular masses which would cause such “fatigue”. The oncoming wave of Rock would peripheralize the Sinatra “brand” – though of course not ever completely – given the onward march of the triumphant individual re-identifying himself as such but also through a new ‘anti-establishment’ collectivity. As for the latter, we would here detect the first signs of an up-and-coming middle class (or a wage-earning middle class) preparing to re-define its relation to the State (and which would help establish the Greek version of the European Welfare State). It is within such context that we need to understand the limits of whatever “provocative-interventionism”, and as such discourse was evident in the “cultural imperialism” of the Sinatra “brand”.

The Sinatra “cultural brand” would not ever be fully surpassed because, although pre-Rock (not in a strictly chronological sense), it too had expressed a popular culture which had questioned conventional “high culture” and had spoken to the “Amalia-type” by celebrating her everyday life and the “romance” that coloured aspects of such life. The clash between the Sinatra-style classic pop song and the Rock-dominated popular music was a clash which had also expressed elements of Greek youth in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This clash, which posited the “romance” of an “Amalia-type” up against the “teddyboyism” of at least some of her male peers, would not be a clear-cut division: Amalia’s own brother, Leonidas, could easily have displayed elements of such “teddyboyism” (cf. editorials of the Aliartian local newspaper quoted above). We may here tentatively suggest that the Greek clash of generations was also accompanied by a sub-clash within the younger generations themselves, whereby the grassroots ideology of “romanticism” – prevalent mainly amongst young females – would be questioned by either the “Wild One” paradigm hailing from America or by the “Teddy Boy” paradigm hailing from Britain, and as such sub-culture would be adopted by Greek male youths. This on-going clash – between the sexes – would mean that the Sinatra “brand”, while definitely undergoing a certain “fatigue”, would nonetheless not be extinguished completely. But our point is that, all along, the degrees of “fatigue” effected on whatever “cultural brand” would be a consequence of grassroots cultural clashes. The role of a Romantso or of that of the Sinatra “brand” (with respect to “romanticism”), or the role of certain American films (with respect to the “Wild One”), cannot be reduced to that of mere “manipulation” on the part of such Ideological Apparatuses: the objectively-determined waves of the triumph of youth identity would themselves “inform” the so-called “dominant ideology” of such Ideological Apparatuses (and which were therefore themselves characterized by both a positive and a negative ideological content).

With respect to the Frank Sinatra “cultural brand” and its specific operation in the Greek socio-cultural context, we may draw the following conclusions:

• The “Amalia-type”, as an important representative of 1960’s life, could have reacted to the Sinatra “brand name” given the popular anti-American sentiments (not political dogmas) identified by the work of Lialiouti. But Sinatra had also been extremely popular as a singer. While used as a means for “cultural imperialism” by others, the Greek popular masses would themselves ‘use’ him for his voice and lyrics, which is another way of saying that the Sinatra song would be ‘used’ for popular entertainment and the celebration of everyday youthfulness (especially that of the “romantic” type). Thus, the “Amalia-type”, or the representativeness of such “type” of life – it being a generic life-form at the time – may have certainly distrusted all things “American”, and yet have at the same time assimilated the “modern” taste and would have experimented with it in its own way.
• Above all, the Sinatra song in Greece must be seen as part and parcel of the rising middle class milieu amongst the popular masses, be these shop-owners or wage-labourers, or some combination of such objective class positions. Definitely most expressive of such milieu was Sinatra’s famous song “My Way”, released in 1969. All Greeks, whatever their political orientation, would “do it their way” when it came to building their own house or acquiring their own apartment, or purchasing their fridge or TV set. By the 1970’s and 1980’s, Greece would be swamped with privately-owned cars and Greeks would become notorious for their ferocious driving habits – here too, they would be “doing it their own way” (much research has already been undertaken on the specifically Greek manner of driving cars, especially by psychoanalysts of the Jacques Lacan School).
• We have tried to understand the issue of Sinatra as a “cultural brand name” by placing it in the context of “cultural consumption” and which willy-nilly raises the issue of local grassroots taste and the in-built constraints of such taste. When it came to buying a product such as a serviette, the “Amalia-type” would try to maximize utility, but subject to (above all though not exclusively so) a budget constraint. But when it came to what was exclusively a cultural “utility” (such as the Sinatra “brand”), the “Amalia-type” would live or experience a series of cultural constraints vis-à-vis such “utility”, given the Greek context. Here, the Sinatra “brand” would find itself confronted with the constraints of pre-existing Greek socio-cultural practices. To the extent that the Greek popular masses would put themselves in command as “cultural consumers” – and they would do so given, inter alia, their pre-existing socio-cultural practices but also their rising consumer power – a “taste issue” would invariably arise. It would be such “taste issue” that would carry the in-built constraints. There would be three basic constraints, all three of which would dialectically interact with one another – these constraints being the following: a) the anti-American popular sentiments, which would also take the form of a distrust for American cultural practices; b) the traditions, customs and ethics of the Greek context informed by what Poulantzas has identified as the «χωρότητα» and the «ιστορικότητα» of a people (cf. his State, Power, Socialism, op. cit., p. 169); and c) the global popular culture, especially that of youth, permeating Greek society as well. Any one of these three basic constraints would be as real as the other two. Such triple reality would be the cause of the “taste issue”, and which would resolve itself in two ways: first, we would have a Greek-‘made’ American Sinatra; and second, we would have an American Sinatra ‘making’ the Greeks. Together, discovering a homeostatic balance and thus circumventing a schizoid “taste”, these two cultural forces would yield the emergence of a new cultural synthesis. In the field of entertainment, this new synthesis would be one aspect (but just one) of the new, gradually emerging Greek middle class milieu.
• Even this new synthesis, however, would have its own time constraints. While it would be the Greek popular masses who would adopt and “live” this new synthesis, it would be these selfsame masses who would be the agents of the relative cultural fatiguing of the new synthesis. It would be they who would deconstruct the Sinatra “cultural brand name”: for sections of the popular masses, this deconstruction would be total and permanent; for other sections of the public, it would only be a partial deconstruction which would attempt a loose synthesis between the remnants of the Sinatra “brand” and the new oncoming musical trends (and here we would also have to take into account the “new waves” of the specifically Greek music which intermingled with the foreign “brands” and which would cause a further deconstruction of the Sinatra “brand” –  cf. our paper on 1960’s musical trends in Greece).
• Generally, we may say that it is within such framework that we need to adopt a methodological approach with respect to all discourse informed by a “provocative- interventionism”. The latter type of discourse in Greece would function or dysfunction within this mesh of constraints and within these processes of fatiguing which we have tried to describe. All “interventionist brand-building” exercises in the domain of the market (selling products), all “interventionist brand-building” exercises in the domain of culture (but which would themselves relate to the selling of a product), and all “interventionist brand-building” exercises in the domain of culture per se (forms of entertainment) – all such historical phenomena in the Greek context cannot be evaluated unless the in-built constraints and the inevitable fatiguing are also considered.

…………………………..

Speaking of “constraints” allows us to now move further with our examination of advertizing discourse in the 1960’s. We shall here examine “LUX” advertising discourse of the period which clearly shows that its “provocative-interventionism”, which again makes use of Hollywood “stars” as “brand names”, would be severely constrained, but this time mainly by the material conditions of Greece at the time. Here, it would not primarily be the anti-American sentiments of Greeks, or the «χωρότητα» and «ιστορικότητα» that would characterize their experience, etc., which would alienate them both from the thing sold (but for only some period of time) and especially from the discourse trying to sell it. In this case, any attempt at trying to inject the “American Dream” – in the form of the “Hollywood type” – into the Greek context, would be faced, not simply by an ideological wall of distrust, but by a material wall of consumer incapacity. American ideology at the time, together with the cultural paradigms it represented, would in the last instance be defeated by Greek material conditions-qua-“constraints”. When, however, such “constraints” would be lifted in time, it would not be the “American Dream” which would triumph but, rather, the Greek (anti-American) middle class milieu. The time would come when Greeks would both use “LUX” to wash themselves and remain anti-American in sentiment – it would be precisely such comfortable combination that would save the “LUX” soap from whatever “fatiguing”, right through to the 21st century. Let us consider the wording of a “LUX” advertisement, which appeared in the popular periodical Domino in 1966:

«Όπως οι αστέρες του Χόλλυγουντ,
καταλήξατε κι’ εσείς οριστικά
στο σαπούνι τουαλέττας LUX…»
(cf. Domino, τεύχ. 446, 10.9. 1966).

It is quite apparent that in the case of this advertizing discourse there is an imbalance between it and the reality it is meant to address: it would rush up against specific material “constraints” and which would also have cultural implications (as a by-product). By this we mean that the Greek consumer would feel an alienating chasm between, on the one hand, the image of the “Hollywood stars” he is presented with and, on the other, his own constraining material reality. The very idea of a Hollywoodian “star”, with which the Greek was supposedly meant to identify, could have provoked him negatively and thus have further estranged him from all things “American”. The “Hollywood type”, presented as a paradigm meant to be adopted by Greeks, could not possibly have connected with the real material chasm which existed between the “Hollywoodian Dream” and the Greek reality of the 1960’s. It would be this obvious imbalance between paradigm and reality which would render this advertizing discourse thoroughly “provocative”. Its “interventionism” could only but have been absurd for the vast majority of the Greek popular masses. Put otherwise, we have here one case of an advertisement which pressed for the “unreachable dream”. Very simply, in the early-1960’s, the “Amalia-type” did not possess a bathroom. In the absence of a bathroom, what could the phrase «καταλήξατε κι’ εσείς» have possibly meant for Amalia Eleftheriadou?

The “LUX” advertizing discourse allows us to further examine the specific workings of “provocative-interventionist” discourse and the degree to which it would try to “translate” its “global” promotional symbols for the Greek case. It would also allow us to examine the pre-given “constraints” which would delimit the effectiveness of its advertizing campaigns in 1960’s Greece. Finally, examining the case of “LUX” shall also show us how, while the Greek consumer would ultimately come to buy the product, he would not fall victim to the practice of what had been called “luxing”, which related the usage of the “LUX” toilet soap to a particular cultural paradigm of the “American way of life”.

We know that by 1925 “LUX” would be the first mass market toilet soap in the world (on the question of soap as a rising mass product in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, cf. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age Of Empire…, op. cit., p. 76; similarly, on the relationship between soap and the advertizing industry, cf. p. 106). Of course, the vast majority of the Greek popular masses would have had no inkling of the existence of “LUX” at the time. And yet, “LUX” was being developed by Unilever as a “global brand”. As we shall see below, it would be Unilever’s LINTAS-HELLAS that would finally undertake the promotion of “LUX” in Greece, but that would be as late as the 1970’s. Prior to that, Unilever would be developing its own promotional strategies from its homeground in the USA.

The development of the “LUX” toilet soap as a “global brand” would take on a very special characteristic as regards the advertizing discourse that would come to accompany it: as is well known, it would be the “LUX” brand which would pioneer female “celebrity endorsements” (cf., inter alia, cosmopoliti.com, 15.12.2014, etc.). Starting from 1928 and up to 1940, the brand would concentrate on building and cementing its association with the increasingly popular movie world. Geoffrey Jones, in his excellent study of the history of “global brands”, confirms this – as he writes:

“In 1925, Lever Brothers launched the perfumed
Lux bar soap, which grew after a 1928 advertizing
campaign asserting that nearly 100 percent of
Hollywood screen stars used the brand”
(cf. Geoffrey Jones, “Globalization and Beauty:
A Historical and Firm Perspective”, EurAmerica,
Vol. 41, No. 4, Dec. 2011, pp. 893-894).

This “brand-building” association with the world of female movie “stars” would continue through to the late-1960’s. For instance, in 1968, “LUX” soap would be promoted at a global level by Raquel Welch, an actress who in the 1960’s and 1970’s was considered to be one of the “sexiest” females on screen (a reigning “iconic sex symbol” of the period, so to speak).

It would be in 1964 that “LUX” would be introduced to the Greek consumer. Unilever’s global advertizing discourse – the use of female Hollywood “stars” to promote “LUX” – would simply be imposed onto the Greek socio-cultural context. Such unilateral imposition would mean that the Greek popular masses were expected to endorse – or ‘understand’ – American-based cultural notions pertaining to skin-care, the usage of a bathroom (which implied, amongst other paraphernalia, the existence of hot running water), and the whole atmosphere of the “world of Hollywood”. We may here consider a 1964 advertisement promoting “LUX” in Greece, and which this time would make use of the actress Catherine Deneuve – this advertising sample, which had appeared in the Greek press and popular periodicals (cf. cosmopoliti.com, op. cit.) – read as follows:

«… “Είμαι κατενθουσιασμένη με το σαπούνι LUX”…
μας εξομολογείται η ΚΑΤΕΡΙΝ ΝΤΕΝΕΒ η
μεγάλη Γαλλίς ηθοποιός…
“Το ευγενικό και διακριτικό άρωμα του LUX με
έχει καταγοητεύσει. Το λευκό σαπούνι
τουαλέττας LUX είναι πραγματικά αγνό. Με τον
πλούσιο και απαλό αφρό του διατηρώ την
επιδερμίδα μου πάντα δροσερή και ξανανοιωμένη”.
Όπως η Κάτεριν Ντενέβ χρησιμοποιείτε και σεις
το σαπούνι τουαλέττας LUX κάθε μέρα. Είναι το
σαπούνι της ομορφιάς των αστέρων του Χόλλυγουντ.
9 στους 10 αστέρες του Χόλλυγουντ φροντίζουν την
ομορφιά τους με σαπούνι τουαλέττας LUX.
Πωλείται τώρα και στην Ελλάδα».

This type of advertizing discourse, with its references to images such as «πλούσιο και απαλό αφρό», etc., seems to be completely out of place when contrasted to the material conditions of Greece at the time. It needs to be contrasted, for instance, to how Nikos Kitsikis would describe the material state of affairs in Greece in 1963, when he would make the rather dramatic observation: «Είμαστε λαός τρωγλοδυτών!», which was hardly an overstatement at least as regards housing conditions at the time (cf. Ελληνική Αριστερά, αρ. φύλλ. 1, August 1963, p. 19). Such material constraints would themselves determine the manner in which the “Amalia-type” would receive such Unilever discourse. Amalia Eleftheriadou would care for her skin, and especially that of her fingers (she would be doing an enormous amount of typing at the Headquarters of the A&M Mill). But whatever care she would take for her beauty and skin-care, she would nonetheless do it within socio-economic and cultural constraints which could not possibly recreate any semblance of the “Hollywood world”. She could buy a bar or two of “LUX” in the course of the week, but that could not reproduce whatever image of the life of “Hollywoodian stars”. That much is obvious, and it was exactly that much which Unilever advertizing discourse would choose to ignore in the 1960’s.

Thus, despite the unreachable “Dream”, Unilever would insist on the imposition of the US advertizing slogan, “9 out of 10 screen stars use Lux Toilet Soap”, onto the Greek socio-cultural context in the 1960’s. And we are referring to a slogan which, in America, had first appeared in advertizing discourse (e.g. “Dainty Girls Win Out”) dating back to the 1920’s and 1930’s. We thus had the direct reproduction of a pre-war value-laden discourse within the Greek context, which was a discourse born in the USA five decades ago, and which was supposed to ‘speak’ to a young Aliartian female struggling to survive under the despotic repression of a small-time capitalist as was Marakis. It seems, therefore, that here we have a perfect example of the “provocative-interventionist” type of advertisement which we have tried to define. As we shall see below, even such ‘perfect’ example of “interventionism” would ultimately have to adjust to local conditions, but we nonetheless need to dwell on Unilever’s almost exceptional insistence on ignoring, say, the psycho-somatic needs and material constraints of an Amalia Eleftheriadou (and which is a case of discourse quite reminiscent of that of “PHILISHAVE” discussed above).

Geoffrey Jones’ work (op. cit.) is excellent in that it both verifies the exceptional “provocative-interventionism” of “LUX” advertizing discourse, but also goes on to show how such discourse inflexibility would ultimately be made to bend to local socio-cultural contexts (and which shows how the study of “LUX” advertizing discourse can be especially useful in any examination of “compromise” embedded in dominantly rigid advertizing discourse). To begin with, Jones makes a general observation, based on an analysis of his empirical evidence, which fully endorses our own research approach thus far – he notes:

“Even the most ‘global’ beauty brand was
in practice typically very local” (p. 900).

But, he goes on to argue, this would not apply to Unilever toiletry brands, suggesting that here we had a notable exception to such reality – he writes:

“[Unilever]… had more success maintaining
consistency across countries in several large
toiletry brands than in its much larger detergents
and food businesses. Lux toilet soap, which
was sold on five continents by 1960 and was
the largest-selling toilet bar soap, was marketed
worldwide with a consistent brand positioning
as the ‘soap of the stars’…” (ibid.).

It would be this worldwide “consistency” in the advertizing discourse accompanying “LUX” soap which would constitute its “provocative-interventionist” character as regards countries such as Greece. Such global “consistency” needs to be explained, and it is explainable in terms of the attempts being made at the time to globalize “ideal beauty”. These were in fact mere attempts, given the material and cultural constraints which would characterize different regions and countries around the world of the 1960’s. And yet, the sheer force of the effort was itself a reality, and the effect this had had on the popular masses cannot be simply brushed aside. What we are here suggesting is that the story of “LUX” advertizing discourse – its rigid consistency – is closely interwoven with the as consistent attempts that were being made to develop specific “norms” of female beauty around the world (we have already seen how Unilever would be a pioneer to female “celebrity endorsements”).

The 1960’s and 1970’s were a period of time when, for the very first time in human history, global symbols of female beauty would be nurtured and promoted on a truly mass basis, to the extent of being able to reach even the most remotest of Greek villages. Rachel Welch would be known and admired by the “average Greek” – pictures of her half-naked body would be regularly published in all of the popular periodicals. But it would be especially Ursula Andress who would be the Greek favourite “sex-symbol” (amongst both males and females, but for different reasons), and especially given her role as the “ultimate Bond Girl” following her appearance in “Dr. No” (Bond films being extremely popular in 1960’s Greece). Of course, it would not only be the Hollywoodian-based “sex icons” that would fire the Greek imagination: France’s Brigitte Bardot and Italy’s Sophia Loren would themselves be very popular amongst the popular masses, and even though these two “stars” would themselves be sucked into the Hollywood paradigm, they would nonetheless retain their ‘Europeaness’ in the minds of Greeks. We need to understand the “LUX” advertizing discourse in the context of this consistent discourse of “global beauty norms”.

But such “norms” were neither simple formulae in themselves nor a one-way imposition of standards on recipients. They were not simple formulae designating any one particular norm: while Welch was the all-American girl hailing from Chicago, Andress symbolized the Swiss sense of beauty; likewise, Loren’s shape and style were all-Italian while it was the French sense of beauty that was encapsulated in Bardot. And there could never have been a one-way imposition of “norms”: in Greece, the “Amalia-type” would not wish to equate herself to the standards of a Welch or an Andress. Amalia Eleftheriadou, that is, would not fantasize over the image of such “sex symbols” and project her own image onto theirs, the latter being too ‘other-worldly’. On the other hand, the global emphasis on “beauty norms” would reinforce the “Amalia-type’s” wish to be “beautiful” in her own way. There was therefore neither true consistency in “norms” as such, nor any consistency in the manner in which such variable “norms” were “lived” by the female popular masses. In that sense, the “LUX” advertizing discourse, in its very endorsement of “stars” bathed in the bright lights of Hollywood would simply be a damp squib in the eyes of Amalia Eleftheriadou.

But the mere fact that the “Amalia-type” would begin to consciously care for her physical beauty – in her own way – was an unprecedented fact, and the use of the “LUX” toilet soap would definitely come to play an important role in such process. There is no denying that the “norms” of beauty being promoted at the time, albeit complex and multifarious in their own way (despite the conventional wisdom of the “Left” which reduced all “norms” to forms of “sexism”) would play a major role in the socio-cultural practices of the popular masses throughout the 20th century. Class, national and political struggles would themselves characterize the century – but all these cannot be understood outside the as real context of popular identity vis-à-vis “individual beauty”. The “beauty norms” of the 1960’s and 1970’s –to which the “LUX” advertizing discourse would cling on to so rigidly and so tenaciously – would herald the triumph of individual beauty. The latter was a natural product of post-war modernity, and the cultural consciousness of the popular masses was an active agent in such phenomenon. Interestingly, it was the “LUX” advertizing discourse that would lag behind such process, insisting on global stereotypes of “beauty” that simply ignored localized socio-cultural constraints. Unilever, of course, would come to sense that its discourse more or less operated in a vacuum – but as a ‘giant’ of sorts, it initially had no eyes for the millions of ‘dwarfs’. The latter, however, would truly re-educate the former.

What we are here suggesting is that such a multinational giant as was Unilever – precisely because it was multi-national and precisely because it was just a bit too ‘big’ for local realities – constituted the backward element in the unfolding historical process heralding the individual “beauty” of the “Amalia-type” in Greece. Unilever had wanted to introduce, and had at first insisted on, that more “sensual aspect” to bathing – but it was doing so in a context wherein Greeks were still bathing in their rather primitive «σκάφες» or in their «φτωχοπλυσταριό» (cf. the Theodorakis 1961 song, «Σαββατόβραδο»). It would take a great stretch of the imagination to bridge the gap between any «φτωχοπλυσταριό» and what Unilever was calling “That film star feeling” when using a bar of “LUX” toilet soap.

Now, because – as we have suggested – the likes of an Amalia Eleftheriadou would certainly begin to care for their own feminine beauty in their own way, it would be wrong to assume that their own experience of bathing was necessarily devoid of what the Unilever discourse had dubbed “the sensual element”. In fact, the Theodorakis song mentioned above very accurately conveys the atmosphere of “sensuality” as experienced by a young female belonging to the working class strata. But the “sensuality” of the “Amalia-type” had little to do with any Hollywoodian “film star feeling”. And much more than that, the “Amalia-type” would have rejected the overtly provocative rawness of a Unilever advertizing discourse which had, even since the 1920’s, over-emphasized the issue of sex, and had linked sex to cigarettes. It is well known that “LUX” global advertizing campaigns had been conceptually organized around one central idea, i.e. that of “Soap, Sex, and Cigarettes” (already mentioned above in discussing the role of ΕΔΕΕ and Leoussis in the field of Greek advertizing), and which had played a major role in the cultural history of American advertizing since the turn of the century. Thus, it was not just a matter of Unilever’s refusal to get to know and adjust to the socio-cultural constraints entwining the “Amalia-type” – it was also a question of perhaps unwittingly violating the local “ethics” of which that “type” was an organic part, and it was organically so even as the Greek “sexual revolution” was weaving its way around the minds and bodies of Greek youth (such “revolution” had had its own local constraints). We have already discussed above how the initiatives of Leoussis and ΕΔΕΕ would, following the decade of the 1960’s, try to somehow exercise some form of control over especially “ethically provocative” advertizing discourse (with, inter alia, the establishment of a «Κώδικα Δεοντολογίας», the first article of which had stipulated that advertizing discourse should refrain from insulting the “ethics” of the Greek people).

The Unilever discourse would ultimately come to take such «Κώδικα» into consideration, and would do so for a number of reasons. But the very first cause of its change of discourse- strategy has to do with what we have identified as the multifarious nature of the “norms of beauty” and how such “norms” would never really be “global” as such. Unilever’s narrow rigidity of discourse would prove unsustainable – its “global consistency” would finally collapse, and it would be the “Amalia-type” as female agent-qua-consumer which would bring about such veritable collapse.

The non-Marxist Geoffrey Jones (op. cit.) points to the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the “norms of beauty” in the 1960’s and tries to explain this reality in a manner which the great Marxist historian, E. P. Thompson, would have surely admired. To begin with, he explains why Unilever’s strategy to link “LUX” to Hollywood screen stars would come to face its own limits – he notes:

“[But Hollywood itself was] heavily dependent
on export markets, so there was no narrow
definition of beauty” (p. 894).

The implications of such an observation are obvious: these “markets” were none other than the popular masses around the world, and such masses – in their various “localities” – would simply refuse to accept whatever “narrow” definition of beauty imposed on them from the ‘outside’ (be that Hollywood, or whatever). If Hollywood wanted to export its cultural products to, say, Greece, it could only but have to adjust its “norms” of female beauty to the Greek socio-cultural landscape. Of course, Unilever discourse would have to follow suit (and it certainly did, as we shall see).

Jones goes on to systematically debunk the whole myth of an all-powerful “globalized ideal beauty” (and thus at the same time unwittingly debunks all theories of “alienation” as articulated by the “Left”) by showing how any attempts at the homogenization of whatever “norms” would necessarily be delimited by the constraints imposed on such “norms” by the popular masses of different countries and localities. In an analysis which reveals a highly perceptive understanding of the dialectics of grassroots cultural formation, he writes:

“At no point were globalization and homogenization
entirely identical processes. As firms invested
internationally, they shaped markets by transferring
brands and products, but they also had to respond
to those new markets. The ability of firms to dictate
was constrained by their need to be profitable, and
in a consumer products industry, profits came by offering
things consumers wanted to buy. Corporate advertising
 and marketing could certainly shape consumer preferences,
 but they were also shaped by inherited cultural and
 social norms which proved very resilient, even as globalization
 gathered pace” (pp. 896-897, my emph.).

 

It is precisely this “shape-shaped” dialectic which explains how the “Amalia-type” would ultimately force the so-called dominant discourse of the mighty Unilever to be shaped by that local Greek “type”. Who, in this case, “provoked” whom? Similarly, who was the “intervener” and who the victim of “intervention”? For Jones – as also for our research methodology – these are not questions that remain open. Jones’ detailed analysis of the primary data (on the making and development of “brand names”, etc.), clearly shows that the “Amalia-type” was an agent in the rise of the Greek middle class milieu. Unilever both shaped and served such milieu.

Jones notes the variety of local factors which would force giants such as Unilever to ultimately give up their attempts at maintaining consistency in the homogenization of global advertizing discourse – based on his empirical analyses, he goes on to enumerate some of such factors:

“… firms needed to make their products
relevant to local consumers. Despite the
spread of an international consumer culture,
the markets for consumer products, whether
those were movies or laundry soap,
continued to exhibit local preferences
 reflective of inherited social and cultural values,
 linguistic differences, different climatic conditions
 and culinary traditions, differences in distribution
 systems, variations in political systems, and many
 other factors. The beauty industry, which sold
deeply personal products that were applied
to the body and affected personal confidence,
was an unlikely candidate for homogenization
… and so it proved” (p. 897, my emph.).

Unilever in 1960’s Greece would find itself incapable of responding – in terms of ideological discourse – to the material constraints which defined the Greek case – it was, at the time, simply impossible for any “LUX” advertizing discourse to be disengaged from the material “LUX-ury” which its semantics presupposed, and which had little to do with any «φτωχοπλυσταριό». On the other hand, Unilever advertizing discourse in Greece would gradually be moving away from its rigid understanding of the “norms” of beauty as a global stereotype and would more or less bend to the tastes of local popular ‘aesthetics’ regarding female beauty. Its new strategy can best be understood within the theoretical framework provided us by Jones. If it were local factors which had to be taken into account, and if beauty products had to be made relevant to these local factors, Unilever advertizing discourse would have no choice but move towards a customization of its brands, and this would take its own particular form in the Greek case. At a more general level, Jones writes:

 

“… as mass brands were internationalized …
they [firms] generally engaged in greater customization,
both in their formulation and marketing.
 Strikingly, toiletry companies such as … Unilever
 used local celebrities rather than Hollywood
 stars in their advertisements for mass-marketed
 products” (p. 898, my emph.).

The use of Greek local celebrities in promoting “LUX” toilet soap would be a first major shift in Unilever advertizing discourse. The shift would be determined by none other than the “Amalia-type”. Yet still, Unilever would be merely “compromising” – it would not, that is, be fully yielding to the tastes of such “type”. But the cultural-ideological struggle would definitely be unleashed, and it would only be by the 1970’s, as we shall see, that Unilever would further “compromise” its almost dogmatic clinging on to global “norms” informed by Hollywoodian “stars”.

Generally, we may say that Unilever would at first be gradually moving away from its use of actresses such as the all-American Welch to the much more ‘European’ Deneuve (or the all-Italian Loren) in its advertizing discourse promoting “LUX” toilet soap in Greece, thus using “norms” of beauty that were much closer to home as regards the tastes of the “Amalia-type”. But such adjustment would itself prove to be insufficient and it could only be the truly Greek celebrity which could directly speak to the tastes of any Amalia Eleftheriadou. Thus, the first major shift we are referring to would mean that Unilever would begin to use the truly all-Greek “star” Aliki Vougiouklaki in its local Greek discourse. We note how such discourse would initially be characterized by a “balance” between, on the one hand, the appeal to “Greekness” and, on the other, the persistence on the Hollywoodian element – the new discourse read as follows:

«… “Για την φροντίδα της ομορφιάς μου
έχω απόλυτη εμπιστοσύνη στο LUX”
λέει η Αλίκη Βουγιουκλάκη …
9 στους 10 αστέρες του Χόλλυγουντ φροντίζουν
την ομορφιά τους με σαπούνι τουαλέττας
LUX…» (cf., inter alia, «Έλαιον, ελέω Ιστορίας»,
3lyk-ioann.ioa.sch.gr, 2013-14, pp. 73-74).

As we can see, Unilever would here wish to combine its primordial Hollywoodian roots with the local preferences of a Greek ‘aesthetic taste’ which was as deeply rooted in the psyche of the Greek popular masses. That there had to be some such combination, presumably, was a product of its ‘imperialistic’ proclivity, and which was meant to subsume everything under the sun (the Greek sun, in this case) within the cultural ambit of those “9 Hollywood stars”. But Unilever as well suspected that the “Amalia-type” – her locally-bred cultural “thought and attention” – would focus on Vougiouklaki per se. The name and image of this Greek “star” would have had an overpowering effect on Amalia Eleftheriadou. Such effect is beyond doubt, and as such the Unilever decision that Vougiouklaki promote “LUX” was perfectly well-made. But the choice had been pressed onto the Unilever discourse. The firm was getting wiser – the “Amalia-type”, however, was asserting its own identity. What was it about the presence of Vougiouklaki within the “LUX” advertizing discourse which was to radically shift the semantics of such discourse? We here need to briefly refer to the socio-cultural content of the “symbol” of Vougiouklaki. Some of the basic pointers to such content would include the following:

• Aliki Vougiouklaki, who was both actress and singer, was the first true “idol” in post-war Greece – she was nurtured within the Greek socio-cultural context and she was loved therein;
• She was the “symbol” of a whole epoch in itself, such epoch being the middle class milieu and the hopes which such milieu harboured across all popular social strata, be these wage-earners, shopkeepers, small-time capitalists, etc.;
• Her films of the 1960’s period reconstructed, portrayed and commented on the whole range of the morals and customs – the “ethos” per se – of Greek society;
• She was, more specifically, the symbol of Greek feminine youth, and her films celebrated the whole of Greek youth;
• Despite the wishes of her parents, she had secretly enrolled as a student of the «Δραματική Σχολή του Εθνικού Θεάτρου». Her decision to consciously by-pass parental control was a symbolic act which spoke deeply to Greek youth at the time, reinforcing as it did the socio-cultural rupture between the generations. Her decision to take up acting was itself an act of moral defiance, given that the profession of acting was then viewed as shameful by the majority of older Greeks. It was also a decision which reflected the hidden wishes of hundreds of thousands of Greek youth, many of whom dreamt of some niche in the world of the arts. Even the type of roles she would act symbolized the “sexy” young lady that the “Amalia-type” could empathize with;
• By 1959, the authoritative newspaper Kathimerini, expressing the views of broad masses of people, would characterize Vougiouklaki as the «Εθνική Σταρ» (or “The National Star”). It was by no means an exaggeration.
• To verify the above, we should note that her acting career was characterized by a long list of box office hits, some of her films breaking all records;
• Further, Costas Gavras would state that Vougiouklaki was both a European and an international “phenomenon” in that no other actress had been as much loved and had been as popular amongst the Greek public for such a long period of time (stretching from the 1950’s and through to the 1990’s);
• Vougiouklaki’s death in 1996 would be followed by a two-day national mourning.

It was this post-war transitionally value-laden “Greekness”, carrying with it the entire local “symbolism” which we have presented above, which would be inscribed in the advertizing discourse of “LUX” toilet soap. What, in fact, would Unilever be doing? The firm would be learning from and imitating the advertizing strategies of Leoussis, such strategies being expressive of the local wisdom of such man’s Greek advertizing firm. Interestingly, Leoussis had already been using Aliki Vougiouklaki in his legendary promotion of «ΦΙΞ» in the 1960’s (cf. above). Like Leoussis, the advertizing discourse of Unilever would ultimately have to compromise its initial, one-sided emphasis on the “American Dream” – it would have to adjust its discourse to the local semantics of a specifically “Greek Dream”, and as such “Dream” was symbolized by Greek popular idols such as Vougiouklaki. The choice of the Vougiouklaki idol would later on be followed by the use of other Greek “stars” in the promotion of the “LUX” toilet soap – one such example being Katia Dandoulaki, an actress, fashion model and recording artist who was especially popular in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

This historical process of discourse adjustment, whereby mass brands would constitute a terrain of ideological struggle based on uneasy compromises and a continual shift in the balance of forces, has been identified by the research work of Geoffrey Jones – in his own way, he would describe such historical process as follows:

“… localization [of mass brands] reflected the
 substantial regional and national differences
 which persisted even in neighboring developed
 countries for the consumption of beauty
products” (p. 898, my emph.).

For the Greek case, “localization” would mean the pursuing of the specifically “Greek Dream”. In the 1960’s, however, such “Dream” would be beset by serious material constraints to which Unilever advertizing discourse would still remain quite insensitive. The ideological adjustment we are referring to would definitely occur (as we have shown), but it would do so in a manner which only partly expressed the Greek reality of the “Amalia-type”. As yet, the consumer presence of the latter still remained too weak, incohesive and disorganized to have had a truly radical effect on the Unilever discourse. The later balance of forces tilting towards the consumer-as-social subject, which would ensue by the 1970’s and 1980’s, had yet to fully crystallize.

Thus, while Unilever would shift towards the adoption of local “symbols” in its advertizing discourse, such discourse would insist on a “star-system” heaped in the semantics of an other-worldly imagery of luxurious representations which remained, to say the least, meaningless to the Greek popular masses. The very concept of “Luxing”-qua-way-of-life encapsulates such problematic advertizing paradigm. To the extent that the concept of “Luxing” presupposed a practice per se, whereby the person who used “LUX” did so in material conditions approximating “luxury”, such concept could only but have “provoked” the “Amalia-type” in a negative manner. The “Greek Dream” of the latter was only just beginning to unfold, and its materialization meant long hours of hard work in medium-sized factories such as the A&M Mill: the content of such “Dream” was to urgently secure the basic material necessities of “modern” survival. The very name of the toilet soap, “LUX”, which – as mentioned – predisposed one to think of “luxury”, or of “light”, could not have constituted any positive material content capable of reinforcing the “Greek Dream” of the “Amalia-type”: the material gap between that “Dream” and the “luxury” and “light” of the “American Dream” would in fact never be fully bridged, at least as regards the 1960’s and 1970’s. Specifically as regards the 1960’s, there could have been neither “luxury” nor “light” given the material realities of what Kitsikis (op. cit.) had called «τρωγλοδύτεςν».

At this point, therefore, we need to further dwell on the limits of adjustment of the “LUX” advertizing discourse as regards the Greek case for the period of the 1960’s. To fully comprehend such limits, we need to contrast the manner in which Unilever would adjust its discourse to the material conditions of, say, Germany and Britain, while it would ignore those of Greece. This positive response to the material conditions of the German and British consumer in the 1960’s – and which tells us much about the social power of such consumer at the time – is quite reminiscent of the manner in which the Philips company had itself responded to the needs of the American consumer in the post-war period (by blotting out its own “brand name” in the eyes of the American public – cf. above), while fully ignoring the real needs of the Greek popular masses as regards the use of an electric shaver. Consumer power in Germany and Britain would fully shift the “balance of discourse” and the degree of “compromise” within these countries on the part of Unilever, and would do so in a manner which could not have happened in 1960’s Greece.

How did Unilever advertizing discourse respond to the particular material conditions of Germany and Britain? In a dissertation submitted to the Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki in 2009, K. Thanasoula and M-S. Stavrou make the following observations (and which run parallel to those of Geoffrey Jones):

«Σε μία καμπάνια του σαπουνιού LUX
που εμφανίστηκε στη Γερμανία, η διαφήμιση
έδειχνε μια διάσημη γυναίκα να μπαίνει στο
ντους, ενώ στην Αγγλία η αντίστοιχη διαφήμιση,
παρουσίαζε την ίδια γυναίκα, να χρησιμοποιεί
το σαπούνι στην μπανιέρα. Το γεγονός αυτό,
έδειχνε τη διαφορά των δύο Χωρών, όπου οι
Γερμανοί προτιμούν ένα ντους, ενώ οι Άγγλοι
ένα μπάνιο στην μπανιέρα» (cf. K. Thanasoula &
M-S. Stavrou, «Η ιστορία της τηλεοπτικής
διαφήμισης», πτυχιακή εργασία, Αλεξάνδρειο
ΤΕΙ Θεσσαλονίκης, Σχολή Διοίκησης και
Οικονομίας, Τμήμα Εμπορίας και Διαφήμισης,
Θεσσαλονίκη, 2009, pp. 86-87).

We see here that Unilever advertizing discourse would, not only respect, understand and adjust to the socio-cultural practices of Germany and Britain – it would also respond to the particular material manifestations (shower or bath) of such socio-cultural practices. That was the form that the Unilever multinational marketing strategy would take pertaining to such relatively more ‘developed’ countries. Both Germany and Britain, of course were characterized by robust, well-organized civil societies: their working classes, themselves consumerist-orientated, were represented by powerful labour unions and well-entrenched political organizations such as the Labour Party in Britain and the Social Democrats in Germany. Such cohesion would force Unilever advertizing discourse to submit to local national socio-economic practices and their material manifestations. In the case of 1960’s Greece, in contrast, “LUX” advertizing discourse would ignore the fact that the popular masses had no access either to a shower or a bath, bar their «σκάφη» or their «φτωχοπλυσταριό». In that sense, Unilever advertizing discourse in Greece at the time would remain “provocative”.

But such “provocation” could not last for long. As Greece would itself undergo a process of industrialization in the 1960’s, yielding some form of dependent economic development, consumer consciousness would come to dominate within the Greek middle class milieu itself and which would gain an impetus by the  1970’s. Such impetus – and which would even be expressed politically – would set its own demands. The generalized socio-economic developments of the 1970’s, not only with respect to Greece, would force Unilever advertizing discourse to adjust to the varying levels of urbanization and the material manifestations of such relative urbanization of each specific geographical locality.

As we have seen, Geoffrey Jones has shown the limits of whatever “globalized ideals of beauty” pertaining to the 1960’s: local “norms”, in the last instance, had to be considered simply because traditional values persisted. But Jones goes further and examines how advertizing discourse would ultimately also have to take into consideration the material manifestations of industrialization, and how such manifestations would be expressive of a new localized taste. With respect to the decade of the 1960’s and thereafter, he draws the following conclusions:

“While the need to be “clean”, and not to
smell, became a social norm across social classes
in all developed [or developing] countries …,
societies continued to differ widely in which
products they used, and how frequently they
used them…” (pp. 899-900).

Elsewhere, we have seen how the whole issue of “body smell” would concern Greek youth of the 1960’s and which could run counter to the romantic or erotic urges of young ladies such as Velica Vozini in the period of the Military Dictatorship. We have dwelt on how one of her lovers «βρωμούσε ιδρώτα αφόρητα» and we tried to relate this to a symptom which had plagued Greeks at that time, that of «βρωμίδρωσις» (cf. our papers on “romanticism” and the 1960’s Greek “sexual revolution”). Perhaps we should note here that, interestingly, the issue of “body smell” was not only limited to Greece or to certain European countries in the 1960’s. A government official of a certain Latin American country, flying economy class over Miami and sitting next to a young lady with a not too pleasant smell, would find himself reacting as follows: «… περιορίστηκε να περιμένει όσο να περάσει η ώρα και αναρωτιόταν αν οι αμερικανικές διαφημίσεις δεν προειδοποιούσανε πια για τις βλαβερές συνέπειες της δυσωδίας του σώματος και της δυσοσμίας του στόματος…» (cf. J.K. Galbraith, Ο Θρίαμβος», Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, 1969, pp. 161-162).

But the point is that Greek teenagers were certainly becoming sensitive to and highly conscious of the issue of personal odour, and which would lead them to the regular consumption of a product such as “LUX” toilet soap. Material conditions were changing by the mid-1960’s and on, and so were tastes. It is at this point, Jones argues, that Unilever advertizing discourse would have no choice but respond to the local material conditions of a particular country or geographical region. He writes:

“… firms had to adapt to different cultural
values, and variations in urbanization levels,
access to piped water, and the availability
and nature of washing facilities” (p. 900,
my emph.).

Specifically with reference to Unilever’s “LUX” toilet soap, Jones continues:

“… even in cases when brand positioning
was consistent, such as Unilever’s LUX
toilet soap, product formulation was usually
adapted to local conditions” (p. 901).

Unilever had to adapt its product formulations to local conditions given, inter alia, –

“local consumer preferences for scents,
colors, and other features. The upshot was
that the same brand product often looked
and smelt very differently in different
countries” (ibid.).

Given developments in the material infrastructures of countries such as Greece, and given the variations in urbanization levels in the region, Unilever would ultimately have to yield to radical innovations in its advertizing discourse as also in the synthesis of its products. As regards the latter, we have not been able to obtain any specific data as to changes in the synthesis of the “LUX” toilet soap sold to Greeks (and in any case a technical examination of the chemical constituents of a bar of soap lies well beyond the limits of our study). But we do know, following Jones, that constituents would be determined by the raw materials available in a particular geographical region. Further, it is possible that the “LUX” toilet soap meant for the Greek popular masses could have been manufactured in a manner that gave it a ‘strong’ aroma so as to compensate for symptoms such as «βρωμίδρωσι» mentioned above (but that definitely remains to be verified by both specialists and users alike). Finally, we simply note that Unilever would ultimately have to stick to the manufacturing of products «με θετική κοινωνική επίδραση» (cf. www.unilever.gr.).

Now, as regards Unilever’s advertizing discourse, we could definitely say that it was destined to undergo truly radical changes. The central most important change in advertizing discourse may be put as follows: by the 1970’s, advertisements promoting “LUX” toilet soap would address themselves to the anonymous everyday consumer – such “anonymity” would allow for an open ideological space wherein consumers could recognize themselves and their own particular material conditions according to their own choice and wishes. Such self-recognition and self-regulation vis-à-vis the “open” semantics of the “LUX” advertizing discourse is of course somewhat reminiscent of what Habermas had referred to as «μια αυτορρυθμιζόμενη ατομοποίηση» (cf. Habermas, op. cit, p. 424).

The process of change in discourse would be gradual, uneven and at times contradictory. The very first symptoms of such new-found semantics had already begun to appear in the USA itself by the 1940’s and 1950’s, although here especially contradictions would persist. Any random examination of “LUX” advertisements circulating in the USA at the time will show that Unilever’s strategy was to “build relevance” by looking at beauty through the eyes of the consumer. While still retaining the “star element”, the focus would shift to the consumer per se and to the role of the brand in that consumer’s life (and cf., inter alia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilever). At that time and place, the persistence on retaining elements of “stardom” would constitute the major internal contradiction – and the as yet faltering steps – of the Unilever discourse. But the first necessary shift would have taken place and when, by the 1970’s, changing rhythms of urbanization would become apparent in countries such as Greece, Unilever would be ready to respond to the manner in which the “Amalia-type” would see the role of soap in her own life.

In the Greek case, Unilever’s first ideological compromise had been to shift from the use of “global icons of beauty” to those of all-Greek “icons” such as Vougiouklaki. That had constituted a victory for Amalia Eleftheriadou, at least as regards her identity as a young Greek woman. The second shift – that of allowing her to see a bar of soap through her own eyes and through the spectrum of her own material conditions – would constitute yet another victory for her own person. Now, such victory would concern her identity as a young working person striving to overcome the material consequences and miseries of poverty. The open “anonymity” of “LUX” advertizing discourse in the 1970’s would allow her to regulate her own relationship to the brand, and she would undertake such self-regulation in the context of her prevailing material conditions.

Thus, by the decade of the 1970’s and on, Unilever advertizing discourse promoting the “LUX” toilet soap in Greece – as elsewhere – would be characterized by a dominant trend which would admit the following salient factors of an irrepressible reality:

• “Natural Beauty” would be seen as an attainable goal for all women – such “Natural Beauty”, further, would have to be symbolized by the “anonymous” consumer and would thus establish an open space for self-regulation whereby local taste and national preferences could be determined by the “Amalia-type” itself;
• The implication is that we would have a shift from the abstract representations of beauty (“Natural” in its global form) to the concrete representations of beauty (“Natural” in its national-local form);
• As such, the “star feeling”, which had been tailing “LUX” advertizing discourse for so many years, would finally collapse – thereby, the assumed material conditions of the “Amalia-type” would no longer be taken as a pre-given fact imposed onto a local fantasy stretched to unrealistic limits;
• The “Amalia-type” would be given the freedom of choice to determine her own fantasies, and as such fantasies were being delimited by the constraints of her own material reality;
• In the last instance, “that star feeling” would give way to the down-to-earth everywoman;
• By the 1980’s, the use of the “LUX” toilet soap by the Greek popular masses would be reduced to a matter-of-fact everyday habit devoid of whatever socio-cultural and ‘ideological’ pretensions of social status – it was taken for granted that the “average” Greek who made up the middle class milieu would have to carry about a body that would simply not smell. Even blue-collar workers would wash themselves thoroughly after work, and even young farmers in the rural areas would do the exact same thing. For all such people, the use of the “LUX” bar of soap (as also other brands such as “CLOVE”, a Unilever product as well) would become an unconscious-habitual ritual of their everyday lives. But especially for the young, it was no mere hygienic ritual: in fact, it was almost an unconscious compulsion meant to meet the demands of the ever-broiling “sexual revolution”. Especially for young ladies of the “Amalia-type”, who were especially concerned with their own physical beauty, the unconscious ritual would mesh with a conscious determination to satisfy the competing standards of local sensuality, and “LUX” would constitute just one of the means to satisfy such end (cf. our paper on Greek beauty as a popular cultural practice in the 1960’s).

One could adopt a slightly different approach in trying to interpret the historical processes we have sketched above, and which would run parallel to what has been already said. One may argue that when, by the 1970’s, Greek women could finally “live” the so-called “luxing” experience in their own bathrooms, but in its specifically Greek version, the Unilever advertizing discourse would shift its focus on “stars” to that of the “everywoman”. Prior to that, in the 1960’s, the “LUX” advertizing discourse would limit itself to specific target groups (much as “PHILISHAVE” had done) and would thus focus exclusively on “stardom”. At the same time, it would at that stage “provoke” the rest of the popular masses.

The move from merely targeting groups which constituted the Greek politico-economic élites to a veritable democratization in the use of the “LUX” toilet soap – and the concomitant ‘democratization’ of the discourse itself – would not only be a manifestation of a change in objective conditions. It would also be a by-product of specific subjective initiatives. As we know, it would also be a consequence of the emerging dialogue that would take place between Unilever’s local advertizing agency in Greece and the ΕΔΕΕ structures headed by Leoussis in the 1970’s. We have already noted that Unilever’s local advertizing agency, “LINTAS: HELLAS”, would be established in 1970 as a member of ΕΔΕΕ. As a subsidiary of the global LINTAS – which was the Lever Brothers’ own advertizing agency – “LINTAS: HELLAS” would join up with ΕΔΕΕ structures and such intra-structural cooperation would have a specific effect on the manner in which “LUX” toilet soap would be promoted in Greece by the 1970’s. We would thus have a fusion between LINTAS ‘global’ discourse and LINTAS ‘local’ discourse, the latter being rendered dominant as a result of the adjusting democratization of discourse as overdetermined by local socio-cultural conditions.

We shall end our examination of the “LUX” toilet soap case by summarizing our most basic findings, and as such findings have been interpreted from the angle of a historical sociology:

• The very first stage in the evolution of the “LUX” advertizing discourse in Greece had been characterized by a focus on all-American, abstractly “global” symbols of “stardom” and “beauty”;
• The second stage would constitute a shift to a lower level of abstraction whereby the “global” symbols of “beauty” would be dislocated and be replaced by “symbols” more expressive of the region to which Greece belonged – i.e. European paradigms of female “beauty”;
• The third stage would be a further shift whereby all abstract levels of “symbolic beauty” would be abandoned and would give way to specifically “local”/Greek paradigms of “beauty”. Yet still, the ideology of “stardom” – and its indirect connotations of “Hollywoodian” culture – would persist, though this time only from a safe ideological/cultural distance;
• The fourth stage, while at times still insinuating the ideology of “stardom”, would finally come to abandon whatever pre-determined standards of “beauty” and would focus on the “anonymous everywoman”. This would free the latter of all imposed constraints as to what constituted “beauty” and as to the material conditions which were supposed to envelope it. It would thereby allow the subject to self-regulate  itself (in the Habermas sense) vis-à-vis the representations it received via the advertizing discourse of “LUX”.
• These shifts from the “global” to the “regional”, and then from the “regional” to the “local”, and finally to the open-ended “anonymity” of the individual, would have radical repercussions as regards the identity of any one member belonging to the collective “Amalia-type”. Amalia Eleftheriadou would henceforth view herself from within the discourse and would recognize her own “personal beauty” through such discourse. Alternatively, however, she would henceforth also have the freedom to recognize her possible absence of “beauty” as well, but this time vis-à-vis “standards of beauty” primarily established by her own grassroots community (it would be the open-ended “anonymity” in the discourse which would allow for that);
• Such grassroots “standards” would be the product of a long and complex chain of mediations, starting from the “global”, through to the “regional” and the “local”, and ultimately coming down to the area of Aliarto wherein the community would decide for itself who it was that would constitute a “beautiful” female. As we have seen in examining the case of the A&M Headquarters “Clerk-Cashier” (cf. our paper on the working life of this employee), it would be the young Miss Mathioudaki whom Aliartians would view as their own “Miss Greece”. The “Amalia-type”, therefore, would recognize her own “beauty”/absence of “beauty” – within the “anonymity” of the “LUX” advertizing discourse – by measuring herself up against the local “idols” of her community, at least one such “idol” being Miss Mathioudaki (and who also happened to be Marakis’ niece, a fact which would of course augment her personal prestige). In that sense, therefore, the “LUX” advertizing discourse of the 1970’s and 1980’s would come to be an ‘open space’ for decision-making (on the part of both the grassroots community and the individual) as to identity and personal self-evaluation. It would not, then, be a usurper of the identity and self-evaluation of the Greek popular masses following the period of the 1960’s.

Of course, any expert on the history of advertizing – as is Geoffrey Jones himself (and especially with reference to his work on Unilever) – could point out that the step-by-step ‘evolution’ of the “LUX” advertizing discourse which we have delineated above is a dire oversimplification of how things actually unfolded. But we do not pretend to write a history of the matter – rather, our purpose has been to identify the general, essential trends of “LUX” advertizing discourse, and to draw the necessary sociological conclusions. Our findings have shown that the Unilever discourse promoting “LUX” toilet soap in countries such as Greece had moved towards a “localization” of such discourse and, in time, towards the discourse-“anonymity” of individual customization and consumer self-regulation. The research work of Jones generally confirms such an understanding. Specifically as regards the Greek case, we have tried to show that the impetus of the 1970’s and 1980’s middle class milieu would force Unilever to address itself to the mass trends of urbanization, and as such urbanization would have a massive impact on the socio-cultural practices of the Greek “periphery” itself (Aliarto included). Similarly, Unilever would be addressing itself to the new variations of urbanization across much of the world. At the same time, all such variations in the ‘developed’ or ‘developing’ countries would converge ideologically by placing the individual (Habermas’ «ατομοποίηση») in command. In Greece, too, it would be the individuated so-called “anonymous consumer” who would come to dominate in the advertizing discourse promoting “LUX”. Such ideological convergence, however, would not mean the reduction of the individual to any “global mass norm”, which is in any case a mere conceptual myth. It would be the local consumer preferences of Greeks which would be expressed through what we have identified as the open-ended “anonymity” of “LUX” advertizing, such “anonymity” – as we have tried to show – allowing the individual to enjoy a terrain of freedom wherein he could impress both his individuality, and his “modernity”, as also his “Greekness”. That terrain, however, was a child of the “Amalia-type”.

--------------------------

In examining that type of advertizing discourse which we have categorized as “provocative- interventionist”, we have tried to show how even such type of discourse could itself often evolve in ways which suggested attempts at “compromise” and “adjustment”, and which verify the participative presence of the “Amalia-type” within the nuances of such ideological texts and structures. But by that we do not mean to diminish the real presence of a culturally imperialist “provocation” and “intervention” on the part of advertizing giants – and their local imitators – in Greece, and at least for the period we are focusing on. We shall end this section on “provocative-interventionism” by merely presenting two final samples of advertizing in Greece at the time which certainly do represent the arrogance of a cultural imperialism imposed on a dependent country such as Greece.

The first case concerns an advertisement promoting a washing product, «ΡΙΒΕΞ», which had been circulated by the periodical Romantso in 1964. We shall not attempt an analysis of its discourse – we merely want to highlight the manner in which its semantics constituted a degradation of the “Amalia-type’s” past. It read as follows:

«Όταν κάνετε την Μπουγάδα χωρίς ΡΙΒΕΞ,
όπως την κάνατε μέχρι χθες ή όπως την έκαναν
την εποχή της Γιαγιάς σας, τότε: Κούρασις,
Ξεμέσιασμα… Κυρία μου, Δεσποινίς μου,
οδηγείτε αυτοκίνητο; Αν οδηγούσατε…, θα
θέλατε να σας δουν οι φίλες σας (άσπονδες ή
όχι) με ένα παλαιό αυτοκίνητο, της εποχής της
γιαγιάς σας;… Ασφαλώς όχι! Γιατί λοιπόν εξακολουθείτε
να κάνετε Μπουγάδα;… Ένα φακελλάκι ΡΙΒΕΞ [would
mean] Άνεσις, Πολιτισμός, Μοντέρνα Νοικοκυρά…»
(cf. Ρομάντσο, τεύχ. 1107, 19.5.1964).

The second case is perhaps even more riveting in its “provocation”, and it constituted a degradation of what was then the “Amalia-type’s” present. This 1964 advertisement, promoting the learning of foreign languages via “LINGUAPHONE”, went as follows:

«Όχι πια βουβοί μπροστά στους ξένους –
Όχι πια σύμπλεγμα κατωτερότητος!...
“Η αξία του ανθρώπου είναι ανάλογη προς
τις γλώσσες που γνωρίζει” – CHARLES QUINT,
1500 – 1558… LINGUAPHONE…»
(cf. Romantso, No 1100, 31.3.1964).

The first sample above is a perfect example of how the “Amalia-type’s” past would be degraded to the status of a primitive anachronism. The latter sample is an as perfect example of the type of discourse insinuating a supposed inferiority complex on the part of Greeks when facing foreigners. We have already identified such forms of “provocative- interventionism” in the advertizing discourse of the period and have tried to gauge the responses of the “Amalia-type”.

Our two central terms in this sub-section have of course been “provocative” and “interventionist”. One could not pretend that these two terms constitute “concepts” in the strict sense of the word. But perhaps it is useful to note that these two essentially descriptive terms actually sprouted from our empirical examination of the raw material at hand. Very simply, we came across a series of advertisements that seemed to do just that: they “provoked” the Greek sentiment and they tried to “intervene” in the everyday lives of the Greek popular masses.

But what turned out to be of some interest to us is that both such terms would be corroborated by an independent study on the “foreign element” in Greek life, published in 1982, but which only came to our attention well after our research work was done. In his excellent book, Επιχειρήματα για τη γλώσσα, για τη λογοτεχνία (Βιβλιοπωλείον της Εστίας), Nikos Fokas comes up with the terms «πρόκληση» (p. 28) and «εισβολή» (p. 29) in examining the functions of foreign discourse within the Greek socio-cultural context. The Greek word «πρόκληση», of course, means “provocation”. Fokas’ «εισβολή» may be translated as “invasion” or “violent entry”, and in the context of ideological discourse clearly suggests “intervention”.

For Fokas, the foreign «πρόκληση» and «εισβολή» actually come to ‘infect’ both the urban “centers” and the rural “peripheries” of Greece. Our own findings, focusing on a semi-urban area such as Aliarto, certainly confirm his observations. But it is as important to note that, for Fokas, such ‘infection’ never comes to constitute a “totalitarian system” successfully imposed onto the socio-cultural practices of European countries. Such a position reinforces our own approach as regards Greece in particular: we have argued throughout that whatever the so-called ‘infection’ of “provocative-interventionism”, its permeation would always be delimited and checked by the “Amalia-type” as a historical subject. We have seen how certain “ideological spaces” within advertizing discourse would be taken over by the presence of that “Amalia-type”. This absence of any ideological “totalitarianism” on the part of the “foreign element” – and which in effect demonstrates the limits of a discourse such as that of “LINGUAPHONE” in Greece – has been expressed by Fokas as follows:

«… επειδή ακριβώς ο παραδοσιακός περίγυρος
δεν έχει καταστραφεί με την κερδοσκοπική
αγριότητα που έχει καταστραφεί στην Αθήνα
και πολλές επαρχιακές πόλεις, οι ξένες επιγραφές
μοιάζουν σαν συνεσταλμένοι επισκέπτες σε
παλαιό αρχοντικό και απέχουν πάρα πολύ από
του να είναι το ολοκληρωτικό καθεστώς προς το
οποίο τείνουν στο Κολωνάκι…» (p. 27).

It is quite true that Fokas himself is much more ‘pessimistic’ as regards the Greek case – but we need to understand that his is an emotional reaction as he lived the shock of the dramatic changes that were modernizing the Greek economy and the new “forms of life” which accompanied this. By the 1980’s, in any case, the Greek socio-cultural landscape would be a complex mesh of “traditionalism” and “Western modernity” (and many would find such a mesh bewildering, to say the least).The psyche of the maturing “Amalia-type” would encapsulate just that mesh, leaving little room for intellectual romanticism, be that of the “Left” or of the “Right” (with which Fokas seems to have identified).

But it cannot be overemphasized that the “provocative-interventionism” of the “foreign element” which Fokas had himself identified only constituted the one side of advertizing discourse in Greece. There was, at the same time, that other category of advertizing discourse which was fully adjusted to and accurately expressive of the socio-cultural a priori of Greece. It is to that category of discourse which we shall now turn.

GLOSSARY

NOTES:
● «… δεν έχουν αίσθημα μέσα τους… οι Αμερικάνοι»: Americans have no feelings inside them
● «ΑΝΑΒΕΙ»: literally means that it sets alight – in the sense that it sexually arouses or provokes
● «Αντιδήμαρχος Θήβας»: Deputy Mayor of Thebes (or Thiva)
● «αντιδραστικότητα»: reactionaryism
● «ασθένειες των φτωχών»: the illnesses of the poor
● «βουτυρομπεμπέδες»: slang, similar to milksop (suggesting a feeble, ineffectual person)
● «βρωμίδρωση»: literally translated, the term means ‘sweat stink’
● «βρωμούσε ιδρώτα αφόρητα»: he stank unbearably of sweat
● «για πάντα»: forever
● «για σύγχρονους»/ «για μοντέρνους ανθρώπους»: for modern man
● «Δεν ζήτε στον παληό καιρό… για να χρησιμοποιήτε αναχρονιστικές μεθόδους»: you no longer live in the old days – so you can no longer use anachronistic methods (free translation)
● «δημόσιο αίσθημα»: public sentiment
● «Δραματική Σχολή του Εθνικού Θεάτρου»: Drama School – National Theatre of Greece
● «ΔΩΡΟ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΥ»: a gift expressive of civilization
● «ΔΩΡΟ»: gift
● «Είμαστε λαός τρωγλοδυτών»: we are a nation of troglodytes (or cave dwellers)
● «είναι βαθύ, αποτελεσματικό στο κόψιμο του γενιού»: it offers a deep, effective shave (free translation)
● «εισβολή»: invasion, incursion, infestation
● «εξάπτω τις ερωτικές επιθυμίες»: kindle the erotic desires
● «ερεθίζω»: sexually arouse
● «Ερευνα της αγοραστικής συμπεριφοράς των νέων ανδρών σε σχέση με τα προϊόντα περιποίησης δέρματος του προσώπου»: “A survey of the consumer behaviour of young males with respect to facial skin care products”.
● «ευτελή»: worthless, cheap
● «ΖΗΤΕ ΣΤΟ 1900 ‘Η ΣΤΟ 1963;»: do you live in the year 1900 or in 1963?
● «η εποχή μας»: our epoch
● «ιστορικότητα»: historicity
● «καθημερινό καθήκον»: daily duty
● «και απλουστεύει τη ζωή»: and it makes life that much simpler (free translation)
● «καταλήξατε κι’ εσείς»: (like the Hollywood stars), you too come to using the LUX soap (free translation)
● «Κέντρον Διανομής Γάλακτος»: Milk Distribution Centre
● «ΚΟΜΨΑ»/ «ΓΕΡΑ»: elegant/sound and sturdy, in describing a fridge
● «κρίσιμες ημέρες»: the critical days
● «λιτή κουζίνα»: frugal cuisine
● «λιτοδίαιτο»: abstemious/dietary foods
● «μαγκιά»: there is no accurate translation for this term in English – it describes the behaviour of a male who is streetwise, cool, proud and “heavy” in demeanour; he is usually a heavy smoker and hard drinker, hangs around with likeminded individuals, etc.
● «με θετική κοινωνική επίδραση»: with a positive social effect/impact
● «μεταπολεμική ξενική επίδραση»: postwar foreign influence/impact
● «μια αυτορρυθμιζόμενη ατομοποίηση»: a self-regulating individuation
● «ΝΟΜΑΡΧΙΑ ΒΟΙΩΤΙΑΣ»: Prefecture of Boeotia
● «νοοτροπία»: mentality, mindset
● «Ξεκινώντας το πρωί νηστικοί υπονομεύετε την υγεία σας»: Starting your day on an empty stomach undermines your health (free translation); «υπονόμευση» is the noun for undermining, or the weakening of something (the term appears elsewhere in the text)
● «Ξύπνα ρε, αυτή η χώρα που ζούμε είναι το πιο ανώμαλο ρήμα του κόσμου… Βούρλο!»: “Wake up, man, this country we live in is the most irregular verb in the world… Damn fool!” (free translation – the term “irregular verb” obviously suggesting something abnormal and irrational)
● «Ο μύθος του Σινάτρα»: the myth of Sinatra (or the “Sinatra myth”)
● «Ολη η Υφήλιος γελάει»: the whole world is laughing
● «Οπωσδήποτε, οι Ευρωπαίοι απολαμβάνουν μαζί με τους Αμερικανούς αυτές τις καινοτομίες,… ζεστό νερό και την πρίζα για ξυριστική μηχανή στο λουτρό του ξενοδοχείου τους…»: “Definitely, the Europeans – together with their American counterparts – enjoy these innovations… hot running water and a plug for their electric shaver in the w.c. of their hotel”.
● «όταν θυμώνει…»: when he gets angry
● «παγιωμένες διατροφικές συνήθειες»: entrenched/well-established dietary habits
● «πλούσιο και απαλό αφρό»: rich and soft foam/froth
● «πολυτέλεια περιττή»: an unnecessary luxury
● «προκαλώ ερωτικό πόθο»: provokes erotic desire
● «πρόκληση»: provocation
● «ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑ»: protection
● «Ρουμπίνη»: Roubini or Ruby, it being a predominantly feminine name, after the name of the gemstone ruby
● «σ’ αυτά τα χάλια»: in such a mess
● «Σαββατόβραδο»: Saturday night
● «σκάφες»: washboards/ washing troughs
● «σόφτεξ»: softex, brand name; product of Greek paper towel company
● «ΣΤΙΣ ΠΙΟ ΑΝΕΠΤΥΓΜΕΝΕΣ ΧΩΡΕΣ, ΤΟ ΠΡΟΓΕΥΜΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΚΟΥΑΚΕΡ»: in the more developed countries, breakfast is always Quakers
● «συμπύκνωση… της ιστορικής συγκυρίας»: a condensation of the historical conjuncture
● «συντηρητικής κοινής γνώμης»: conservative public opinion
● «συντηρητικότητα»: conservatism
● «Τεντιμποϊσμο»: Teddyboyism
● «ΥΠΕΡ-ΕΥΘΥΜΗ»: super hilarious (free translation)
● «Υπουργό Υγείας και Πρόνοιας»: Minister of Health and Welfare
● «φτωχοπλυσταριό»: poor laundry room (free translation)
● «χαζοαμερικάνοι»: dumb Americans
● «χαρτοβάμβακα»: cellulose wadding, napkins made of such material, for purposes of hygiene
● «χωρότητα»: spatiality

THE “ADJUSTED” ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE: AN EXAMINATION OF SOME SAMPLES

That type of advertizing discourse belonging to the “provocative-interventionist” category, and which mainly characterized the promotional strategies of certain multinational corporations, would share one essential common perspective with that of the Quixotic ultra-Left “one-dimensionalist”/anti-“totalitarian” political philosophy which had emerged in the post-war period: both would agree that the popular masses are reducible to a marketized logic. Such common perspective would mean that both would find themselves selling their ‘products’ to limited élite markets – in the case of a company such as Philips, its “PHILISHAVE” would be used by the educated upper-middle classes; in the case of a writer such as Marcuse, his books would be read by smallish circles of the student community. If, in the case of “PHILISHAVE”, the vast masses of Greeks did not use the electric shaver, it was because such masses supposedly belonged to the year 1900 (a “flawed” consumer). If, in the case of Marcuse, the vast majority of people took to consumerism, it was because such people were supposedly “alienated” (a “flawed” society). In the case of the latter, the marketized logic would become ingrained in the “false” consciousness of the masses. In the case of the former, the marketized logic would finally be ingrained in the minds of the masses when these would attain a certain maturity.

Both “provocative-interventionism” and the ultra-Left would view the consumer as an abstract category. Such abstract category would be composed of an amorphous mass of individuals which could be moved and manipulated by the surgical engineering of a market logic. For them, the masses were reducible to that market logic and its market values. At the same time, there was that other viewpoint, explainable in terms of the needs, functions and experiences of those who espoused it, that the consumer was a concrete subject constituting the popular masses of a specific society. Such concrete subject was not at all amorphous: it was the carrier of cultural values (Jung’s definition of “a people”) and was therefore characterized, not by any mechanical market logic, but by a socio-cultural logic. In this case, the consumer was acknowledged as a citizen-consumer, and one could not talk his language unless one was part of that citizen’s socio-cultural logic. Manipulation, provocation and the attempt to intervene in the consumer habits of the popular masses were, in this case, considered to be dysfunctional – here, the emphasis was on the attempt to express and condense (à la Leoussis) the tastes of the consumer in one’s promotional discourse. Such condensation would mean that the advertizing discourse would have to adjust to the socio-cultural realities of the consumer.

There are two clarificatory points that need to be made here: Firstly, “adjustment” would not necessarily mean that the product being promoted and the advertizing discourse promoting it would be invariably stifled by a conservative anachronism shying away from any “modernistic” innovation. The innovative element was almost always potentially present, but would here take the form of an organic outgrowth which would recognize and dialectically interact with the socio-cultural logic of the concrete consumer. Such policy in the “market idea” of a product could be adopted by both local companies and international corporations (and we have seen this happening even in the case of advertizing discourse that had originally commenced from a rigid “provocative-interventionist” consistency). If, in the last instance, local products – such as those of IZOLA – would ultimately lose out in the competitive tug-of-war with companies such as KELVINATOR, that would really have nothing to do with the “adjustment” philosophy in the advertizing discourse (or with localist “adjustments” in the composition of a product) – we well know that it would be the pre-given unevenness in the international division of labour (and the technological superiority of certain capital formations) which would determine who would be the losers and who the winners in the field of manufacturing. “Adjustment” in the semantics of advertizing discourse was, in fact, a reality recognized by whoever wanted to enter and grow in the local mass market of any country or region.Any specialist in advertizing discourse would of course know full well that not all of life can be marketized, and that there are certain grassroots values that cannot be simply crowded out (that, at least, was the case for the period we are examining).

The second point we need to make here concerns the question as to why certain companies would be more inclined to opt for “adjustment” rather than “provocation” and “intervention” in their promotional tactics. We have already tried to explain such divergence in advertizing strategies, and which we have related to the issues of “marketing mix”, the well-entrenched power of globally carved out markets securing the luxury for risk-taking, etc. Here, we simply wish to point out that the question as to who “provokes” and who “adjusts” has absolutely nothing to do with value-judgments rejecting certain companies as “imperialistic” and accepting certain others as “patriotic”, etc. As we shall see in examining advertizing discourse of the “adjusting” variety, such strategy would be determined by the specific material needs, locally-determined functions and history of the companies that would adopt such advertizing policy. Such factors would not render these companies either “good” or “bad” – but it would also not render them either “anachronistic” or “progressive”, or at least not necessarily so.

For the period under discussion, it would be elements of Greek endogenous non-monopoly capital (manufacturing or commercial, or those that combined both functions) which would more accurately capture and express the socio-cultural logic and values of the young and quickly maturing “Amalia-type”. Much of such capital would, in more ways than one, be a socio-economic outgrowth of such “type”. Its specific class interests, as capital, would of course be different to those of the “Amalia-type”, who was a wage-earner. In the specific case of local commercial capital, its economic interests, while different from those of the “Amalia-type”, would nonetheless not be directly contradictory. Endogenous non-monopoly commercial capital would patiently wait and wish for the rising consumer power of the “Amalia-type”. It would try to meet such consumer power in terms of a promotional discourse which adjusted market logic to the socio-cultural logic of the concrete “Amalia-type”. In fact, both commercial and even local manufacturing capitals were themselves immersed in the cultural values of the up and coming Greek middle class milieu. While profit-making would be their exclusive target, Greek retailers knew that the best way in which they could make such profits would be to stick to and further articulate an ideological discourse spoken fluently by both them and the “Amalia-type”.

An excellent example of such local retail capital would be «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» [“LAMPROPOULOI BROS”], the multi-storied department stores selling, inter alia, clothing for all the members of the Greek family and which were based in the urban centers of Athens, Piraeus and Patra. As we shall further see, however, these department stores would be a pole of attraction, not only for Greeks residing in these particular “cultural centers”, but also for whole masses of people residing in rural and semi-rural areas. For Boeotians, it would be the old national highway «ΟΔΟΣ ΘΗΒΩΝ ΕΛΕΥΣΙΝΑΣ» which would link them directly to Piraeus and Athens, where the two of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» stores would be located. As Dionysis Haritopoulos, in his Εκ Πειραιώς (Τόπος, 2012) notes, with reference to the Piraeus suburb of «Λεύκα» in 1955:

«Εδώ τέλειωνε η πόλη [Piraeus]… και άρχιζε
ο επαρχιακός χωματόδρομος για την πιο
κοντινή πόλη, τη Θήβα, γι’ αυτό έμεινε στον
δρόμο το όνομά της και τώρα που έγινε
άσφαλτος…» (p. 58 and cf. also attached
map).

It is precisely because «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» constituted an endogenous retail capital which was to become so popular amongst Boeotians in the 1960’s, 1970’s and through to the 1980’s, that we shall dwell on its advertizing discourse as a sample of discourse which so accurately reflects an adjustment of market logic to the cultural logic of the “Amalia-type”. We may begin with a short, simple advertisement which was to circulate in 1961 in a variety of publications, one of these being the not too popular Kathimerini, and which read as follows:

«Μοντέρνα εμπριμέ…
Σχέδια αποκλειστικά.
… ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ…
ΑΘΗΝΑΙ» (cf. Kathimerini,
16.5.1961).

This type of advertizing discourse, albeit simple at face value, allows us to make a number of preliminary observations, and which shall have to be verified as we move along – such observations would include:

• The advertisement places an emphasis on “modernity” – in doing so, it is promoting a new taste which is in fact a real new mass taste sprouting from the grassroots reality of the popular masses, whatever their class position. “Modernity” was seen – as it was – as a new cultural phenomenon gradually traversing all social strata. An examination of photographs either of the Aliartian barber (op. cit.) or of his friends, and which date back to the post-war period, fully justifies such observations judging by their dress code. The «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» discourse was therefore both promoting and adjusting to a Greek grassroots need: it was trying to meet just such need (while such taste for “modernity” in clothes was new as a mass phenomenon in the post-war period, its seeds date back to the late-19th century – cf. Kostis Palamas, «Περασμένα χρόνια – εξομολόγησις επαρχιώτου», in «Τα Χρόνια μου…», op. cit, pp. 455-461);
• Precisely because the discourse was trying to adjust to such need, it constituted a “balanced” discourse;
• By “balanced” discourse we mean that there was an absence of whatever “provocation” – the discourse does not wish to divide Greeks between those who were for “modernity” and those who supposedly clung on to “anachronistic” attire. It understood that the Greek popular masses – especially those younger of age – belonged to at least two broad categories: there were those who wanted to adopt the “modern” and practically did so because they simply could; and there were those who wanted to do so but could not for purely economic reasons. The firm patiently waited for a generalized rise in consumer power and, as we shall see, it would adjust its price ranges so as to accommodate those still struggling to make ends meet. The absence of any divisive “provocative” discourse would also mean that the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would not wish to contrast the “new” with the “old” – they would respect both. The owners of the firm – who were, as is obvious, all brothers – could only but have fully respected their own mother or grandmother who would reside in a mountain village and who were most probably dressed in traditional all-black attire;
• As is apparent, the advertizing discourse avoids whatever comparisons with the “foreign”, and there is no insinuation that such foreign is “superior”. This laconic little advertisement is free of any “national complexes” and takes “modernity” as a de facto taste of Greeks. For it, being Greek naturally translates into being “modern”. By extension, the “modern look” (those «Σχέδια αποκλειστικά») was that of the Greek middle class milieu. And the firm knew that even a Greek “grease monkey” would don his Sunday suit and go to his local coffee-shop to socialize with his mates. But, then, even a “grease monkey” would willingly espouse the Greek version of popular middle class values, and so would his wage-earning mates. If there was any foreign element in such popular taste, that in itself would be of little concern to the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» promotional strategy in 1961, at least as this is evident in the advertisement we are considering.

The point is that, unlike a number of multinational corporations whose understanding of markets was restricted to the abstract global, a firm such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» was rooted deeply in the socio-cultural and economic history of Greece. Historical facts speak for themselves, and these go back to 1901, when the «Καταστήματα Λαμπρόπουλοι» was established. Events leading to this establishment constitute a specifically Greek-rooted history and which explains the immersion of such firm in the socio-cultural atmosphere of the country. The founder of the retail outlet was a «μικροπωλητής με πάγκο στην οδό Αιόλου» or a mere «πλανόδιος» (cf. www.tovima.gr). As a street peddler, this man’s “beat” would be Aiolou Street, there where he would finally establish his own shop. In an important sense, any member of the Greek popular masses, however poor and “uneducated”, could have found himself in his shoes. Amalia Eleftheriadou’s brother, for instance, who would himself join the A&M Mill at Aliarto, could – potentially – have followed that same route. The Zygoyianni brothers, as mentioned elsewhere, did follow such a route, although they would never reach the heights of the Aiolou Street peddler. Not all down-and-outs (described so accurately throughout the work of Haritopoulos’ Εκ Πειραιώς, op. cit.) would be that successful, but the potential for social mobility was there, albeit in varying degrees given circumstances and personal confidence. In a sense, there was one common denominator uniting the likes of a Lambropoulos, a Zygoyiannis and a Leonidas (Amalia’s brother): despite differences in circumstances, they all had the potential to do it “their way”, and do so from a similar class position as launching pad. Although the socio-economic constraints were there to prevent all three cases from becoming major entrepreneurs, all three espoused such a dream. It was this common denominator that explains the socio-cultural rootedness of a firm such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ».

The story of the founder of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» goes back to 1898 – according to To Vima (cf. www.tovima.gr):

«… το 1898… ο Ξενοφών Λαμπρόπουλος,
από ένα χωριό της ορεινής Αρκαδίας,
μόνο αυτός από τα επτά αδέλφια της
οικογένειας, ήλθε στην Αθήνα να βρει
την τύχη του».

To the extent that Xenophon Lambropoulos embodied elements of the poverty-ridden rural areas of Greece, and which were areas steeped in traditional practices and attitudes, we may say that the man’s coming to Athens constituted an act of major sociological significance (his migration to Athens, of course, would be repeated by thousands upon thousands of rustics). Lambropoulos’ coming to Athens would mean that the rural “periphery” would unite with the urban “centre”, and such unification would mean an assimilation of traditionalist localism with that of “modernism”. When it came to clothing, such assimilation would come to be encapsulated in the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores themselves. Such vestiges of unification between cultural paradigms, first appearing at the turn of the 20th century, would continue and explode by the 1960’s – and we need to know the implications of such assimilation as to the new socio-cultural practices and new attitudes which would sprout and finally crystallize by the 1970’s. Xenophon Lambropoulos would both precede and ride the waves of such explosive process. What concerns us here are the implications of all this as to advertizing discourse and promotional behaviour on the part of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ», and the function of these within the Greek middle class milieu of which the “Amalia-type” was a pioneering social category.

But it would not only be this unification between “periphery” and “centre” which would determine the discourse of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm. In fact, we had yet another reason why the very nature of the firm would be such as to further reinforce its local rootedness and which would consolidate its natural determination to adjust to and express the essential “Greekness” of its customers. We know that, fairly soon, Xenophon Lambropoulos would be joined by four of his other brothers in the running of the fledgling business. Like him, they would abandon the rural areas and come to Athens to pursue their fate with their brother. As such, they would together come to constitute the classic Greek Family Business. Such familial interaction would place internal constraints within the firm as to its nature and functioning, and it would have specific implications as to its socio-cultural image, practices and attitudes. It is important to note here that such classic Greek Family Business would be what it was, not only because of the familial structures that would articulate with it as a firm (something which we also observed in the operations of the Aliartian A&M Mill factory – cf. our relevant paper on this issue), but also because all of its family members lacked any professional training in the field of trade and in fact lacked any formal education. Their cultural orientation and educational levels were precisely those of the Greek popular masses themselves: interestingly, the formal educational qualifications of Amalia Eleftheriadou stood well above theirs (we know that the young lady had almost completed her senior high school studies).

We would therefore have a combination of five interrelated factors which would determine the ‘psyche’ of this endogenous, non-monopoly commercial capital and which would clearly distinguish it from multinational giants such as Philips, Quaker Oats, Unilever, and so on. Apart from objective factors such as capital turnover, “marketing mix”, etc., the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm would be managed by five brothers who would be composing an entrepreneurial team characterized by the following so-called ‘subjective’ factors:

• They would all be carrying a rustic, traditional-residual culture;
• They would all have tasted the bitter fruits of poverty and the determination to start from point-zero (Xenophon Lambropoulos, the street peddler, being the most audacious as to that);
• They would be constrained by tight family relations: their entrepreneurial dynamism would be an expression of the Greek Family Unit interacting with the world of the market place;
• They all lacked any professional training: it would be their rich empirical knowledge which would allow them to thrive in the retail trade – ultimately, as we shall see, they would combine such empirical knowledge with that of the more professional Greek advertizing company «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ» (op. cit.), as also with the more ‘theoretical’ knowledge of ΕΛΚΕΠΑ (op. cit,), and which would allow them to emerge as a major force in Greek non-monopoly commercial capital;
• They all lacked any formal education, which meant that their “world view” and socio-cultural values were part and parcel of those of the Greek popular masses – if they were to go beyond the traditionalism of such values, so also would the popular middle class milieu in toto.

The social rootedness of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» is evident in more ways than one – we may simply note here that in 1929 the firm would promote its products by placing advertisements in the ‘organ’ of the Greek Communist Party, the Rizospastis. As in the case of the 1961 advertisement which we presented above, here too, the discourse of the advertisements was laconic, unpretentious and devoid of any “national complexes”. Below, we shall have to examine the rather interesting relationship that pertained between the owners of the local firm and the Greek “Left” (and thereby put the record straight as regards certain myths that have been cultivated about Greek local capital by most so-called “Marxist” intellectuals in Greece). Here, we simply observe that the rootedness of the firm was such as to also encompass the tastes of the pre-war communist “Left” when it came to attire (many members of such “Left” would belong to the educated “élites”, including lawyers, teachers, university students, writers, etc. – cf., for example, Αβραάμ Μπεναρόγια, Η πρώτη σταδιοδρομία του ελληνικού προλεταριάτου, Εκδόσεις Ολκός, 1975; or Νάσος Μπράτσος, Εργατικές ιστορίες, Εκδόσεις Bux, 1998).

It was just such long-term social rootedness on the part of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» which would allow the firm to earnestly adopt promotional strategies guided by ΕΛΚΕΠΑ. Very much unlike certain global giants which had persisted in advertizing discourse of the “provocative-interventionist” type, and which would circumvent the guidelines and codes of ΕΛΚΕΠΑ, this Greek firm would almost religiously listen to and abide by the local promotional strategies of the ΣΕΒ-related body and its educational programs. Above, we have dwelt on the ΣΕΒ/ΕΛΚΕΠΑ institutions (and their organ Paragogikotis ), and examined how these would undertake an ideological struggle to maintain “balances” within Greek advertizing discourse since the 1950’s. We have seen how these local institutions had emphasized the importance of placing the Greek consumer “in command”. The firm «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would be one of the first local Greek companies to champion such ΕΛΚΕΠΑ promotional strategies (perhaps at first unconsciously and spontaneously but later on quite consciously and very systematically). We know that the first-generation managers of the department stores did not possess the professional qualifications to pursue any systematic promotional policy capable of both competing with whatever multinational corporations and of maintaining a “balanced” promotional discourse expressive of the Greek context. But their instinctive business acumen would allow them to understand that their products could best be promoted by cooperating with ΕΛΚΕΠΑ and having their staff participate in the  seminars of the latter. While the firm’s staff would undergo training through internal/in-house seminars, the external promotional campaigns of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would be left to local advertizing experts, in this case the legendary advertizing company «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ», itself being an active member of ΕΔΕΕ and of the training organization ΚΕΣΔΙ (cf. above – we should here mention that yet another local advertizing company which would manage the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» promotional campaigns in the early-1960’s would be «ΓΚΡΕΚΑ»).

The re-education of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» employees via ΕΛΚΕΠΑ seminars in the decade of the 1980’s would be part of that generalized re-education of Greek personnel involved in the local manufacturing and commercial field, and which – as we have already noted – would engage a total of 60.000 people (cf., above, as quoted from the Δελτίον ΣΕΒ). The participation of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm in such seminars was whole-hearted and active, and not at all a merely formal ritual meant to appease either ΣΕΒ or the public. An ΕΛΚΕΠΑ trainer involved in the running of these seminars for the staff of the department stores in the decade of the 1980’s would have this to say, in retrospect:

«Σε σεμινάρια πωλήσεων που τους
είχα κάνει την δεκαετία του ’80 με
το ΕΛΚΕΠΑ, είχα μείνει έκπληκτος από
την ποιότητα των βιβλίων που είχαν
τυπώσει για να εκπαιδεύεται συνεχώς
το προσωπικό τους και να εξυπηρετεί
καλύτερα την πελατεία τους»
(cf. «Η παλιά Αθήνα»,
www.paliaathina.com).

It would be both the objective rootedness of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm and its conscious decision to participate in such ΕΛΚΕΠΑ seminars which would allow it to play a pioneering role in the advancement of a specifically “Greek modernity” as regards the local dress code. This would mean that, while “modernity” would be its central aim both as regards the composition of its products and as also the discourse of its advertisements, it would nonetheless maintain certain checks and balances so as not to violate the given tastes of its customers, but which were themselves in flux. As such, the advertizing discourse of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm would be devoid of any vestiges of “provocation” and crude “interventionism” and its symbolic semantics would be articulated in rhythm with the needs and potentials of the popular masses. From the very outset, it would focus its promotional campaigns on what it would call –

«Ανδρικά είδη και νεωτερισμοί».

And, at least by the early-1960’s, it would also expand such «νεωτερισμούς» to cover the needs of Greek women and kids. But to fully comprehend the historic role of firms such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» in actually clothing the post-war Greek family according to the new, emerging standards of the fledgling middle class milieu, we need to contrast such «νεωτερισμούς» in relation to Greek attire amongst the popular masses worn in the mid-1950’s. Such contrast would allow us to go so far as to say that the department stores of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would literally re-clothe the Greek popular masses. Dionysis Haritopoulos (op. cit.), who had himself worked in the field of advertizing till 1990, refers to the usual attire of Greeks in the mid-1950’s (and with reference to a clothes manufacturing firm run by a certain «Ρετσίνας» based in the area of Λεύκα at Piraeus) – he writes:

«Στη Λεύκα έφτιαξε ο Ρετσίνας το
σκυλίσιο ντρίλι ύφασμα και έντυσε
τους εργατικούς και τους χωρικούς
όλης της χώρας με φτηνά, ζεστά και
ανθεκτικά ρούχα, από παντελόνι
μέχρι τραγιάσκα…» (p. 59).

It is impossible to truly capture the psychology of the “New Type” of Greek that was gradually emerging in the 1960’s without drawing a sharp contrast between that «σκυλίσιο ντρίλι ύφασμα» which Haritopoulos describes, and which he says would once clothe the whole of the nation, to that new type of «νεωτερισμοί» which «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would be promoting, and which would itself come to re-clothe that whole nation. It is self-evident that the self-image and identity of the individual belonging to the new Greek middle class milieu would, to a large extent, be determined  by the clothes he would don, especially over weekends or in the course of various national and religious celebrations (especially Easter time – with reference to dress codes amongst churchgoers back in the 1920’s, cf. Kostis Palamas, «Πασχαλινή ενθήμηση», in Τα χρόνια μου, op. cit., pp. 373-376, where he notes, inter alia: «Ο κόσμος πυκνότατος, αστράφτοντας μέσα στα γιορτερά του…»).

As already alluded to, this new trend towards various «νεωτερισμούς» for all the members of the Greek family – as promoted by the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm – would never seek to openly violate the given status quo regarding dress code. And this would apply both to the status quo as determined by the popular masses and to that status quo as determined by the State itself in certain special cases. An excellent example of the manner in which «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would adjust to the given circumstances concerns its policy with regard to school uniforms for girls. We know that the Greek State would enforce a policy whereby schoolgoers would be forced to wear a specific uniform at school, the traditional «μπλε σχολική ποδιά» for females, something which would only be abolished by February 6, 1982. Up until that time, the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm (together with that other very popular department store, «ΜΙΝΙΟΝ») would promote and sell that particular school uniform by sticking to State stipulations while at the same time trying to “modernize” it as much as possible. What would emerge would be a new «ΘΡΑΝΙΟΜΟΔΑ», and parents would rush to these department stores at the start of the school-year to satisfy both the regulations of the State and the new whims of a youth that was a continuing outgrowth of the “sexual revolution” through to the 1970’s and 1980’s.

The forms that such «ΘΡΑΝΙΟΜΟΔΑ» would take, and especially as that was promoted in the popular press, will not concern us here. What is of major interest for our purposes at this point is to stress that a local non-monopoly retail enterprise as was «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» (as was also «ΜΙΝΙΟΝ») would be able to both accommodate the traditionalism of the Greek school uniform and at the same time undertake subtle innovations which would “modernize” it to an extent that it would make it more or less tolerable amongst youth. Put otherwise, one may say that the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm both served the State-imposed conservative regulations regarding school uniforms (it had no choice but do that) and at the same time tried to effect a “modernization” within the limits of such regulations – in that way, it tried to maintain “balances” between State conservativeness (which by the way also reflected the tastes of certain sections of Greek society) and that particular type of “modernism” preferred by Greek youth. As a local-based retail company which was fully aware of both the “conservative” constraints of the Greek case, and of the “progressive” impulses of that selfsame case, it was predisposed to respond to both. It did precisely that, and thus established itself as an economic and cultural phenomenon in the «nous» of the Greek popular masses. Such «nous» encompassed all social strata and traversed whatever political orientations.

This real impact on the «nous» of the popular masses, while truly exploding in the decade of the 1960’s, would actually commence in the post-war period, precisely at the time when that «σκυλίσιο ντρίλι ύφασμα» (Haritopoulos) would continue to be the order of the day for the vast masses of workers and peasants. By the early-1950’s, the advertizing discourse of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm would be such as to address itself to a nation deprived of the fruits of “modernity” as a result of both the German occupation and the Civil War that had ensued. Generally speaking, the firm’s advertizing discourse at that time announced its wish to provide the Greek popular masses with whatever the war had denied them – its overall discourse strategy, across time, would be to try to fill the gap of deprivation caused, not only by the war, but also by the poverty of the pre-war period – as regards the latter, the discourse approach would be transient, self-correcting and complex.

Much more specifically, one needs to distinguish between three fairly distinct, at times rather contradictory, but nonetheless interrelated elements in the advertizing discourse of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» of the early-1950’s, and which would spill over to 1960’s discourse in a manner which would suppress some of these elements and highlight certain others. To begin with, advertizing in the very early-1950’s would place an immediate emphasis – and perhaps naturally so – on the deprivations of war and  the need to win the confidence of the post-war consumer based on the promises of the post-war period and the stability of peace. Such “promises” were assumed to be meant for all and sundry (across social strata) and it was the “confidence” of all such that had to be won. A well-informed text narrating the history of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores (in athinapisovitrina.blogspot.gr) explains the matter as follows:

«Σε διαφημίσεις του 1950 εμφανίζεται
έτοιμο [το κατάστημα] να κερδίσει την
εμπιστοσύνη του καταναλωτή και να
προσφέρει όλα αυτά που μέχρι τότε είχε
στερήσει ο πόλεμος».

While post-war confidence would definitely express the «nous» of all social strata, and while the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» discourse would appeal to such given generalized confidence (and which would of course need to be further boosted), the discourse would take it for granted that it was merely the realities of war per se that had been the cause of social deprivation. Yet still, as regards this first element of discourse, the emphasis would be placed on the all-inclusiveness of consumer confidence in a period when work, consumption and “modernity” would gradually take precedence over the tragic memories of destructive and self-destructive acts of war.

But the second element in the post-war discourse of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertizing would carry ideological allusions which unwittingly revealed that its pre-war clients were limited exclusively to élite strata of Greek society, something which is historically explainable given the near-ubiquitous poverty of the popular masses prior to the war (on this issue, and with respect to the rest of Europe, cf. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, op. cit., p. 93). This second element of discourse would now not only presuppose that all deprivations were a mere consequence of the specific war conditions but also that, prior to these conditions, all Greeks had been, so to speak, “happy” – and this would have a direct effect on the discourse itself. One advertisement of the immediate post-war period – in 1946 – would run as follows:

«Η ΖΩΗ ξαναρχίζει…
μ’ όλες τις προπολεμικές
χαρές!»
(cf. Nikos Bakounakis, «Το στιγμιαίο
και το διαρκές…», www.tovima.gr,
30.11.1997).

In this type of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertisement we have a post-war discourse which would clearly romanticize the pre-war era – as such, it would inadvertently be class-biased, hearkening back to the “joys” of its then élite customers (those who had been able to avoid that «σκυλίσιο ντρίλι ύφασμα»).

By the 1960’s, however, the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertizing discourse would reveal a third and henceforth permanently dominant element: while setting aside any references to the deprivations of the war period, it would continue to address itself to the new-found consumer confidence, and which by now was becoming a material reality for large segments of the popular masses. But much more importantly, the “joys” of the élites, be these of the pre- or post-war period, were to be the “joys” of all.

This third element, latent in the first and second elements, would become the conscious advertizing strategy of the firm: its socio-cultural rootedness would enable it to open up its discourse in a manner which captured the new popular middle class milieu. The material constraints of the pre-war past had restricted the market space of the ex-Aiolou Street peddler to that of the élite few. By the 1960’s, «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would meet their element, and it would be precisely this social element – the popular middle class milieu – which would render them “great” both in the «nous» of the masses and amongst endogenous non-monopoly capital.

To verify our position at this point, we simply quote the words of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of ΑΕ «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» on December 7, 1965, at the time when their seven-storey department would be finally established – these words are telling. As he put it:

«Προσπαθήσαμε και φτιάξαμε
 έναν ολόκληρο κόσμο για όλο
 τον κόσμο»
(cf. Ελευθερία, 7.12.1965,
my emph.).

The references to «έναν ολόκληρο κόσμο» and to «για όλο τον κόσμο» need to be taken quite literally: the former speaks of a whole new world that was being constructed at the time and which was the new, popular middle class milieu, and as such milieu was being given a corporeal reality within those seven floors of the building. Great masses of people would move and mix along its aisles and corridors (amounting to 4,000 square meters of space) in a manner which would define and re-define that “New Type” of Greek, and about which Walter Benjamin would have had so much to say (we shall come back to his approach). As regards the latter phrase, it would clearly announce that the stores of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would henceforth be going beyond the Greek élites as their target group – both advertizing discourse and product would be meant to cover the needs of the Greek popular masses as a whole. An advertisement in the Akropolis (5.12.1965, p. 3), announcing the new «Μεγάλο Κατάστημα», would declare:

«Με υπερηφάνεια σας προσκαλούμε
να το επισκεφθήτε, να το θαυμάσετε,
να το χαρήτε, γιατί στην επιτυχία αυτήν
 συντέλεσε και η δική σας συμβολή»
(my emph.).

But such intentions did not simply appear suddenly and out of the blue: the firm had been preparing itself for such market openness even since the 1950’s. Its plans to open up its market space «για όλο τον κόσμο», thus popularizing its products for the rest of society, would already be evident in the decade of the 1950’s when it would place an emphasis on cheap prices, something which would dominate in its advertizing discourse as such. For instance, in 1958, the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertizing discourse would be dominated by slogans such as the following:

«εκλεκτά είδη εις ευθηνάς τιμάς»
(cf. inter alia, «53 Διαφημίσεις –
Αφίσες», docplayer.gr).

It would be this opening up to the “Amalia-type” that would allow the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm to achieve its peak development, and which would be in the decades of the 1960’s and 1970’s. It would be in the course of such peak development that the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores in Athens, Piraeus and Patra would attain a very specific combination of socio-cultural functions in Greek society which it is important to dwell on. To understand such combination of functions, we shall begin by presenting two texts which simply describe how people would relate to the type of department store represented by «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ». The first text, which refers to the 1960’s-1970’s period, reads as follows:

«Δεν ήταν λίγοι οι αθηναίοι που για
πολλά χρόνια κατέβαιναν απλά για
να θαυμάσουν τις βιτρίνες του
Λαμπρόπουλου, να δουν τις τιμές και
κυρίως “όλα τα νέα ευρωπαϊκά μοντέλα”…»
(cf. athinapisovitrina.blogspot.gr).

As has already been mentioned, it would not only be Athenians who would engage in such activity – people from the rural areas or from towns such as Thiva (cf. the Haritopoulos quote above with reference to «Λεύκα»), or from Aliarto itself, would also visit the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores. Even prior to the construction of the seven-storey building, the Aliartian barber (op. cit.), by way of an example, would often enough visit the department stores with his family, and such event would always constitute a red-letter day for them in the early-1960’s. In fact, by the 1970’s, the Aiolou-Ermou Street complex in the Athens city-centre would come to constitute the beloved urban hub for the villagers of Boeotia, especially as regards female youth, whose main interest was the latest in fashion, apart from the “bright lights”.

The second descriptive text, this time with reference to the department stores of «ΜΙΝΙΟΝ» (and which represented the selfsame cultural phenomenon as was that of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ»), reads as follows:

«Μπορούσα να έχω περπατήσει από
το Σύνταγμα, αλλά έτσι θα έχανα
μία από τις μεγαλύτερες απολαύσεις
μου, από μικρό παιδί. Τρελαίνομαι για
κυλιόμενες σκάλες. Περίμενα πώς και πώς,
όταν ήμουν πιτσιρίκος, να έρθει εκείνη
η μέρα του μήνα που η μάνα μου θα μάζευε
τα ελάχιστα χρήματα που μας περίσσευαν
για να πάμε στο “Μινιόν” και να αγοράσουμε
ένα ψευτοπράγμα, ίσα-ίσα για να γυρίζω
εγώ πάνω-κάτω τις κυλιόμενες και εκείνη
να χαζεύει όσα δεν μπορούσε να αποκτήσει…»
(cf. P. Koutsakis, Ιερά Οδός Μπλουζ,
Εκδόσεις Πατάκη, Athens, 2010, p. 213).

What are the implications of such social behaviour as described in these texts? More specifically, what is implied as regards the socio-cultural functions of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» or the «ΜΙΝΙΟΝ» department stores in Greek society? As major social attractions for the post-war popular masses, these constituted a corporeal discourse which engaged people in a variety of ways, even when that took the form of what Koutsakis calls «να χαζεύει». What would all this have meant for Amalia Eleftheriadou whenever she would find the opportunity to stroll along the streets of Aiolou and Ermou, and where she would mostly have spend her time «χαζεύοντας»?

For Walter Benjamin, it would be that specific type of critically-minded street wanderer – the “flâneur” – who would have looked down on and evaluated the “Amalia-type” as “nothing but the amorphous crowd of passers-by” devoid of whatever social collectivity (cf. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, Fontana Press, 1992, pp. 161-163, etc.). But would Benjamin’s “flâneur” have been an accurate observer of an Amalia Eleftheriadou as she would stare at the shop-windows of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores? The matter is important, because it raises the question as to whether the “Amalia-type” (as shopper) had belonged to an amorphous mass of “dreamers” manipulated by the “nightmare” of “modernism”, or whether such “type” was an organic part of a collective milieu fashioning its own identity, and doing so by dialectically interacting with that corporeal discourse we are speaking of.

To attempt an answer to such a question, we may begin by briefly presenting some of the perceptions developed – rather unsystematically to say the least – by Benjamin himself, and which were to later become holy script by certain “Marxist” academics in Europe, and so also in Greece. Benjamin had been deeply concerned about the effects of “modernity” and “progress” on the nature of humanity, and he had tried to examine the impact of these as they had manifested themselves in Paris, which he considered to be the capital of the 19th century. Observing both the urban landscape and its dwellers, he would come up with a number of conclusions. Stavros Stavridis, a Greek “Leftwing” academic in the Athens School of Architecture, has tried to summarize such theoretical conclusions (cf. his «Εικόνα και εμπειρία της πόλης στον Βάλτερ Μπένγιαμιν», in A. Spyropoulou (ed.), Βάλτερ Μπένγιαμιν, Εκδόσεις Αλεξάνρεια, 2007, pp. 250-272). Some of these positions would include the following:

• One extremely interesting approach is that cities constitute the «υλικότητα του αστικού κόσμου». Therein, «στις πτυχές των γεωλογικών στρώσεων, που γεννούν την πόλη, στη φυσιογνωμία αντικειμένων και συμβάντων, ο Μπένγιαμιν πίστευε πως θα έβρισκε αποτυπωμένο τον χαρακτήρα της νεωτερικής ζωής». (Stavridis, op. cit., pp. 250-251). Of course, if one were to carefully stretch such an approach to its logical limits, one would have to revise the traditional conceptions of Marxism whereby the reality of ideology is reduced to the terrain of ideas. If it be objects and events of a city which encapsulate its “modernist-capitalist” character, such character cannot be reduced to whatever “dominant” system of ideas imposed on the “dominated” by certain State apparatuses. Objects, happenings and behaviours engage civil society as a whole, whatever the objective social position of its members, and depending on their relative bargaining power. Both Benjamin and his later followers would never be able to go thus far, and thus the city per se would – for them – come to be characterized by one iron law – «τον νόμο της φετιχιστικής φαντασμαγορίας» (p. 264).
• The manner in which Benjamin would view and experience the «υλικότητα» of the  city of Paris would lead him to a totalitarian conception of the “modernist world” whereby such world would be revealed to him – as it would to a “flâneur” – as the ultimate “myth of modernism”, a “myth” which subsumes all city dwellers. Stavridis puts this as follows: «Εκθέτοντας στις βιτρίνες των καταστημάτων τους ό,τι πιο καινούργιο και εντυπωσιακό, οι στοές [of Paris] γίνονται ο πιο χαρακτηριστικός τόπος της νεωτερικής φαντασμαγορίας. Τα εμπορεύματα είναι εκθέματα: Οι επισκέπτες τους, παρόλο που δεν μπορούν οι πιο πολλοί να τα αγοράσουν, ζουν τη δύναμη του μύθου τους, την υπόσχεση ενός μέλλοντος γεμάτου ανακαλύψεις, γεμάτου θαύματα. Στις στοές, μοιάζει να υλοποιήθηκε το πιο λαμπρό παράδειγμα της νεωτερικής μυθολογίας» (p. 266, my emph.).
• This “myth” would have a transformative effect on those who came into contact with it: city-dwellers would be reduced to a mass of “dreaming” spectators. Stavridis writes: «Το εμπόρευμα μετατρέπεται σε θέαμα και οι περαστικοί σε θαμπωμένους θεατές που ονειρεύονται» (pp. 266-267, my emph.).
• Such “dreaming” harbours within it the secreted “nightmare” of “modernism” – Stavridis continues: «… στις ίδιες βιτρίνες απεικονίζεται ο νεωτερικός εφιάλτης: Το νέο είναι τελικά το διαρκώς ίδιο. Ο νεωτερισμός εκφυλίζεται σε μόδα. Μόδα που σαρώνει και τις ίδιες τις στοές» (p. 267, my emph.). Of course, Benjamin himself was being quite “prophetic” when referring to the “nightmarish” element – the real nightmare would certainly come with the advent of the Second World War. In retrospect, however, we know that the “modern age” would also come to include the “Golden Age” of the postwar years (cf. Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes, op. cit., esp. Part 2, “The Golden Age”), which would mean a long period of peace, at least in Europe, and the radical amelioration of material conditions for the popular masses. Within such “Golden Age”, the functions of a «βιτρίνα» cannot possibly be reduced to the signifier of some totalistic “nightmare”. Further, it would be a naïve oversimplification to suggest that «Το νέο είναι τελικά το διαρκώς ίδιο», as Benjamin would have it and as any Stavridis would so uncritically accept – above, we have cited the work of Irving Fang (op. cit.) which, like that of so many others, has shown the waves of real ruptural fusions that have taken place in human history and which have led to the unbelievable “newness” of the sixth revolution, that of the internet.
• By reducing “modernism” to a “nightmare”, Benjamin would naturally point to what he perceived to be the “myth of progress”, again seeing that absence of “progress” in the corporeal reality of the city of Paris with its “bright lights”, its shop-windows and their exhibited commodities. As Stavridis further continues: «Εικόνες λαμπερές, διαφημίσεις, επιδεικνυόμενα τεχνολογικά επιτεύγματα, φωτισμένες βιτρίνες, όψεις του πλήθους στα βουλεβάρτα. Όλη τούτη η εικονογραφία συνεργεί στη μυθική κατασκευή που αξιώνει την υπερτοπική και διαχρονική αίγλη του νεωτερικού μύθου της προόδου. Μια τέτοια μυθολογική εικονογραφία μαγεύει την πόλη όπως μαγεύει και τους κατοίκους της» (p. 268, my emph.). And in a footnote to his text, Stavridis adds: «Πρόκειται για την “επανενεργοποίηση των μυθικών δυνάμεων” που χαρακτηρίζει τον “ύπνο γεμάτο όνειρα” στον οποίο βύθισε την πόλη η καπιταλιστική νεωτερικότητα» (ibid.). Both for Benjamin and for “Left intellectuals” such as Stavridis, people very simply “sleep” within the “nightmare” of the “bright lights” of capitalist cities – presumably, they shall only be able to “wake up” when capitalism is destroyed, and which would constitute real “progress”.
• Our commentary might sound bitterly ironic and may be said to overstate their position – but we need note how Stavridis ends his paper, quoting Benjamin: «η επανάσταση ξεμαγεύει [entzaubert] την πόλη» (p. 272). In other words the “myth of modernism” and the “myth of progress” can only be de-mythologized through an anti-capitalist revolution.

It would, perhaps, be quite rash to wish to transfer Benjamin’s observations on the city of Paris to the “modernity” and “progress” that the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» represented for the rural and urban dwellers of 1960’s-1970’s Greece. But there are at least three basic parallels which could allow for some such transference: Firstly, the impact of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» stores on Greeks could somehow be paralleled to that of Benjamin’s Parisians: both would be struck by the “bright lights” of “modernity” for their very first time. Although we need to bear in mind the truly different socio-economic histories of these two countries, there was still one common denominator: both for Benjamin’s Parisians and for the 1960’s Greeks, the shop-windows and the “bright lights” would constitute a first impact flashing in the “innocent” minds of both these peoples. Such impact, of course, would take place in completely different time-periods, and that would delimit the differences in response as regards these two peoples. (For an examination of the rise of department stores in countries such as France, America and Britain in the 19th century, cf. E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire…, op. cit., p. 54.)

Secondly, both the “modernity” of Parisian shops and the “modernity” of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would be a specifically “capitalist modernity”, and it is in that sense that Greek “Leftwing” academics such as Stavridis would wish to “re-read” the work of Benjamin and want to apply it to the Greek case. Although we would certainly reject whatever approach that speaks in the name of some abstract “Capitalism-in-General” – there has never been one “Capitalist System” as such but rather a variety of “capitalisms” which could include various “pre-capitalist” characteristics at different levels of maturation – we may nonetheless tentatively accept that rudiments of “modernity” would also penetrate the Greek social formation, especially in the hub of the Athens city-centre and given the influx of certain “Western” commodities.

This second, and as always rather tentative parallel, brings us to the final point which could allow us to transfer some of the Benjamin observations to the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» case. Very simply, it was a motley of Parish fashions (though not only) that the firm was consciously introducing to the “Amalia-type”. Again, the question which remains to be answered is the specific response of that “Amalia-type” to whatever European fashions.

Before we examine the impact of the “modernist” corporeal discourse as expressed by the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΥΛΟΙ» department stores in the Greek context, we need to say a few final words about Benjamin’s (and Stavridis’) understanding of “modernity” and the almost metaphysical conclusions they come up with. That would further allow us to attempt some greater understanding of the real socio-cultural functionality of department stores such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» within the Greek context and what that would mean for the “Amalia-type”.

Perhaps we should begin by stating what is surely by now quite obvious to any social historian: there are no iron laws in history, let alone any one such law. Benjamin’s understanding of history is “messianic”: all dominant historic events up until his tragic-comic suicide in 1940 were, for him, the accumulation of a destructive “myth”, a “nightmare”, and only “entzaubert” would lead humanity to its salvation. For him, the socio-cultural phenomenon of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would be a central element of such destructive “myth”, and which was itself a manifestation of one iron law in the history of capitalism – «τον νόμο της φετιχιστικής φαντασμαγορίας». Further, and what is by now self-evident to anyone who has lived the 20th century, there are no “millenarian” ruptures in modern history: revolutions did and do take place, but their end-product is nowhere near whatever metaphysical “entzaubert” and they carry within their end-product elements of the so-called pre-revolutionary period, be these ‘good’ or ‘bad’. In fact, the very idea of “salvation” points to a religious mysticism, something which is completely useless in trying to understand how the “Amalia-type” would relate to and “live” the “bright lights” and shop windows of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores. Finally, the belief that any “Amalia-type” could be reduced to a “dreaming” spectator presupposes a totalitarian social system, something which cannot possibly describe whatever “life-form”, given that all forms of human existence have been characterized by different levels and types of resistance within a “system” which is itself open to a complex of internal contradictions. To understand the relation between the “Amalia-type” and the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» stores, one needs to keep in mind that there was a complex of balance of forces that would define the role of objects, events and behaviours around and within stores such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ», and it would be such continually changing balance of forces that would determine the texture, either of the little “nightmares” or of the little units of “progress” in the life of an Amalia Eleftheriadou. Both “nightmare” and “progress” would be present in the life of such young working people, but the post-war stability and the celebration of youth would tilt the balance towards some sense of personal “progress” (the latter term, used by Benjamin and usurped by the “Left” to describe its policies, in any case remains vague and obfuscating).

The “Amalia-type”, therefore, did not fall into whatever imposed “myth” (and was in no objective need for any “entzaubert”). If one is to at all accept whatever notion of “myth”, one would say that Amalia Eleftheriadou was that “myth”, in the specific sense that she was a truth unto herself. The “Amalia-type” made that “myth”, which was both a celebration of itself and at the same time was a “miserable passion” (in the Aeschylus sense). But Amalia Eleftheriadou did not make such “myth” – or such “truth” – all by herself. It was, inter alia, one collectivity – that generic “Amalia-type” – which bargained for its identity, negotiated it, lost it and won it, and so on, right as it related to the shop windows of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores.

What was such “Amalia-type” “truth”, and what does that tell us about the socio-cultural functions of the department stores of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» in the 1960’s-1970’s period? Such a question can only be answered through hard, empirical research, and must be posited well outside all utopian paradigms or whatever imageries of some “Angel of Death” (Benjamin).

Based on the two texts we have presented above, and which described how people would relate to the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores starting from the decade of the 1960’s, we may make the following observations regarding the socio-cultural functioning of such stores:

• As a centre of popular attraction, the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores were a nexus of socio-cultural socializing. The stores brought the popular masses together as a collectivity of consumers or as potential consumers. The shop windows, which they marveled at («για να θαυμάσουν»), pointed to their potential role as the “modern consumer” – and they would thus “marvel” at their own new-found or looming consumer power. That would in itself urge them, not only to work harder, but also to wish to reinforce their bargaining power as a working people. But the socializing would go further: it would mix together urbanites with rustics, White-collar employees (as was Amalia) with manual labourers, the “Europeanized” with the traditionalists, the young with the old, and so on. Further, as the second text indicates, the stores of «ΜΙΝΙΟΝ»  would also introduce kids, amongst others, to the new “global” technology (such as the escalators). Above all, the Aiolou-Ermou Street complex would be a cultural conjunction between the “centre” and the “periphery”: for certain moments of their lives, Thebans and Aliartians would turn “Athenians”. Often enough, rustics who visited the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» or the «ΜΙΝΙΟΝ» department stores would then spend some hours of recreation at Athenian tavernas or coffee-shops run by ex-village compatriots (for instance, the village of Domvraina had its own Athenian-based coffee-shop and taverna not too far from the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» and the «ΜΙΝΙΟΝ» department stores).
• Those who visited the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores would not merely marvel or passively gaze at the shop windows. They would not, as Stavridis (following Benjamin) assumes, be reduced to an amorphous mass of «θαμπωμένους θεατές που ονειρεύονται» (op. cit). According to the first text describing the manner in which people would relate to the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» stores, we read that «για πολλά χρόνια κατέβαιναν… για να… δουν τις τιμές». Such intentions would transform the window shoppers from “dreaming” spectators into calculating subjects: from the act of «θαυμάζω» they would move to the act of «μετράω». A 1964 satirical text published in Romantso would present the male “calculating subject” as follows (though females could be even more “calculating”): «Τώρα με τρώει να της πάρω, λέει, ένα ζευγάρι παππούτσια, που είδε σε μια βιτρίνα, στην οδό Ερμού…» His wife insists: «Αχ! Είναι όνειρο, Ονούφριέ μου! Να πάμε να τα δής! Και φτηνούλια... εξακόσιες δραχμές!» The husband responds: «Καλά, θα δούμε! είπα εγώ αορίστως». And he explains to the reader: «Γιατί δεν ήμουν διατεθειμένος να πληρώσω ένα εξακοσάρι για παππούτσια της κυρίας. Αυτό έλειπε… Και να τα φέρη ο διάβολος, προ ημερών, να είναι ο δρόμος μας από την Ερμού». His immediate reaction is predictable: «Αμάν, κάηκα! Είπα μέσα μου με τη σκέψι πως θα μούλεγε η Ουρανίτσα να σταματήσω το αυτοκίνητο για να δούμε στη βιτρίνα τα παππούτσια. Και με τη σκέψι αυτή, φουλάρω το αμάξι και περνάω με ογδόντα χιλιόμετρα από το παππουτσίδικο…» (cf. Romantso, τεύχ. 1107, 19.5. 1964, p. 38).
• By comparing prices (one commodity as against another; the fluctuation of prices pertaining to a particular commodity through the passage of time), they would be measuring themselves up against these prices. As such, they would be measuring their objective power as a “class” – i.e. as a working people belonging to various income brackets (be these wage labourers or freelancers, or both) and as a consuming class (in both cases, obviously not in the classic Marxian sense of “class”). But this was a collectivity of working people which, by keeping an eye on prices and thus measuring itself up against the potential consumption of goods, was gradually defining its own “luxuries” (in the Galbraith sense). It was precisely this that would make of this collectivity a “middle class”, in the sense of expressing a very specific ideological and cultural milieu. Department stores such as the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would therefore function as a conscious price quotient defining the limits between basic material “necessities” and “luxuries”. But because such quotient was in flux and tensing towards «ευθηνάς τιμάς» (with an inflation rate which would never exceed 5% between 1956 and 1972), the on-going re-definition of “luxuries” by this social collectivity would render it, even literally speaking, a “middle class”, in the sense that it was perched between lumpen elements and small-time capitalists. Our intention is not to draw any clear-cut lines between these social divisions, and especially as regards the lumpen/working-person interface. And yet, we should perhaps quote Haritopoulos (op. cit.), who insists that young working people would in fact be hostile to lumpen elements. On the one hand, he tells us that lumpen elements would look down on those who held a formal job – he writes: «ο μάγκας που έχει νεφρό αρνείται να υποταχτεί σε νόμους και γραφές ή να προστεθεί στους μεροκαματιάρηδες που κοψομεσιάζονται ολημερίς για ένα κομμάτι ψωμί…» (p. 368). On the other hand, young working males would actually gang together so as to physically attack lumpen elements – speaking of the former, he writes: «Αυτή η παρέα από σβέλτα, νευρικά παιδιά δεν είναι οι πιο δυνατοί στη γειτονιά, αλλά είναι οι αρκούδες, αυτοί είναι σαν αγέλη λύκων που ορμάνε από όλες τις μεριές και σε κάνουν κομμάτια… επειδή ξεπατώνονται στις χαμαλοδουλειές για το μεροκάματο, έχουν άχτι τα κουτσαβάκια που τεμπελιάζουν ολημερίς στα καφενεία… και παριστάνουν τον κάργα, όλο ύφος και τα τοιαύτα…» (p. 309). But whether such social division was stark or blurred is really beside the point – what we should rather focus on is that that division, whatever form it took, was determined by the relation one had to the cultural milieu represented by the “style” of an «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ». Such was a “style” and “image” that could not be met unless one systematically calculated one’s consumer power up against prices and worked and/or bargained hard so as to clothe one’s family. It was this calculation, hard work and bargaining on the part of members of the middle class that would ultimately enable them to move from the purchasing of what Koutsakis calls «ψευτοπράγματα» to, as mentioned above, actually re-clothing themselves. Amongst other things, it would also lead to a re-definition of the female sense of “beauty” (cf. our discussions around this issue above). It goes without saying that, in the long run, this middle class milieu – as defined by its complex relationships with the commodities of stores such as that of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm – would swamp the majority of the popular masses and completely marginalize the lumpen elements. At least by the 1970’s, the remnants of the «μάγκας» sub-cultural strand would either disappear or be reduced to scattered groupings of eccentric poseurs.
• The first text, as we have seen, goes on to further observe that «για πολλά χρόνια κατέβαιναν απλά για να θαυμάσουν… κυρίως “όλα τα νέα ευρωπαϊκά μοντέλα”…». To the extent that window shoppers were not mere “dreamers”, and to the extent that they were carriers of a socio-cultural logic that could not be simply crowded out by any market logic, we may say that the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores constituted a socio-cultural hub wherein the popular masses critically assimilated the latest “European models”. Their “thought and attention”, as Galbraith would put it, was focused, not merely on cold calculation (prices), but also on “cultural taste”. Both the calculation of consumer power and the choice of dress code were elements of a conscious or semi-conscious collective practice – it would be these two elements that would define the “luxuries” of the Greek popular middle-class milieu, and department stores such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would be a central space wherein such “luxuries” would be delimited. Thus, the corporeal discourse of such stores was a two-way, dialectical interplay of cultural/ ideological forces which tested the assimilative capacities of the popular masses.

The socio-cultural functions of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» stores, as we have tried to describe them above, would basically apply to the decades of the 1960’s and 1970’s. While the 1980’s would not eradicate such functions, new elements would usher in regarding the corporeal discourse of such stores. We need to briefly dwell on these changes, and examine how such corporeal discourse, while still expressive of the Greek reality (which by the mid-1980’s was in dramatic flux), would nonetheless try to “compromise” with the “global”. We shall need to examine how department stores such «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» would try to keep up with the “global” element by the 1980’s, which was gradually entering into a major ideological/cultural struggle with the “Greekness” in lifestyle, and see how “adjustments” would be activated which would try to maintain “balances” between the “local” and the “international”. While this study has limited itself to the 1960’s-1970’s period, we will here consider certain realities of the 1980’s: these may allow us to understand how endogenous non-monopoly capital in the retail field would behave when it would be faced by a bombardment of “global” culture unheard of in the previous decades, and in which the Greek popular masses themselves would choose to be willing partners. We need to remember that here we would be speaking of a period of time when the “Amalia-type” would be maturing and crystallizing in ways unexpected even by it (people are never “conscious” enough to comprehend the consequences of their on-going actions, as has been observed elsewhere).

One characteristic manner in which the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores would try to keep up with the “global” element in the decade of the 1980’s would be to incorporate, within their own already established “style”, the discourse of Walt Disney cartoons, specifically meant to attract Greek kids. In 1983, the showing of such films within the firm’s department stores would be brought to the attention of the Greek consumer in a variety of ways, and which also included a well-known television commercial at the time (television would first enter Greek society by 1968, but it would only be by the late-1970’s that television commercials would come to dominate as advertizing discourse – and cf. the excellent work of Tryfon Bampilis, Greek Whisky: The Localization of a Global Community, Berghahn Books, 2013).

The implications of such a move, on the part of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ», are not at all easy to analyze, and they do relate to the issue of so-called US “cultural imperialism” discussed above. The impact of the Walt Disney paradigm has been thoroughly examined by a variety of researchers, the bibliography on the matter being near-endless. No serious work pertaining to the Greek case is anywhere available, dogmatic demagoguery aside. While it is truly beyond us to undertake such a massive and complex task, we shall here note a number of research pointers which historical sociology need consider, hopefully in the future.

How did the Walt Disney paradigm for children, adopted by «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ», relate to the Greek reality, at least in the early-1980’s? Very tentatively, we present here five basic research pointers:

• According to Tracey Mollet (cf. her “With a smile and a song…”, in “Marvels & Tales”, vol. 27, no. 1, 2013), the Walt Disney brand has had a prominent position within the paradigm of popular culture. It originally emerged in the context of the American Depression and was meant to bolster the survival instincts of the so-called “common everyman” in the face of material and other hardships. It could celebrate the latter’s shrewdness in dealing with major catastrophes such as a Depression. Alternatively, it could celebrate “everyman’s” inherent will to fight so-called “Evil”. Either way, it would celebrate the élan vital of the “everyman” generally and in whatever context. This dimension of the brand could have ‘spoken’ to the Greek reality, and especially so when it came to Greek kids, who would identify with abstract or symbolic representations of “Evil”, and who were especially prone to a hyperactive élan vital in “fighting” such “Evil” in the eidetic sense. But Greek adults could also be appreciative of such paradigm of popular culture. Even since the early-1960’s, Walt Disney comics ( translated into Greek) would be shared by both parents and kids: the former would read the comic books to the latter, and both would enjoy the tremendous vitality of a Mickey Mouse in its struggle to escape dangerous situations (cf. the case of the Aliartian barber, who would spend endless hours reading Walt Disney comic books to his kids while sick in bed in the early-1960’s). Interestingly, the famous “Left-wing” composer, Mikis Theodorakis, would be given the nickname “Mickey Mouse” by his youthful “Left-wing” fans around Europe (cf. G. Malouhos, Άξιος Εστί, Εκδοτικός Οργανισμός Λιβάνη, Athens, 2005).
• Further, the Walt Disney brand would be a major cultural strand in the rising milieu of counterculture of the 1960’s in the USA (cf. Douglas Brode, From Walt to Woodstock: How Disney Created the Counterculture, University of Texas Press, 2004). This would mean it would play a key part in the youth revolution of the period. Thus, it would not only be “kids” who would be appreciative of the Walt Disney brand – teenagers would also identify with certain Disney “heroes”, and this would be especially the case when these “heroes” were a reproduction of motion picture characters (such as “The Lone Ranger”, “Lord Jim”, “Tarzan”, “Hercules” and others). We know that Greek youth would be avid cinema-goers, and they would combine such cinema-going with the reading of Walt Disney cartoon books (for excellent descriptions of what happened in Greek movie theatres in the period under discussion, cf. Haritopoulos, op. cit., pp. 49-54; pp. 215-216; and especially pp. 339-341; as regards the reading of literature related to movies, cf. p. 351).
• On the other hand, it has been argued (cf., for instance, Mollet, op. cit.) that the Walt Disney brand would capitalize on “American naiveté” to infuse cartoon viewers with “false hopes”. But in the context of the Greek reality, such “naiveté” would actually come to reinforce the popular anti-American sentiments and the “cultural superiority” of things Greek as felt by the Greek popular masses which we have referred to above – it would, in other words, confirm sentiments identified by the research work of Lialiouti (op. cit.). How effective could such infusion of “false hopes” have been when this dimension of the Disney paradigm came face-to-face with a Greek public which looked down on things American? Haritopoulos (op. cit., p. 278) informs us that Greek-Americans visiting Greece would be given derogatory names by the natives such as «Αμερικλάνος» and «βλαχοπρόξενος». Thus, if it be true that the Disney cartoon did carry whatever elements of “United States nationalism” (Mollet), such “nationalism” – and its concomitant “hopes” – would be completely neutralized by sentiments of “cultural supremacy” on the part of the Greek popular masses as identified by Lialiouti. Similarly, attempts to sell the idea of a “new American childhood”, while perhaps highly functional for the American child, would be absolutely dysfunctional in the Greek case (and cf. our discussion of the Quaker Oats advertizing discourse with reference to “BRAIN AND BRAWN”, etc.). What we are suggesting, in other words, is that the “naiveté” of Disney cartoons would actually be self-revelatory in a counter-productive manner: it would not be the “superiority” of the American psyche that would come to light but its exact opposite, at least as regards the Greek adult (such illumination thus rendering the promotion of whatever “false hopes” a rather toothless enterprise). This, of course, stands in direct contradistinction to what we have said above as regards the role of the Disney brand as a paradigm of popular culture or of counterculture, both of which could appeal to the Greek popular masses. But here we need to recognize that the inner networks of all ideological practices – such as the imbibing of the Disney ideological paradigm by the Greek masses – was (and is) ipso facto inherently contradictory, that being the very nature of all ideology, and which constitutes its richness as a “lived’ practice. To try to resolve such internal contradictions – i.e. to try to identify some logical “order” between the component parts of such ideology – is not impossible (we attempted just that in examining the Sinatra “cultural brand” above). Yet still, doing so could perhaps miss the point as regards the nature of all popular “world-views”, which are usually an amalgamation of the so-called “rational” and the so-called “irrational”.
• Related to the question of “naiveté” and “false hopes” is the well-known issue of “escapism”. Much has been written of the “escapism” that Walt Disney cartoons provided to its audiences (cf., for instance, Mollet, op. cit.). There is certainly much truth in this – but here one needs to examine both the functionality of such “escapism” and its dysfunctionality, especially given the limits of all “escapism”. For the Greek adult, one could not comfortably “escape” to a “place” one did not identify with (and even if one did so, that could not last for long, and frustration would soon set in). For the adult through to the 1980’s, Greek reality was such as to decimate the imaginary world of all Walt Disney dreamlands. Children, on the other hand, could accept such “escapism” so long as they remained children, but their coming-into-the-world would gradually correct the balance between all dreamlands and reality. To the extent that the Walt Disney paradigm could infuse a Greek child with the “false hopes” referred to above, it would only do so in the specific manner that toys would affect it (cf. above, in discussing the introduction of manufactured toys into the lives of Greek kids). But the eidetic-emotional reaction of a Greek child – it being its own real “material of hope” – would also soon smash itself up against its quick loss of innocence (something described rather convincingly both in Haritopoulos (op. cit.) and in Nikos Nikolaides, Ο οργισμένος Βαλκάνιος (op. cit.), amongst many others). What has been called the “seemingly innocent nature of Disney animations” (Mollet, op. cit.) would gradually reveal its own “guilt” vis-à-vis the real world that would circumscribe the maturing Greek child. The apparent “innocence” would gradually rupture: what was once experienced as the “fight” against an animated “Evil” would soon take on the form of a struggle to survive (in the case of Amalia Eleftheriadou, it would be a matter of surviving what we have elsewhere referred to as the “bureaucratic despotism” of the A&M Mill boss), or it would take the form of a struggle to assert one’s own identity as a youth (given the “despotism” of the Greek Patriarchal Family Unit – cf. our study of the Meletiou family at Aliarto).
• Mollet (op. cit.) has placed much emphasis on the Disney brand’s “association with childhood” – and it is precisely this, we are suggesting, which points to the inherent limits of the brand as an ideological force shaping the minds of the popular masses. Of course, one could permanently carry an influence – in the form of an ideological paradigm – that had bombarded one’s early formative years. Yet still, how such influence was to be carried and the mutations that that would undergo, would itself be determined by the inevitable loss of innocence referred to above.

These are the research pointers that one needs to take into consideration in any attempt at trying to understand what it would mean for the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm – a case so explicitly representative of its local rootedness and cultural adjustment – to finally come to adopt Disney cartoons in its promotional campaigns in the early-1980’s. Before we examine the specific forms in which the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores would engage with such “global” discourse, it would perhaps be interesting to note that, well prior to such engagement, the Greek popular masses had already been introduced to the Disney paradigm at least by the very early-1950’s. We present below a rather lengthy quote of such early exposure and do so because the events described highlight the very specific reaction of the popular masses to Walt Disney cartoons: the reaction of the Greek audiences was totally beyond the expectations and/or intentions of the Disney establishment, and which again verifies that the relationship between any “global brand” and its Greek recipients had never been a one-way imposition of “cultural imperialism”. The text we present is also of special interest because it refers to events taking place in villages of Boeotia. In a book entitled Μαρτυρίες, γεγονότα και μνήμες, 1946-1965 (Εκδόσεις Κονιδάρη, December 2002), Athanasios Mih. Manousopoulos, who had functioned as Prefect of the Nome of Boeotia between 1949-1953, relates the following:

«… πολλοί για πρώτη φορά έβλεπαν κινηματογράφον.
Θα αφηγηθώ περιστατικόν που έγινε το βράδυ της
ημέρας των εγκαινίων του καινούργιου, μοναδικού
δρόμου, η διάνοιξις του οποίου συνέδεσε το χωριό επί
του Ελικώνος, Κούκουρα με τον υπόλοιπον κόσμον…
Ο δρόμος, ελεύθερος πια έφερε την ίδια ημέρα και το…
κινηματογραφικόν συνεργείον της Νομαρχίας. Όλοι
όσοι είχαν μετάσχει στην τελετή, στον αγιασμό που έκανε
ο μητροπολίτης Θηβών και Λεβαδείας Πολύκαρπος,
παρέμειναν και για την κινηματογραφική προβολή. Το
συνεργείον τοποθέτησε την οθόνη, το λευκό πανί σε μια
πλευρά της εκκλησίας του χωριού και το πλήθος του
λαού κατέλαβε θέσεις, περιμένοντας με αγωνία την
μεγάλη στιγμή της έναρξης… Το κοινό παρακολουθεί με
προσοχή την προβολή…, μεταξύ αυτών και πολλοί
τσοπαναραίοι που έχουν φέρει κοντά εκεί τα ποίμνια
για να μη χάσουν την μοναδική ευκαιρία να δουν κι αυτοί
κινηματογράφο. Στη συνέχεια ήλθε η σειρά για διασκεδαστική
προβολή Μίκι-Μάους. Πρωταγωνιστούν μια επιθετική
γάτα και ένα συμπαθέστατο ποντικάκι. Κάποια στιγμή η γάτα
σε ενέδρα σε μια γωνιά περιμένει το θύμα της που ερχόταν
χορεύοντας ξέγνοιαστο. Όταν πλησίαζε προς την ενέδρα –
προηγούμενα η σκηνή έδειξε μόνο το κεφάλι της γάτας με
τα σουβλερά δόντια της, που κατέλαβε με μεγέθυνση
ολόκληρο το πανί – άρχισε η αγωνία των θεατών από φόβον
μη κατασπαραχθεί το ποντικάκι και όταν αυτό πλησίασε
επικίνδυνα κοντά στην παγίδα, τότε έγινε κάτι που ξεφεύγει
 από τα όρια της λογικής, κάτι το ξέφρενο, το εκπληκτικό.
 Ταυτόχρονα ακούστηκεν από πολλούς “τσουτ-τσουτ” και
 μερικοί που βρήκαν πέτρες πέταξαν στο πανί για να διώξουν
 την γάτα, για να σώσουν το ποντικάκι που τους είχε γίνει
 αγαπητόν. Συνέβη το άγιον έτος 1951»
(cf. viotiastory.blogspot.gr/2007/05/blog-post.html, my emph.).

We present this event only so that we may have some idea of how the Greek rural popular masses would ‘receive’ a Walt Disney cartoon film: they would do so in a manner which its  creators could not possibly have imagined. We clearly see here how the “logic” of the Disney paradigm would simply clash with the “logic” of it audience: the latter would naturally respond in ways which directly reflected their own life-experience. It goes without saying that, by the early-1980’s, the Greek popular masses could themselves have smiled ironically at what had happened on the mountains of Boeotia in 1951. And yet, even by the 1980’s, their “modern” socio-cultural life-experience cannot possibly be equated to that of the average American, and the Disney “empire” would still not have been able to predict how its creations would be interpreted by Greek audiences (popular interpretations could only have been grasped with some degree of accuracy on the basis of the research pointers we have presented above). In any case, it was just such Greek public to which the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores would be directing their Disney-inspired promotional campaign. What form would that take in the early-1980’s?

The «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» promotional campaign of the early-1980’s was being managed by the local advertizing company, «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ». We know of the basic orientation of this campaign based on a 1983 TV commercial which aimed at persuading the popular masses to visit the stores. «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ» knew that it would be wise to maintain delicate “balances” in its discourse whereby both the “traditional Greekness” of the stores would be preserved and the “global” element would be assimilated, but in a manner which would not violate such “Greekness”. As such, its campaign, launched in the spring of 1983, would be a triple combination of ‘symbols’ covering the whole gamut of the Greek experience. The component parts of such discourse would include the following elements:

• Walt Disney cartoon films would be shown within the department stores, obviously meant to attract children;
• A variety of artifacts would be exhibited, all of which related directly to the Greek Orthodox Easter;
• A spring flower-show would accompany the whole set-up, thus hearkening to the pre-Christian rural rituals celebrating fertility.

The campaign thus combined the “global”, the Greek Christian, and the pagan into one discourse – by the early-1980’s, all three such elements expressed the psyche of the Greek popular masses, whether consciously or latently. The “global”, the “local” and the “residual” had been assimilated into a single junction. Such cultural junction, also bringing together the “urban” with the “rural”, fully expressed both the history of the owners of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» and the manner in which the Greek-rooted «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ» advertizing company had been functioning thus far. Both the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm and the advertizing company with which it cooperated would attempt to capture the Greek experience of the new “Type” of Greek qua cultural “allroundman” (as D. Kiberd would put it – following Joyce – with reference to the Irish case, cf. “Introduction” to Ulysses, op. cit, p. lxxviii).

We shall close our discussion of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» case by examining three rather controversial issues which have always beset debates around the role of Greek endogenous capital. These issues may be put as follows: Firstly, to what extent is it true to say that the advertizing discourse of a firm such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» had been characterized by so-called “nationalist propaganda”? Secondly, to what extent is it true to say that the central advertizing slogans of a firm such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» actually imposed cultural standards on the masses in a manipulative manner? And thirdly, to what extent is it true to say that the style of advertizing of a firm such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» merely mimicked that of the global advertizing giants? Much of what has been said above has already gone some way in answering these types of questions, but because very specific critiques have been made pertaining to the ideological role of local capitals such as «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ», we shall need to deal with each of these issues in turn.

Let us begin with the first issue, which wants to suggest that all private, capitalist enterprises in Greece – including endogenous capitals such as that of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» – necessarily engaged in “Rightwing” or “reactionary” “nationalist propaganda” in the immediate post-war period. This has been the classic position of the Greek “Left” as a whole and is quite obvious in the academic work of writers such as Roupa (op. cit). To support such a position, Roupa (p. 258) presents us with an «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertisement which had been published in the newspaper Ελευθερία, dated 27.10.1946, and which read as follows:

«Όχι! Η Ελλάς δεν υποκύπτει ποτέ».

At face value, such discourse certainly smacks of “nationalism” and, in the context of a Civil War waged between communist-led guerillas and a “nationalist” regular army supported by the USA, the discourse seems to be openly taking sides and doing so in a manner reminiscent of “Cold War” terminology. But if one were to delve into the matter a bit more scrupulously, one would find that the Roupa interpretation is absolutely simplistic, to say the least. Five points may be made here which, put together, turn the tables upside down:

• The «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertisement, with its phrase «δεν υποκύπτει», may be said to be directly expressing the mass popular sentiment of a new-found post-war confidence discussed above. Such confidence was both “popular” and “national”.
• Related to the above, and based on our discussion of the Lialiouti findings regarding anti-American sentiments, it may be argued that the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» discourse essentially expresses the boosted ego of a people whose struggle against Nazi Germany had come to assume truly legendary proportions in world history.
• Further, and perhaps more importantly, the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertisement may be seen as a perfect example of a patriotic discourse fully representative of a national, endogenous non-monopoly commercial capital deeply rooted in and adjusted to local conditions.
• The latter point may be taken to be controversial and open to further debate as to the meaning of the concept of “patriotism”. But “patriotism” at that period of time, and in the immediate aftermath of the German occupation, would cover both “Left” and “Right”: in fact, both wings would be concerned with the question of national reconstruction and would even, at times, try to cooperate for the purpose of such reconstruction. According to M. Psalidopoulos, for instance, attempts to reconstruct the Greek economy on the part of “ΠΕΕΑ” (“Πολιτικής Επιτροπής Εθνικής Απελευθέρωσης”) and the Government of National Unity in 1944 had had the official support of ΕΑΜ itself (in Paul A. Porter, Ζητείται: Ένα θαύμα για την Ελλάδα, Μεταμεσονύκτιες Εκδόσεις, Athens, 2006, pp. 25-26). Further, “Leftwing” intellectuals at the time were cooperating with a large number of mechanics and technocrats in attempts to explore various models of economic reconstruction (via the «Επιστήμη-Ανοικοδόμηση» Association, cf. Psalidopoulos, ibid.). Thus, whatever the later conflicts between “Left” and “Right”, the whole question of “patriotism” and of “national reconstruction” were not issues that belonged to the exclusive domain of either of the two sides. It is in terms of this real context that the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertizing discourse needs to be understood, and reducing its message to that of a “reactionary” “nationalist propaganda” is absurd.
• But putting aside all such perhaps abstract considerations, one could pose the following down-to-earth question: what, in fact, was the political “world-view” of the proprietors of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm? Were they hard-core “Right-wing nationalists” who used the opportunity to promote their commodities so as to brainwash the Greek masses with “Cold-War”, anti-communist ideology? Were they, on the other hand, cold, apolitical businessmen whose singular concern was profit-making? A doyen of the Greek “Left”, Stelios Elliniades, is highly informative on this question, and what he has to say is very revealing as regards the possible ideological orientations of at least some sections of Greek endogenous non-monopoly capital. In an article entitled «Τέχνη και Αριστερά: 50 χρόνια από τον Επιτάφιο» (cf. Δρόμος, 13.11.2010), he writes: «Ο Τάκης Β. Λαμπρόπουλος, της οικογένειας των πολυκαταστημάτων Αφοι Λαμπρόπουλοι, στο σπίτι του οποίου είδα αναρτημένα στο τοίχο τα πρωτότυπα ζωγραφικά έργα της Ρωμιοσύνης και του Άξιον Εστί, και ο έτερος των καινοτόμων Αλέκος Πατσιφάς, ιδιοκτήτης της ΛΥΡΑ, είναι αστοί που δεν έχουν ταμπού και προκαταλήψεις. Αυτοί οι επιχειρηματίες δημιουργούν το κατάλληλο περιβάλλον για να ευδοκιμήσει το ελληνικό τραγούδι… Στις τέχνες, φωτισμένοι αστοί και αριστεροί πάλευαν από κοινού για τον πολιτισμό…» (my emph.). Here we clearly see that at least certain representatives of Greek endogenous capital would play an organic role in the development of a “national culture”, or in what Elliniades also calls “a progressive culture”. As in 1944, so also in the 1960’s, elements of both the “Left” and of the Greek ‘bourgeoisie’ would engage in “alliances” meant to either “reconstruct” the country (1944) or to culturally rejuvenate it in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm would, not only re-clothe the Greek popular masses, but would also participate in the formation of a “national culture” through the promotion of the so-called “progressive song”. By the 1960’s, Takis Lambropoulos would be promoting the “Left-wing song” (compositions of Theodorakis and others) through the record company, “Columbia-Αφοι Λαμπρόπουλοι”, which had been in operation since the 1920’s and would finally be sold to EMI in 1969. We have elsewhere critically examined the role of the “political song” in 1960’s Greece (cf. our paper on this issue) – here, we merely want to point to the political/cultural stance of at least one member of the Lambropoulos family and draw the obvious conclusions regarding the overall social discourse of such elements of Greek society. Whatever insinuations about “nationalist propaganda” in the advertizing discourse of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm, therefore, hold no water. Perhaps we should also note at this point that much of the “political song” of the period (pre- and post-war) was itself “patriotic”, aiming at a reconciliation of the “Left” and the “Right” – consider, for instance, Ritsos’ famous poem “Romiosyne” (written in the 1940’s and later set to the music of Theodorakis), where it is explicitly declared: “This earth/Is theirs and ours; nobody can take it from us” (cf. Alan Bold (ed.) “The Penguin Book of Socialist Verse”, Penguin Books, 1970, p. 320).

The second issue, that regarding the advertizing tactics of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» firm – and  which are said to have been some form of an imposed manipulation of the tastes of the Greek consumer – has arisen due to a long-standing slogan that had been adopted by the firm and which had come to characterize the semantic core of its various promotional campaigns. Such central slogan, which was a creation of the «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ» advertizing company, had been consistently used starting from 1960 and continued right through to the early-1980’s. The slogan went as follows:

 «Διαλέγουμε πριν από εσάς
 για εσάς»
(cf. inter alia, athinapisovitrina.blogspot.gr).

Alternatively, the selfsame slogan could appear only slightly amended as such:

ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ…
Διαλέγουν πριν από σας –
για σας!»
(cf. Akropolis, 5.12.1965, p. 3).

One may quite easily argue that here we have a case of discourse which openly and arrogantly admits its intention to choose fashion tastes for the popular masses in the absence of these masses. And, if that be the case, we would here have a case of “interventionism” imposing itself on the consumer. Further, to the extent that it assumes a superior knowledge of taste vis-à-vis that of the popular masses, it might even considered to be “provocative”. Such an interpretation cannot be rejected out of hand. In any case, as there is no iron law which says that all multinational advertizing giants need necessarily practice “provocative-interventionism”, so also is there no iron law which says that all local advertizing companies need necessarily adopt a discourse “adjusting” to and being reflective of popular sentiment. We have throughout spoken of tendencies, and here this «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» slogan seems to be violating such tendency itself.

On the other hand, at least as regards the case of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ», there does seem to be a different type of logical explanation behind the use of such slogan. It had been a simple truth that the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» stores really did introduce people to the latest fashions coming from the European continent – company personnel actually travelled to European countries and came back to Greece with European model-samples. Willy-nilly, therefore, the popular masses could only but have been practically absent from this process, their only active participation being the acceptance or rejection of any model-sample of fashion.

But either way, the real point of the matter lies elsewhere, and we consider such real point to be of major socio-historical importance. What needs to be recorded as an important fact of Greek social history is that the Greek popular masses would actually usurp and use this particular slogan in their very own way: they would use the selfsame words of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» slogan to reject or be sarcastic of decisions taken by politicians “in their absence”.

The theoretical implications of such popular usurpation of a slogan and its popular usage bent to fulfill specific needs are quite portentous. What we had here was a move from an advertizing discourse to a generalized political discourse, and which was to constitute an element of the language of the Greek middle class milieu. This is further verification of the position we have tried to support throughout this text that the language of such middle class milieu was a language embedded in advertizing discourse and as such discourse was “received” by the popular masses via a series of mediations (ranging from class position to the age-category one belonged to and including familial and geographic circumstances, etc.). In that sense, even what might have been intended as an arrogant, “interventionist” slogan on the part of «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ» had swiftly mutated into a linguistic tool belonging to the critical thinking of a mass of people that had always been skeptical of politicians. It could not really have been otherwise: both the products and the stores of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ», as also the advertizing discourse of the latter, were experienced by the Greek popular masses as part and parcel of their own, self-made milieu. Put otherwise, one could say that even if the «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ» discourse had been intended as some form of “provocative- interventionism”, such intentions would have been neutralized and re-interpreted by the popular masses in a way that suited their own sentiments regarding the socio-cultural phenomenon that was «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» (we have already examined the manner in which such stores had helped define the “luxuries” of the “Amalia-type” and thus the very identity of such type).

We may now turn to the third, and final, issue: is it accurate to say that the advertizing style of endogenous non-monopoly enterprises merely mimicked that of the foreign giants? To some extent there is some element of truth in this as regards certain local companies. But what remains of interest for any researcher in the field is to rather identify whatever differences in style which may have persisted between local advertizing companies and the multinational corporations. In fact, especially as regards the advertizing style of the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores, one can certainly see a definite stylistic differentiation vis-à-vis foreign companies. The advertizing company «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ», which had been responsible for the promotional campaigns of the department stores, had had little choice but maintain some such stylistic differentiation – above all, it would be the in-built economic and technical constraints of the advertizing company (as was the case with most local companies) which would delimit its adopted style and clearly differentiate the latter from that of foreign advertizing companies. On the other hand, it was not merely the given constraints which would determine style: we need to further understand such differentiation by keeping in mind the general atmosphere of the Greek art of advertizing as developed by the artistic sensitivities of people such as Bakirtzis (op. cit.). We have already discussed how the artist Bakirtzis would aim at the «αισθητική καλλιέργεια του κόσμου» and would wish to exhibit his «ανάλογο σεβασμό» to the Greek popular masses through a very specific «παραστατική τέχνη», etc. (cf. above). Thus, it would be this combination of specific technical constraints and general cultural/artistic intentions that would determine the stylistic differentiation of much of Greek advertizing, and this would as much apply to that of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» advertizing.

As regards advertizing style in the case of «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» specifically and in the case of local advertizing companies generally, one may say that such style would be both “modernistic” and at the same time relatively “primitive”, at least for the period of the 1960’s. Such specific local style has most interestingly been investigated and discussed in graficnotes.blogspot.gr. In a text with references to «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ», «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» and other Greek local companies operating in the period under discussion, the following points are made:

«… ανθίζει η τέχνη της καλλιγραφίας,
καθώς – σε αντίθεση με τις διεθνείς
 τάσεις του μοντερνισμού, και ελλείψει
καλλιγραφικών γραμματοσειρών – η
Ελληνική διαφήμιση του εκμοντερνισμένου
δυτικού τρόπου στηρίζεται στην χειροποίητη
καλλιγραφία, η οποία χρησιμοποιείται
κατά κόρον για να οπτικοποιήσει τα
σλόγκαν του νέου, εύκολου τρόπου ζωής…»
(my emph.).

The text goes on to describe the specific technical features of such «χειροποίητη καλλιγραφία» used by «ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ» in its campaigns to promote «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» products. Such features are described as follows:

«… μια ρέουσα επικλινής γραφή με έντονο
κοντράστ… Συνήθως η γραφή είναι συνεχόμενη,
με εντυπωσιακά τελειώματα και πληθωρικά
κεφαλαία…[etc.]».

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

We may now go on to consider our next couple of samples of local advertizing discourse which may be said to be representative of the type which “adjusts” to local needs, maintains “balances” and steers clear of “interventionist provocation”. Above, we have discussed how the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores played their part in “re-clothing” the popular masses in the post-war period. But such “re-clothing” tells only half the story: the truth is that the Greek popular masses actually played as active a part in “re-clothing” themselves, and they did this by using the sewing machine, almost on a mass scale. We have already said a few things regarding the sewing machine in examining the “material content” of advertizing discourse. Here, we shall more specifically examine how advertizing discourse promoting the sewing machine directly reflected and “adjusted” to the needs of the popular masses – and especially those of the “Amalia-type” – bar whatever “imposed manipulation”.

Let us take the following advertisement which appeared in the periodical Ρομάντσο in December 1962 – it went as follows:

«STRIGLIS – ΡΑΠΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΕΣ –
ΠΟΔΟΚΙΝΗΤΕΣ…
Προϊόντα του μεγαλυτέρου εργοστασίου
του κόσμου.
Διεθνούς τύπου»
(cf. Romantso, τεύχ. 1034,
25.12.1962).

This advertisement is characterized by an appeal to the “big” and the “global”, but without any “provocative” traces of “cultural imperialism”. The “STRIGLIS” company – a local distributor of the “Singer Sewing Machine” – knew all too well both the material needs and the new aesthetic tastes of the up-and-coming “New Greek Housewife”, who had wanted to overcome the poverty of the early-1960’s in a manner which would also deal with the aesthetics of her “Home”. This new reality was to be completely misinterpreted by the “Left” at the time and at least through to the 1970’s: the “Singer Sewing Machine” would be presented as a symbol of US “cultural imperialism” and would be directly related to American political intervention in the affairs of Greek politics and society in the course of and following the Civil War. For instance, in a 1975 song composed by Mikis Theodorakis, which focuses on US intervention in the Greek Civil War, a Greek “collaborator” with US “imperialism” addresses the President of the “Singer Sewing Machine Company” and tells him blatantly, “Behold your [Greek] Army!”. In this way, the introduction of the US-made sewing machine was seen as being merely another dimension of the “Dachau on Greek islands” (where communist guerillas and other “Leftists” were being exiled), or of the execution of “comrades” in 1954, and so on (cf. the song «Ο αδελφός τον αδελφό», in “The Very Best Of Mikis Theodorakis”, Vol. 3, EMI Recordings, 1975-2000).

It is obviously not our purpose here to assess the role of the US in Greece at the time – but it is as obvious that reducing the role of the “Singer Sewing Machine” in Greece to that of “Dachau” on the islands is a symptom of dogmatic frivolity. Put otherwise, it hearkens back to that old Maoist dictum which had so naively wanted to differentiate “capitalist technology” from “socialist technology”, and which would lead to the well-known disasters of the so-called “Cultural Revolution”.

The “STRIGLIS” advertisement presents no such illusions. Apart from presupposing a fully realistic understanding of the material needs of the “Amalia-type”, the discourse also shows as accurate an understanding of the psychological needs of such type. Its appeal to the “global” was basically an affirmation of the popular need precisely for such openness to things international.

Thus, the advertisement displays a “balance” between the “international type” and the popular need for such “type” (such need being evident in various socio-cultural practices, but which would articulate with corresponding Greek practices).

Similarly, with respect to the various models of the sewing machine, there would be advertisements which would also make an appeal to the “European”, but which again would not carry any traces of whatever “provocative” “cultural imperialism”. They would again be basically affirming popular taste for the “Continental”. A sample of that category of advertisement would be the following, which circulated early in 1967:

«ΟΙ ΚΑΛΛΙΤΕΡΕΣ ΡΑΠΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΕΣ…
Κομοδίνα καρυδιάς Ευρωπαϊκά,
σε 5 τύπους»
(cf. Romantso, τεύχ. 1248,
31.1.1967).

Such types of advertisements – both our first and second sample – avoided whatever overtly “manipulative” discourse, simply announcing the availability of the machine and supplementing such announcement with one or two subjective facts which in any case potential consumers would wish to hear or know about. Be it due to economic constraints imposed on such advertizing campaigns or be it due to the fact that the managers of such campaigns felt there was no need to “manipulate”, a particular type of discourse would be sustained which would be as “primitive” as it would be effective. The sheer directness of the discourse and its unassuming moderation would ‘speak’ to the “Amalia-type” – that “type” being itself “direct” (though not “simple”) and “unassuming” (though not unaspiring as a youth). That type of discourse, of course, would date back to the late-19th and early-20th centuries, heralding the world of advertizing as such (cf. E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, op. cit., p. 23; pp. 84-85; and pp. 170-171), and which would persist throughout the whole of the latter century and through to the 21st, this time mainly in the form of the “small ads”. It would be what James Joyce would critically describe as “The gentle art of advertisement” with reference to Dublin advertising in the early-20th Century, or, more specifically, in 1904 (in his Ulysses, Penguin Books, 2000, p. 71 – this grand masterpiece on early “modernism” being a treatise, inter alia, on the emergent world of advertizing and its reception by the Irish popular masses. Elsewhere, in his Finnegans Wake (Wordsworth Classics, 2012, p. 4), Joyce would speak of “the skyline of soft advertisement”). There is an important sense in which it was precisely such type of “gentle” advertizing discourse (bar highfaluting exaggerations, “provocations” and “interventions”), which would most appeal to the “thought and attention” of the “Amalia-type”.

As such, this “gentle” type of discourse would often focus on the technical functions of the thing advertized – in the case of the first advertisement, there would be a reference to the «ποδοκίνητες» sewing machines, a detail of special, practical interest to the “Amalia-type”.

But further, the aesthetic aspect would itself not be ignored – the second advertisement would refer to «Κομοδίνα καρυδιάς… σε 5 τύπους», and in this way it would be reflecting the new aesthetic tastes of the middle class milieu. Here too, however, the reference would be “gentle”.

Above all, this “gentle”, “non-provocative” type of advertisement would be fulfilling an absolutely necessary social function, in that it directly and simply reflected the widespread popular need for the sewing machine. There were six sides to such need, and we shall examine each of these in turn.

Firstly, and as has already been discussed above, there was the essentially economic dimension to possessing such a machine. To supplement our discussion around this issue, we may here consider the case of a certain «κυρά Γιώργαινα» who had got married sometime in the post-war period (and which perhaps was in the 1960’s) – we read:

«Όταν παντρεύτηκε, ο πατέρας της,
της έδωσε για προίκα, την ευχή του και
μια ραπτομηχανή-έπιπλο Kohler. Αυτά
τα θεώρησε υπεραρκετά για να κάνει μια
καλή οικογένεια. Σε αυτή τη ραπτομηχανή
που όσο ζούσε η κυρά Γιώργαινα κατείχε
περίοπτη θέση στην κουζίνα, ράφτηκαν,
επιδιορθώθηκαν και μεταποιήθηκαν όλα
τα υφασμάτινα αντικείμενα της οικογένειας…»
(cf. “In My Closet”, inmyc.gr/2012/06/25).

The above quote captures the reality of the young Greek housewife for the period under discussion, and it certainly highlights the role of the sewing machine in the establishment of the Greek Family Unit, as also in the “re-clothing” of such Unit. Generally speaking, such essential economic role both in Greece and elsewhere has been emphasized in a variety of sources, one such being www.singermemories (“Singer Memories: A Woman’s Story”), and which states:

“The sewing machine was the first home
appliance, which could provide the family
income in times of need. The sewing machine
often made the difference between abject
poverty and survival”.

Greek advertizing discourse of the 1960’s promoting the sewing machine would focus on such economic dimension. Advertisements would point to the role of the machine in securing one’s future, and they would also address their discourse to the very poor and destitute. Especially with respect to the latter social categories, advertisements would be inviting people to join institutions that offered training in the use of sewing machines. All such advertisements – or at least those that our research has been able to uncover, but which are near numerous in number – belong to the “gentle ad” category, and are therefore free of any serious “provocative-interventionism”. A sample of such advertizing, circulated in 1964, is the following:

«Εξασφαλίσατε το μέλλον
των κοριτσιών σας εις τον
μοναδικόν Οίκον εμπιστοσύνης
‘ΠΟΛΥΞΕΝΗ’
ΚΟΠΤΙΚΗ – ΡΑΠΤΙΚΗ
ΕΛΕΝΗΣ ΚΑΡΑΓΙΑΝΝΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ
ΑΘΗΝΑΙ…
Δι’ άπορους Κ.Λ.Π.
δίδακτρα ηλαττωμένα…
Δεχόμεθα και
ΕΣΩΤΕΡΙΚΕΣ»
(cf. Romantso, τεύχ. 1125, 29.9.1964, p. 28).

Of course, this emphasis on the economic dimension in advertizing discourse naturally stretches back to the pre-war years. Above, in discussing the “material content” of ideology in advertizing discourse, we had presented a 1938-1940 advertisement promoting ‘sewing workshops’ in Kallithea. We may here further present a 1946 advertisement focusing on the economic element, and again promoting the training of young females in sewing and other related techniques. Although the discourse is “gentle”, it nonetheless includes a touch of American bias, but which is itself ideologically innocuous – circulating in Patra (a city 138 km from Thiva), it read as follows:

«ΜΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ
ΚΟΠΤΙΚΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΡΑΠΤΙΚΗΣ
Η κ. ΜΑΡΙΓΩ ΜΑΥΡΟΥΔΗ (Παντανάσσης 28)
επανελθούσα εξ Αθηνών, επαναλαμβάνει
τας εργασίας της, προσέλαβε δε
πεπειραμένην διδασκάλισαν ίνα διδάσκη
την κοπτικήν και γεωμετρίαν, συμφώνως
τω Αμερικανικώ συστήματι.
Επίσης προσελήφθησαν ειδικοί τεχνίται
διά ταγιέρ ανδρικά. Δέχεται μαθητρίας προς
εκμάθησιν, καθώς και οικοτρόφους. Εκμάθησις
τελεία και συντομωτάτη»
(cf. Νεολόγος Πατρών, έτος ΝΓ,
αρ. φύλλου 688, 22.10.1946, p. 3).

Generally speaking, therefore, we see that the economic dimension in advertizing that promoted the sewing machine as such would be extended to advertizing discourse – “gentle” and informative as always – promoting the training of females in the professional use of such machines in various establishments. At least by the 1960’s, this would be further extended to advertizing that promoted self-education or self-training in the use of the sewing machine. A 1964 advertisement promoting self-instruction manuals read as follows:

«ΚΟΠΤΙΚΗ – ΡΑΠΤΙΚΗ ΑΝΕΥ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΟΥ
Κας ΣΙΑΣ ΚΩΣΤΑΡΕΛΛΟΥ…
‘ΠΡΩΤΟΤΥΠΗ ΑΝΑΛΥΤΙΚΗ ΜΕΘΟΔΟΣ ΚΟΠΤΙΚΗΣ –
ΡΑΠΤΙΚΗΣ ΑΝΕΥ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΟΥ’
… απαραίτητη σε κάθε γυναίκα…
ΚΑΘΕ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ ΜΟΝΗ ΤΗΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΗ
ΣΥΓΧΡΟΝΙΣΜΕΝΗ ΜΟΔΙΣΤΑ…
ΜΕ ΒΑΣΙΝ ΑΥΤΗ ΤΗ ΜΕΘΟΔΟ
ΕΡΓΑΖΟΝΤΑΙ ΣΗΜΕΡΟΝ: Νοικοκυρές, εργάτριαι
Οίκων Ραπτικής – Επιχειρήσεων ετοίμων ενδυμάτων,
Μοδίσται και μαθήτριαι, Οικοκυρικών και
Επαγγελματικών Σχολών.
Εκτός κειμένου περιέχει 210 σχήματα (δίχρωμα –
τρίχρωμα) και φάκελλον Πατρόν σε φυσικό
Μέγεθος…
Αποστέλλεται ταχυδρομικώς…»
(cf. Romantso, τεύχ. 1138, 22.12.1964, p. 83).

We note that this advertisement-cum-announcement speaks of self-training for both the housewife and the worker, and is therefore addressed to both amateurs and professionals. This combination suggests that there was not always any clear-cut division between the two categories, something which would determine both the relevant advertizing discourse and the very design of the sewing machine itself, as also the attitude of the “Amalia-type” towards such machine – we shall deal with this further below.

To end this focus on the specifically economic function of the sewing machine, we present a “small ad” of the 1960’s which gives us some idea of the possible earnings of a freelancer in the field. The Akropolis newspaper published the following piece in 1966:

«ΓΥΡΙΖΩ – ΡΑΒΩ
Με δραχμάς 200 γυρίζω ενδυμασίες,
καμπαρτίνες και παλτά. Εκτελώ
μανταρίσματα εντελώς αδιάκριτα…»
(cf. Akropolis, 4.1.1966, p. 14).

If, in 1966, a female freelancer in the field of sewing could be asking drch. 200 for her services, in 1965 that fee would come to drch. 120, though the inflation rate in 1965 stood at 3.1% as opposed to 5% in 1966. Either way, it seems quite probable that the work of freelance dressmakers in the winter season – the “small ad” above had been placed in January – must have been in some demand, given the need to mend and repair clothes. Perhaps we should merely note here that, whatever season of the year, Amalia Eleftheriadou’s remuneration at the A&M Mill in the mid-1960’s would be around drch. 65 per day.

But it would be misleading to reduce the popular need for the sewing machine to a purely economic need, and this would be misleading even in a context of dire poverty, which of course characterized the early years of post-war Greece. Beyond the economic need, but nonetheless also related to it, there was yet another dimension, it being a deeply emotional dimension. This second need would constitute an emotional dimension in the psyche of the “Amalia-type” which could attain a relative autonomy vis-à-vis the original economic exigency. Erstwhile attempts to reduce human reality to some form of a “homo economicus” only explain one segment of such reality, and we need to reconsider the “Amalia-type’s” possible need for a sewing machine in ways which can highlight its emotional world independently of the need for physical survival. In the case of «κυρά Γιώργαινα», for instance, we would need to dwell on how her sewing machine would, for as long as she lived, occupy a conspicuous place in her kitchen («όσο ζούσε… κατείχε περίοπτη θέση στην κουζίνα»). Obviously, the strategic positioning of any piece of furniture in a homestead has little to do with whatever economic considerations and, as we shall further see below, the sewing machine would also be seen as part of the furnishing of a “Home”.

This deeply emotional dimension, experienced by the Greek housewife of the 1950’s and 1960’s with respect to the sewing machine, is presented to us by Maro Douka (in her Η αρχαία σκουριά, op. cit.). The writer’s approach, while not ignoring the economic dimension, nonetheless emphasizes the depth of emotionality following the loss of a woman’s treasured sewing machine. Douka writes:

«Μέσ’ απ’ την αγκαλιά της άρπαξε, λέει,
ο Δημήτρης τη ραπτομηχανή χειρός να την
πουλήσει στο Μοναστηράκι. Τη ραπτομηχανή
χειρός που θα γάζωνε και την προίκα της
Ειρήνης, ό,τι της απόμενε πια, το αποκούμπι
της. Άδικα προσπαθούσα να την παρηγορήσω.
Χτυπιόταν και παρακαλούσε το Χάρο να την
πάρει, να μη βλέπει… Σιγά σιγά μαλάκωνε το
κλάμα της, τ’ αναφιλητά λιγόστευαν. Πήγε
και χάιδευε το τραπεζάκι που ακουμπούσαν
τη μηχανή, πλάι στο παράθυρο. Την πλησίασα
και την άγγιξα στο κεφάλι, αυτό την έκαμε
ν’ αρχίσει πάλι τα παρακαλετά στο Χάρο, όμως
ήρεμα και σιγανά, λες ότι ψιλοκουβέντιαζε
μ’ ένα φίλο και τρόμαξα» (p. 148).

There would, thirdly, be the aesthetic dimension to the possession of a sewing machine, an aspect which we have also touched on above. Apart from the reference to the particular material of which the sewing machine was made (walnut wood), as also its five different “types” available, the 1967 Romantso advertisement discussed above also presents the appliance as a «κομοδίνο», and which tells us that such machine could form an organic part of furnishing the Greek “Home”. Both material and design type, as also the use of the sewing machine as a piece of furniture, would come to constitute elements of an aesthetic need on the part of the “Amalia-type”. Specifically as regards the sewing machine, this aesthetic need would be particularly suited to what we have identified as the “gentle advertisement” (following Joyce). But it is of great interest to note that global manufacturing giants such as “Singer” would themselves have to “adjust” to the “gentle design” of sewing machines meant for the homestead, and here we would have a functional correspondence between local advertizing discourse and global manufacturing standards. More specifically, companies such as “Singer” would gradually be moving towards designs which would culminate in the “softening” of the appearance of sewing machines meant to reflect the tastes of females. We would thus have a “simplification of structure” and an emphasis on the “soft curves” of the appliance. At least as regards local advertizing promoting sewing machines in Greece, such “simplification”, “softening” and “curvature” in design – coming from an international manufacturer – would reinforce the “gentleness” of its local discourse.

Now, precisely such aesthetic approach both in design and in advertizing discourse may be interpreted in a variety of critical ways, one such being that such aesthetics expressed a “sexist” prejudice – a position which presumably would satisfy the ideological bearings of the “feminist” movement. The argument, quite simply, would unfold according to the following line of thought:

“soft design” → ”gentle ad” → ”weaker sex” = “sexist ideology”

If that be the case, we would here have an example of a very specific “manipulative” form of “provocative-interventionism”, and with specific reference to the sex of the “Amalia-type”. Taken by itself, the idea that the design of an object (and the promotional strategy and discourse accompanying it) may reflect the sex of the targeted consumer, is something which is fully understandable and may be observed in an endless variety of products. But to move on from this observation and go on to suggest that “sexism” is reflected in the design of a product (as in the sewing machine) raises highly debatable issues, and especially as regards the multifarious so-called “theories” of “feminism”. Much has been written on the matter and as much can be rejected as outdated “feminist polemics”. Parenthetically, we need to note here the sheer poverty of any theoretical analyses on the part of the traditional “feminist” movement – Arianna Stassinopoulos, for instance, in her highly popular book, The Female Woman, written in the early 1970’s, would note:

“I have tried to disentangle certain general
themes in the Women’s Lib Ideology, but
it has proved very difficult to establish the
application of these general themes in specific
areas. Neither Women’s Liberation as a
movement, nor any one of its leading protagonists
have put forward a coherent ideological programme –
the nature of the movement renders it impossible
for them to do so. There is a millenarian quality
about the movement, which is antithetical to rational
argument… Because the Women’s Lib argument is
so chaotic it is not really possible to attempt to refute
it step by step in a syllogistic manner… [etc.]”
(cf. Arianna Stassinopoulos, The Female Woman,
FONTANA/COLLINS, 1974, p. 19).

Following Stassinopoulos, we would have to admit that applying “feminist ideology” to the specific area of the sewing machine proves highly problematic. Would “soft curvatures” offend the “Amalia-type”? Would the “soft design” and the “gentle ad” degrade such “type”? Would it all contribute to a reproduction of Male Chauvinist Pig stereotypes? Or, rather, would all this not be expressive of the “Amalia-type” as a “female woman” (à la Stassinopoulos), and that, given her “nature”? We know that the new anthropological “Type” of individual of the 1960’s in Greece would not be an abnegation of one’s sexuality and femininity, but rather a highly conspicuous confirmation of it, given the “sexual revolution”. The “Amalia-type” was just that “female woman” with all the feminine sexuality that went with it (potentially speaking) and, despite the traditional “chauvinism” of the Greek male, was no “feminist” at all (the latter belonging to a tiny minority amongst Greek “intellectuals” centered around universities).

But matters can get unmanageably complex for the “feminist” paradigm: we know, for instance, that Vangelio Kalomiri’s husband (residents of Aliarto in the 1950’s-1960’s, cf. Discussion with Vangelio Kalomiri, No. 20, 12.8.2009, op. cit.) who had his own tailor shop right opposite the shop of the Aliartian barber, would use just such a sewing machine with all its “soft-curvatures”, etc. Were one to stretch “feminist” thinking to its end-limits, the ludicrous question that would arise would be: did the use of such sewing machine ‘effeminate’ Spiros-the-tailor? This man would certainly lose his manhood at some stage in his life, but that would be the result of a serious accident (cf. the Discussion with his wife, op. cit.).

On a rather more serious level, the work of Zhang Li has tried to explain changes in the design of the sewing machine by focusing on how such design-changes would be accompanied by the need to manufacture sewing machines meant for the housewife rather than merely for industry. Zhang Li’s work on the issue has a number of serious shortcomings: it is badly researched, very badly written and is itself ‘coloured’ by so-called ‘concepts’ emanating from either old “feminist” prejudices or neo-“sexual liberation” paradigms. The writer’s text, tellingly entitled “Bisexual and Invisible Memory: Gendered Design History of Domestic Sewing Machine, 1850-1950” (1st Research Grant for The Study of Domestic Appliances, 2014, and cf. www.historiadeldissery.org), nonetheless does try to explain “aesthetic innovation of style” in the sewing machine by examining what happened to such “style” when the sewing machine would be manufactured for the home rather than for industry. But his choice of terms such as “bisexual memory” or “gendered design”, while in themselves potentially useful, are at times used in a manner which seems to turn his work into a silent protest against anything that happens to be “gendered”. In some way, this seems to bring us back to the “feminist” fallacies of old.

To fully understand why the home-based sewing machine had, of necessity, to be given its new, “feminine aesthetics”, and to understand why the local advertizing discourse had itself to be correspondingly “gentle”, we briefly need to undertake an objective examination of the evolution of the sewing machine and of the role of the “Amalia-type” in such evolution. This would allow us to explain both the technical functionality of the evolution of the sewing machine, as also the social functionality of an “aesthetically gentle” advertisement such as that of “STRIGLIS”.

Our key concept here shall be that of the industrial division of labour and the implications of this pertaining to the mass-handled industrial sewing machine vis-à-vis the sewing machine meant for the housewife as its sole handler. We do not pretend to be experts on the technicalities of the matter, but a few characteristic differences may be outlined as regards the essential distinction between these two different types of machines, and which could explain the differences of “aesthetic style” between the two. Quite naturally, the sewing machines used in the industrial context would be technically determined according to a technical division of labour manned by different workers – we would therefore have the designing of different types of machines depending on the dimensions, quality, thickness, etc. of the material being worked on. More specifically, and according to the British Standards Institution in 1965:

“The sewing-machine has been developed
to produce many types of stitch for special
applications: overlocks for producing a neat
finish to the edges of cloth; flat locks for joining
fabrics with edges abutting, thus avoiding lumpy
seams; blind stitchers for sewing hems without
the stitching showing on the face side of the
garment; buttonhole stitchers and button-sewing
machines. Electronically controlled sewing-machines
can now sew complex shaped pieces of fabric
together and are used in the shirt and trouser
industries. [Further,] sewing-machine speeds have
been increased and some machines will make over
10,000 stitches per minute. The present development
of these machines is dependent on the quality
of sewing threads. The sewing-machine and its
stitches have been modified further to meet the
differing requirements of … the use of cloths of differing
strength, weight, stiffness, and stretch”
(cf. “Everyman’s Encyclopaedia”, JM Dent & Sons Ltd,
London-Melbourne-Toronto, 1978, vol. 10,
pp. 762-763).

Now, it is quite true that some of the above-mentioned functions of the sewing machine could as well be performed by a housewife’s compact little “Singer” – but the point of the matter is that, when it came to the industrial workplace, most of each of these functions would be performed by an independent machine manned by specialized employees, and all this would happen at a mass scale and in speeds determined by the technicalities of each of these machines (and which brings to mind the Thiva-based textile factory of “DOURIDAS”, to which we shall refer below).

The specialized industrial sewing machine would obviously not do for the housewife, and this would lead to the evolution of the domestic appliance – such appliance would not embody the industrial technicalities reflective of any division of labour: the “Home”-qua-workplace would mean that the sewing machine as a home appliance would necessarily presuppose the absence of whatever division of labour, it being basically manned by just one person, viz. the housewife (at most, as in the case of Anna Papaspiropoulou, the husband could offer a helping hand – cf. above). The implications of this reality would be quite dramatic: the absence of any division of labour, which would determine a one-to-one relationship between machine and handler, would mean a relatively personalized relationship between machine and human. Because this ‘human’ happened to be a female in her own “Home”, the machine would be “styled” in terms of her own sexual identity. “Singer” would be fully aware that it was targeting the “aesthetic needs” of the “Amalia-type” as an individual possessor and handler of the machine, and it would thus implement the necessary “aesthetic innovations” reflective of that “type’s” sexual and cultural identity (and thus advertizing campaigns undertaken by “STRIGLIS” would have to follow suit). Such identity, as was that of the “Amalia-type”, would have been absolutely irrelevant within an industrial context such as that of the “DOURIDAS” textile plant: its shop-floor mass-production could not make any allowances as to that, at least as regards the design of its machines.

To verify the latter point, we may examine the “DOURIDAS” case in slightly greater detail. The available “DOURIDA ARCHIVES” provide us with endless data pertaining to the organizational structure of the productive process on the shop floor, which produced anything from shirts, to trousers, to berets, etc. Throughout, the process of production was strictly divided into specific departments all of which were centered around a particular machine. One sample of the “DOURIDA” files presents us with an “organizational chart” which includes the following departments or sub-departments, and which indicates the sex of the employees manning the posts – the chart reads as follows (in simplified form, and merely part of the data is presented):

«ΒΑΦΕΙΟ Α’ ΥΛΩΝ
Προϊστάμενος [female]
ΧΕΙΡΙΣΤΑΙ/Α’ ΒΑΡΔΙΑ [male & female]
ΧΕΙΡΙΣΤΑΙ/Β’ ΒΑΡΔΙΑ [male & female]
ΠΡΟΕΤΟΙΜΑΣΙΑ Α’ ΥΛΗΣ [male & female]

ΥΦΑΝΤΗΡΙ0
Προϊστάμενος [male]
ΟΜΑΔΕΣ ΑΡΓΑΛΕΙΩΝ:
Α’ Βάρδια:
Υφάντρια:

• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female

Β’ Βάρδια:
Υφάντρια:

• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female

Γ’ Βάρδια:
Υφάντρια:

• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female

ΕΡΙΟΚΛΩΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ/ΠΕΝΝΙΕ
Προϊστάμενος [male]
Α’ Βάρδια:
GIL BOX:

• female
• female
• female

Χτενίστρια:
1 female
Μελανζέρα:
1 female
Σύρτες:
1 female
Προγνέστριες:

• female
• female

Κλώστριες:

• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female

LEESONA:

• female
• female
• female

Β’ Βάρδια:
GIL BOX:

• female
• female
• female

Χτενίστρια:
1 female
Μελανζέρα:
1 female
Σύρτες:
1 female
Προγνέστριες:

• female
• female

Κλώστριες:

• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female
• female

LEESONA:

• female
• female

Γ’ Βάρδια: [no available data as to manning]»
(cf. “DOURIDA” in-house company document, dated
19.4.1988).

As to male-female presence in other departments of the “DOURIDA” shop-floor – such as the «ΠΛΕΚΤΗΡΙΑ» or the «ΚΛΩΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ ΒΑΜΒΑΚΟΣ» – one would get a reproduction of the exact same ratios.

Now, the above list of data – based on a diagrammatic chart drawn up by “White-Collar” officials of the company – might seem to be a rather scholastic presentation of a reality that merely repeats itself, viz. the sheer numerical supremacy of the female sex on the shop-floor (and which is in any case a phenomenon one finds in the textile industry around the world – cf. for instance, Peter Winn, “Weavers of Revolution”, OUP, 1986; as also various editions of the South African Labour Bulletin, etc.). But what we wish to emphasize here is that behind each of these abstract numbers – as presented above – there had existed a real all-round person – i.e. Joyce’s “cultured allroundman”, though not in the sense of a carrier of some “high culture” but rather in the sense of grassroots cultural practices, many of which are inevitably determined by one’s sex. Each of these ‘female abstractions’ would carry in their person a full name, age, residence, work experience and pay, as also personal tastes and an individual sexual history (some of them were pregnant, according to the data), and so on. Put together, all these ‘abstractions’ represent, within the limits of our sample, more than 60 females who sweated in front of machines day in and day out. The presence of males was limited to either supervisory posts or to the technical maintenance of machines. The crucial question that arises here is the following: should not such an overwhelming number of females – as a collective of all-rounded sexual/cultural identities – surely have had an effect on the “design style” of the machines being handled by them? But this, we know, simply did not apply. The design of the mechanical objects they had to handle was determined by the objective division of labour, not by their feminine identity. To use Zhang Li’s terminology, the machines used by women-workers on the “DOURIDA” shop-floor were simply not “gendered” as a whole, and there was no symptom of any “gendering” in any part of that whole. In direct contrast to this, we know that the sewing machine used by the “Amalia-type” – and precisely because it functioned outside the industrial structures of a division of labour – was “gendered”, in the sense that its “design style” directly reflected its female user. It was, therefore, the absence of any division of labour that would yield “soft curvatures” in the domestic appliance and the “gentle” discourse in its promotion.

In summary, we may put the matter as follows: it was mainly females working the knitting and sewing machines of a factory such as “DOURIDA”, and it was mainly females working the sewing machines within the Greek “Home”. And yet, it was only in the latter case that we would have a “softening” in the design of the machine, and not at all in the case of the former. On the shop floor, design was determined by technico-economic forces reflective of the needs of capital, not by any considerations pertaining to the personal and sexual identity of a worker. Within the homestead, the relatively autonomous work environment, operating outside or at some distance from the needs of capital (as in piece work), was such as to determine the design style of the machine: the absence of any rigid division of labour, and the concomitant one-to-one relationship between female and machine, would determine a relatively personalized relationship between them, and thus reflect the sexual identity of the user. It would be this sole manning of the domestic machine, we have argued, that would determine its “feminine aesthetics”. We have already suggested that both manufacturer and promoter of the sewing machine would operate within the socio-cultural space defined by such a reality.

At this point, it would be interesting to briefly compare the type of sewing machine used in a textile plant such as that of “DOURIDAS” to that used by a flour-mill factory such as that of the A&M Company. In the case of the latter, which we know was a smallish, family-owned mill-factory, we would find that sacks would be stitched by a “Singer” sewing machine of the exact same type as that used by “Amalia-type” in her own home. In this case, the “feminine aesthetics” of the machine would enter and intermingle with the harsh environment of flour-producing machines which were themselves beyond all “gender”. But such intermingling of “aesthetics” is clearly explainable: the Marakis “Singer” did not constitute the heart of the production process, it being a peripheral adjunct to flour-production. This would allow for the use of a “softly designed” machine which was not in any case an organic part of the basic division of labour yielding flour (cf. our diagrammatic representation of the A&M mill-factory and the structure of flour-producing machines that completed it in our discussion of “The Samandouras Case”). The case of the A&M factory, therefore, basically verifies what we have been arguing with reference to that of “DOURIDAS”, and the determining role of a division of labour. To the extent, that is, that the flour-mill’s sewing machine did not constitute an organic part of some division of labour, it might as well have been an appliance originally meant for the home. And it was just that at the A&M factory.

As to the question of “aesthetics” being embodied in the design of a sewing machine – and the corresponding discourse in advertising campaigns – it would be useful to consider at this point how the matter has been dealt with by a specialist in the field, Edward Tenner, in his text “Sewing Machine” (in “Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion”, Vol. 3, Detroit, 2005, pp. 320-322). Tenner writes:

“… the sewing machine became a new
kind of product – it was both commercial
and domestic, and, in appearance, both
industrial and ornamental. The continuing
development of machine sewing is in part
the story of the changing balance between
household and factory” (my emph.).

It was this “ornamental” function of a productive appliance, we have been arguing, that would also appeal to and even be determined by the “aesthetic” tastes of the “Amalia-type”. And Tenner goes on to suggest that this “ornamental” dimension would also and inevitably affect, inter alia, “the world of advertizing”.

Above, in presenting the 1964 self-instruction manual of «Κας ΣΙΑΣ ΚΩΣΤΑΡΕΛΛΟΥ», we noted how the advertisement addressed itself to both housewife and professional. Tenner himself points to this combination of the commercial with the domestic, or the industrial with the ornamental. Such combination would almost directly affect the world of Greek advertizing discourse itself, whether such combination would be evident within a single advertisement or in different advertisements, but all of which belonged to the united field of advertising discourse pertaining to the sewing machine.

As regards the “industrial” aspect of sewing machines and/or knitting machines in Greek advertizing discourse, we present below a 1964 sample which appeared In the Romantso periodical, and which read as follows:

«ΠΛΕΚΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΕΣ
‘ΜΠΟΥΣ’
Αυτόματες Αποδοτικές Στερεές
Ογκοτεχνικής Χρήσεως
‘SANTAGOSTINO’
Βιομηχανικής Χρήσεως
Χειροκίνητες – Ηλεκτροκίνητες
Από Νο. 2½ μέχρι Νο. 16
ΑΥΤΟΜΑΤΑ ΦΑΣΟΝ ΜΕΤΙΕ
ΟΥΓΙΑ
ΑΛΛΑΓΗ ΧΡΩΜΑΤΩΝ…
ΑΠΟΚΛ. ΑΝΤΙΠΡ. ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ
‘ΠΗΝΕΛΟΠΗ’ Ο.Ε.»
(cf. Romantso,  τεύχ. 1128,
13.10.1964, p. 89).

We have already referred to the “ornamental” aspect of sewing machines in Greek advertizing discourse – for instance, in the 1967 sample advertisement presented above, we saw how sewing machines were presented as «κομοδίνα καρυδιάς… σε 5 τύπους», etc. Such “ornamental”-“aesthetic” aspect in advertizing discourse would date back to the 1940’s and would, interestingly, present the machine as a “luxury” product. Consider the following sample circulating in 1948:

«ΜΙΚΡΑΙ ΑΓΓΕΛΙΑΙ…
ΠΩΛΕΙΤΑΙ μηχανή Σίγγερ
πολυτελείας
κεντήματος και ραψίματος…»
(cf. Νεολόγος Πατρών, έτος ΝΔ’,
αρ. φύλλ. 21652, 13.7.1948, p. 5).

Thus, even since the 1940’s and through to the 1970’s (at least), the sewing machine would be presented as a “luxury” product while at the same time it would as much be a “necessary” appliance. This closely knit combination of functions, of course, yet again questions the difficult distinction that analysts such as Galbraith had made as to what constitutes redundant “luxuries” and what not (cf. our discussion of this issue above, where we examined the emergence of the middle class milieu in Greece).

The use of the sewing machine as a “luxury ornament” in Aliartian houses of the early-1960’s would in some ways create paradoxical pictures of everyday life. One could see rather poor families living in what amounted to “hovels”, but which had a sewing machine placed in some prominent position within the household as a centerpiece meant to exhibit “taste”. Thereby, the “hovel” would be transformed into a rather comfortable-looking “hub”. One instance of such circumstances was that of a large family (five children) which possessed the sewing machine mainly so as to clothe family members and which it would also use to assert its social status – the father was a small-time shop-keeper who finally went bankrupt and the mother worked regularly in the cotton-fields of Aliarto.

We are suggesting that for families such as the above – and which did not constitute an exception among owners of sewing machines – the appliance was also seen as an “ornamental” piece. As such, it addressed itself to “aesthetic taste”. Since such “taste” would undergo change through the 1960’s and 1970’s, this could lead to a renewal of the appliance for those who could afford it. Renewal, of course, would also take place for purely technical reasons. We may here draw a distinction between “functional obsolescence” and “perceived obsolescence” (cf., inter alia, BusinessDictionary.com), and say that the renewal of a sewing machine would at first be due to its “functional obsolescence” or mechanical dysfunctionality – here, renewal would be imposed on the user, given some in-built technical characteristic of the machine designed by manufacturers so as to force people to renew the appliance, etc. (we shall return to this phenomenon, with reference to Greece). On the other hand, as the middle class milieu would mature and crystallize – through the progressive enhancement of the material strength of the popular masses  – the renewal of a sewing machine would be a symptom of “perceived obsolescence” – viz. a result of changing “aesthetic taste”. Precisely the fact that “perceived obsolescence” would be applied to a productive object such as the sewing machine verifies the function of such mechanical object as an “aesthetic luxury ornament”. Tenner’s work (op. cit.) would fully accept such an approach, and would go on to draw implications pertaining to the discourse of related advertizing.

Put in a nutshell, we may say that the sewing machine – as also the discourse used to promote it – was not at all limited to the harsh ‘utilitarian’ world of self-survival (though it could be that as well). Machines used by the “Amalia-type” had to be aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The sewing machine was an object immersed in its history of what may be called “classic styling” or “timeless styling and decoration” – terms often used in advertizing discourse at the time (it is of some interest to note here that such “classic styling” in the design of the machine would be so popular with its users around the world that, even in the 21st century, such design would be maintained and reproduced in certain versions of the fully computerized sewing machine).

That the sewing machine had to be – and certainly was – pleasing to the eye of the “Amalia-type”, suggested an “aesthetic/emotional attachment” reinforced by its “feminine” and “soft curvatures”. Such combination of emotions are perfectly encapsulated by a young lady of the 1960’s who extends the idea of the sewing machine to other crucial aspects of life – in her case, as in the case of thousands of young females belonging to the “Amalia-type”, the particular aspect was, of course, love-relationships. The young lady, writing a letter to a popular periodical, and tellingly signing off as «Μοδιστρούλα» expresses herself as follows:

«Θέλω να μπω στις στήλες του
‘Καρδιοχτύπι’ και να… γαζώσω
μερικές ανδρικές καρδίες. Θα
προτιμούσα αυτές που είναι από
λεπτό ύφασμα, και όχι από
καραβόπανο!... Δεν μεταχειρίζομαι
δακτυλήθρα… ‘Μοδιστρούλα’…»
(cf. Καρδιοχτύπι, 1965, τόμ. Α,
Νο. 3, p. 82).

Here, it seems as though the “feminine” style of the sewing machine, the “femininity” of operating a sewing machine at home, etc., would intermesh with the young lady’s deeply “feminine-romantic” feelings of erotic love. It seems as if the sewing machine itself completes her feminine identity and feminine aesthetics.

We may now turn to the fourth aspect regarding the social functions of the sewing machine in Greece for the period we are discussing – and which was an aspect clearly emphasized in much of advertizing discourse at the time. We may refer to this as the private ownership dimension regarding sewing machines. We have already referred to the question of the technical division of labour in factories such as “DOURIDAS”, and tried to show how this helps us understand the issue of sewing machine “aesthetics” in the absence of such division of labour. Of course, such absence within a homestead would be as much closely related to the highly important issue of ownership. Unlike the machines being worked at within the “DOURIDAS” shop floor, the home appliance used within the homestead obviously belonged to the user. Both “Singer” as manufacturer, and “STRIGLIS” as distributor, knew that the domestic sewing machine would be the prized possession of the “Amalia-type”, and thus – again – this would further determine both the design of the object and the discourse promoting it. This would mean that the “Amalia-type” would have felt no “alienation” towards the instrument of her labour at home, let alone any “alienation” as a consumer of such instrument. If there be any truth in the classical Marxian sense of “labour alienation”, this would only have applied to a “DOURIDAS” worker in relation to a machine that did not belong to her, disciplined her to rhythms of work that were imposed on her by it, and in any case would not share in company profits bar her meager wage. This latter reality, of course, would also have applied to an A&M “Blue-Collar” worker stitching sacks with the Marakis-owned “Singer” sewing machine. But when it came to the “Amalia-type” as user and possessor of a sewing machine, and especially when such machine was used exclusively for the needs of the family, whatever notions of “alienation” would simply not apply or, at least, would not be dominant as an emotional state in the psyche of the “Amalia-type”. That which would dominate within such psyche would be the “emotional” and the “aesthetic” dimensions of middle class ownership vis-à-vis the sewing machine, and it would be these dimensions which would be embedded in the “gentle” discourse of local advertizing promoting sewing machines. All references to “alienation” and “manipulation” with respect to the “Amalia-type” as a private possessor of a sewing machine, need therefore to be rejected.

Even as early as the 1920’s, advertizing discourse would present the ownership of a sewing machine as a necessary need for the Greek family. A local Cretan newspaper, based in Rethymno, would publish the following advertisement in 1925:

«’Όσοι αγοράζουν
ΡΑΠΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΑΣ ‘ΤΖΟΝΕΣ’
αι οποίαι είνε γνήσιαι ΑΓΓΛΙΚΑΙ
δεν χάνουν τα χρήματά των
αλλά αποκτούν μηχάνημα αιώνιον,
απαραίτητον διά πάσαν
οικογένειαν…»
(cf. Astrapi, Νο 14,
16.7.1925).

This particular advertisement, of interest if only because it had circulated so far back in time, places an emphasis on the necessity of ownership, and whatever the exaggerations in its discourse – such as that of «αιώνιον» – may be explained in terms of such emphasis on ownership. (We shall have to come back to this advertisement – only half of which is presented here – as it raises other extremely important issues pertaining to the competition of sewing machine manufacturers, functionality of the product, consumer response, etc.). Although published in a local Rethymno paper, the discourse of such advertisement actually belongs to a wider family of popular sentiments expressed in the early-1900’s across many parts of the world – viz. the need to possess such private productive property. “By the year 1900”, writes Alex I. Askaroff, an expert in the history of the sewing machine, “over 20 million sewing machines a year were being produced from factories all over the world. It is true to say that no single invention was so eagerly accepted by people in all four corners of the planet as the humble sewing machine.” (cf. www.sewalot.com). Askaroff quotes Mahatma Gandhi himself, who had said of the sewing machine that it constituted “One of the few useful things ever invented”. Global advertizing discourse dating back to 1900 (or thereabouts) would respond to such mass popular sentiments with slogans such as the following:

“Oh, if only I could afford
a sewing machine”
(cf. Askaroff, ibid., my emph.).

This was a “humble” piece of machinery. And yet it was, not only “aesthetically pleasing to the eye” but also, and at the same time, something productive. More than that, it was productive property which could actually belong to large sections of the popular masses, and obviously more so as the years went by and the bargaining capacity of working people in countries such as the UK would be fortified. With reference to 1901, Hobsbawm describes the “bourgeoisie” of the period as people who defined themselves in terms of what they possessed – in his The Age of Empire (op. cit.) he quotes William James to make his point:

«Στην ευρύτερη δυνατή σημασία του…
ο Εαυτός ενός ανθρώπου είναι το άθροισμα
όσων μπορεί να αποκαλέσει δικά του, όχι
μόνο το σώμα του και οι ψυχικές ικανότητές
του, αλλά και τα ρούχα του και το σπίτι του,
και η γυναίκα του και τα παιδιά του… τα
κτήματά του, τα άλογά του, το κότερό του
και ο τραπεζικός του λογαριασμός»
(p. 257).

But if, in 1901, it was only the “bourgeoisie” that could assert the importance of possessing things, we at the same time had at least one case – that of the “humble sewing machine” – that would allow at least certain members of the working classes to make a similar assertion. By the 1960’s, in any case, property ownership would be fully democratized (without at the same time surpassing the constraints of an essentially class-based economy). One crucial progenitor to the milieu of “popular ownership” was, we are suggesting, the sewing machine. In Greece as elsewhere, this would be one important element of advertizing discourse promoting sewing machines, and which would be fully reflective of the wishes of the “Amalia-type”.

In such Greek advertizing discourse of the 1960’s, the element of “ownership” was almost always present, but this presence – in semantic terms – was “gentle”, in general keeping with this kind of advertisement. More importantly, such advertizing discourse had no need to overemphasize the question of “ownership”, it being a ‘natural’ popular sentiment that had to be simply taken for granted. One does not try to “manipulate” or cajole someone into buying something when that someone – like the “Amalia-type” – has already decided on the wish and will to own a sewing machine. Thus, at least for the 1960’s, the issue of “ownership” appeared in-passing, but did so clearly and steadily – one of the most popular words used in such discourse being «να αποκτήσετε». One sample of such “gentle” advertisement referring to the question of “ownership” in the manner we are suggesting appeared in the popular periodical Domino in 1965:

«ΜΙΑ ΑΡΙΣΤΗΣ ΠΟΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ
ΡΑΠΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΗ…
ΣΕ ΕΝΑ ΘΑΥΜΑΣΙΟ ΕΠΙΠΛΟ
ΑΠΟ ΚΑΡΥΔΙΑ…
σας την προσφέρομε…
ΣΤΗΝ ΑΠΙΣΤΕΥΤΗ ΤΙΜΗ ΤΩΝ 1950 ΔΡΧ.
Δύνασθε ακόμα να την αποκτήσετε
με τις καταπληκτικές δόσεις των 300 δρχ.
μηνιαίως…
Γράψατέ μας ή επισκεφθήτε μας»
(cf. Domino film, τεύχ. 394, 11.9.1965).

As we can see, the idea of “ownership” – “get it”(«να την αποκτήσετε») – is simply and “gently” presented in-passing. A slightly more emphatic approach is evident in the following 1964 advertisement, but which nonetheless  still remains within the constraints of a “gentle” semantics:

«LADA
KOVO
2.750 δρχ.
Θέλετε και σεις μία
ραπτομηχανή LADA;
Με 100 δρχ. τον μήνα
ΡΑΔΙΟΦΩΝΙΚΗ ΕΝΩΣΙΣ
ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ»
(cf. Romantso, τεύχ. 1100,
31.3.1964, p. 83, my emph.).

The phrase «και σεις», used in this 1960’s advertisement, echoes the early-1900’s slogan “if only I could afford”, and thus further verifies the idea that the individual person, whatever his class position, wished to be the private proprietor of a sewing machine.

Of course, private proprietorship presupposed buying capacity, and thus advertizing discourse of the 1960’s promoting sewing machines would naturally dwell on the question of prices as well – here again, the treatment of the issue would be “gentle”, usually focusing on discount deals and monthly installments.

In the early-1960’s, the “STRIGLIS” company would be offering its «ποδοκίνητες ραπτομηχανές» at the price of drch. 2.650 – installments would come to drch. 200 per month.

In 1966, the company «ΡΑΔΙΟ ΠΕΙΡΑΙΕΥΣ» would offer even lower prices – in an advertisement circulating that year, we read:

«ΜΙΑ ΑΡΙΣΤΗ
ΡΑΠΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΗ
ΣΕ ΕΝΑ ΘΑΥΜΑΣΙΟ ΕΠΙΠΛΟ
(ΚΟΜΟΔΙΝΟ) ΑΠΟ ΚΑΡΥΔΙΑ
10 ΕΤΗΣ ΕΓΓΡΑΦΟΣ ΕΓΓΥΗΣΙΣ…
ΜΕΤΡΗΤΟΙΣ
ΜΟΝΟ ΜΕ 1600 [ΔΡΧ.]
ΜΕ ΔΟΣΕΙΣ
ΔΡΧ. 150
ΜΗΝΙΑΙΟΣ
ΡΑΔΙΟ ΠΕΙΡΑΙΕΥΣ Ι. ΨΑΡΡΑΚΗΣ & ΣΙΑ…»
(cf. Domino film, τεύχ. 461,
24.12.1966).

We know that, at the time, sewing machines were also running at a cash sale price of drch. 1.550, «με ευκολίες πληρωμής», and we have also seen above that the LADA sewing machine – the most expensive of our samples (at drch. 2.750) – could be bought with as little as drch. 100 per month.

But here, the phrase “as little as” raises an obvious question. How “little” were such prices for the “Amalia-type”, and to what extent could she have pronounced herself a proud “proprietor” of any sewing machine? The question is “obvious” and we may, as we have often done above, simply compare her usual earnings at the A&M company with the range of prices of a sewing machine at the time, and in that way show that the “Amalia-type” could afford to buy a sewing machine. But here we may answer such an “obvious” question in a manner that can yield a socio-historical fact the weight of which may be said to have determined the reality of the period (such “fact”, as we shall see, is itself “obvious” and “simple” – but it appears to be so only to those who have “lived” it – future historians shall have to further  verify it statistically).

Above, we have argued that the “Amalia-type” could and generally did become a possessor of a piece of productive property like the sewing machine, and we went on to say that in that very specific sense her status as proprietor could be compared to that of the “bourgeoisie” of the 1900’s. But in discussing the early-20th century, Hobsbawm (again in his The Age Of Empire, op. cit.) makes an observation that could be said to have applied to the Greek popular masses in the pre- and post-war years at least through to the 1960’s. Hobsbawm identifies a basic distinction between the “bourgeoisie” as owners of material things and “the rest” as owners of material things. The “bourgeoisie”, he observes, –

«… δεν ανήκαν στην κατηγορία εκείνων
που για να αγοράσουν ένα πράγμα
 έπρεπε να στερηθούν κάποιο άλλο»
(p. 258, my emph.)

It is this criterion of relative “deprivation” – of having to go without a dishwasher so that one may buy a sewing machine – that characterized the Greek popular middle class milieu of the 1960’s and 1970’s. It was therefore not so much a question as to who owned or did not own the “means of production” (many working people could themselves establish themselves as freelance, small-time manufacturers) – rather, the issue revolved around who possessed the consumer power not to have to deprive himself of one thing so the he be able to own some other thing. All social strata across the board would come to place property-ownership (or the ownership of material things) at the top of their personal agenda, as also their political agenda.

Now, how do we know that the “Amalia-type” could willingly deprive itself of a variety of things (bar those that related either to her survival or to her “femininity” perhaps) so that she own a sewing machine? We may try to verify such choice by considering two rather different but at the same time fairly similar cases: we may here observe the behaviour of the Hungarian popular masses vis-à-vis the sewing machine in the 1950’s-1960’s and compare such behaviour to the «nous» of a Greek female living in the post-war period.

We know that both Greece and Hungary experienced rapid economic growth, especially in the late-1950’s and 1960’s period. Despite Hungary’s so-called “socialist” economy, the government’s ‘New Economic Mechanism’ of 1968 had introduced what may be called some form of ‘market socialism’. Now, the important thing to note is that by the late-1950’s in Hungary, sewing machines were bought by large masses of workers to use at home. At the same time, the Janos Kadar government had been very weak in the aftermath of the suppression of the 1956 uprising. Given such weakness, it had no choice but recognize the realm of the ‘private sphere’, which included the private ownership of the sewing machine as productive property. As such, the government came to officially recognize the sewing machine as personal, private property, thus giving in to the wishes of working people (cf., inter alia, Akos Rona-Tas, The Great Surprise of the Small Transformation, University of Michigan Press, 1997). Within such general context, we may say that the popular masses of both Hungary and Greece shared the wish to possess a private sewing machine.

What of the «nous» of the Greek female living in this period and specifically as regards the ownership of a sewing machine? In an interview conducted on 9.5.2015 at Kallithea, a 90 year-old lady, M. Th., talked of the sewing machines she used to own through the years and unwittingly reveals the importance of ownership, even suggesting an element of conflict within her own family as to who was the legal or proper owner of a particular machine –  this is what she had to say in a part of the interview:

«Ναι, είχε μηχανή [with reference to one of
her sisters – Ms. K.]. Εγώ είχα μηχανή. Όχι
αυτή που έχω δώσει στη μάνα σου [with reference
to one of her five daughters – Ms. D.], όχι, αυτή
τηνε πήρα εγώ όταν πήγα [as employee] στον Ιππόδρομο,
το ’54. Πιο πριν είχα τη χειροποίητη
[she means hand operated], που έραβε η
Χρ. [her second sister]. Δεν είχε παντρευτεί ακόμα.
Μπορεί να ‘τανε και Singer, δεν αποκλείεται.
Όχι, με τη μηχανή αυτή δεν πάταγες [i.e. was not
operated by a foot pedal]. Όταν έχεις με το χέρι,
δεν έχει τίποτα από κάτω. Αυτή που έδωσα της
μάνας σου είναι από κάτω. Και έχω και το χαρτί
να της το δώσεις, απ’ τον καιρό [perhaps three
decades back] που τηνε είχα δώσει της Β. [another
of her daughters]. Όχι, δεν τα ‘χει τα χαρτιά η
μάνα σου, γιατί την είχα κάνει πωλητήριο στη Β.
 τη μηχανή, για να μην τη βουτήξουνε οι άλλοι
[the family of another of her daughters] άμα θα
πεθάνω, και μετά μία μέρα που ήρθε εδώ η κυρία
μαμά σου, λέει “τώρα τι τηνε θες τη μηχανή εσύ;
σου χρειάζεται τίποτα;” Και λέει η Β. “Δώσ’
τη μηχανή”, μου λέει, “τι την έχεις”, μου λέει “εδώ
πέρα”. Κι ο πατέρας σου ο έξυπνος [her son-in-law].
Και την έδωσα. Απ’ το ’54 είναι… πόσα χρόνια. Και
κάνει κέντημα, κάνει ρούχα, τα πάντα κάνει η
μηχανή αυτή. Της έχω δώσει τρεις μηχανές, της
μάνας σου…» (my emph.).

A rough calculation of the number of sewing machines that had circulated within the M. Th. family circles since the 1950’s comes to at least three, and we note the competition over ownership («για να μην τη βουτήξουνε», etc.).

A number of points needs to be clarified on the question of ownership before closing this part of the discussion. Firstly, regarding both the Hungarian and the Greek popular masses (or whoever for that matter), we obviously do not mean to suggest that these popular masses were characterized by some form of “oniomania”, a term coined in 1915 and meant to describe some form of compulsive buying disorder. Although our interview of M. Th. above does seem to suggest some such an inclination, we know that this was no mere obsession to buy for the sake of buying – we have thus far tried to show that the need to possess a sewing machine at the time was an expression of specific functional needs (both personal and social) and can thus be explained sociologically.

Secondly, we also do not mean to suggest that private ownership is ipso facto a feature of “human nature”, whatever definition one may choose to give the latter. But what we are definitely suggesting is that, within the given socio-economic and cultural conjuncture of the period, the possession of private property was a recognized need of the Greek middle class milieu, and which would encompass all social classes and strata, whatever their ideological orientation – as we have elsewhere argued, there were no alternative paradigms of the “frugal lifestyle” that had any serious impact on Greek society as a whole. Possessing a sewing machine as both a “necessity” and as a “luxury”, therefore, was – what we have called above – a “natural popular sentiment” for that specific conjuncture. As such, the possession of a sewing machine on the part of the “Amalia-type” was a “natural triumph” in itself, and this would be subtly presented in “gentle” advertizing semantics.

Generally speaking, we may say that the emotional, aesthetic and ownership sentiments provoked by the sewing machine, at least up to the 1970’s in Greece, embodied elements of the Greek modern womanhood paradigm across all age-groups and which were a booster to the renewed Greek Family Unit and its middle class milieu dreams. In that sense, one could argue that the “Singer” sewing machine, as also various other models of the period, would constitute a revolutionary innovation of “aesthetic style” which would be celebrating the all-rounded “femininity” and sexual identity of the “Amalia-type” as the sole owner of a productive and thoroughly creative piece of machine which would allow her to “do it her own way” (à la Sinatra). The shape, the function, the size, the material, the style and the ornaments that went with it – all these material/immaterial possessions would constitute a necessary element of the “Amalia-type”. As a synthetic experience, this would be part of that “type’s” cultural identity and of its “living” of modernity, both of which would be a confirmation, as said, of modern Greek womanhood. Put otherwise, the sewing machine – as also the advertizing discourse that went with it – would certainly not be symptomatic of the psychologically colonized female, as “feminist” theory would wish us to believe. For the “Amalia-type”, the sewing machine would be its “daily bread of experience”, and it is only within such “experience” that one may trace its “spirituality” (i.e. precisely that type of “experience” narrated by Joyce in his critical celebration of the “everyman”).

We have referred to the sewing machine as a thoroughly creative piece of machinery and have said that it would give the “Amalia-type” the opportunity to “do it her own way” when outside the walls of a factory or office. This now brings us to the fifth aspect of the social function of the sewing machine – that being what we may call the “joy” of independent creativity, and of the “creative control” that emanated from the use of a sewing machine at home. In an important sense, and specifically with respect to the Greek female, the creativity of the middle class milieu would be expressed through, inter alia, precisely such machine.

As we shall further see below, especially the reference to “joy” obviously needs to be cautiously qualified, and in any case such position runs the risk of “romanticizing” the “daily bread of experience” of whatever “Amalia-type”. Before we dwell on such qualifications, we may here refer to at least one writer referring to the period and who emphasizes precisely such “joy”. Writing in 1981, Maria Iordanidou, who hearkens back to the past in her book Η αυλή μας («Hestia», Athens), has this to say:

«Τί χαρά της ζωής ήταν εκείνη πού γνώρισα
τότε! Όταν ξυπνούσα το πρωί και ένιωθα
πως δεν είμαι υποχρεωμένη να φύγω από το
σπίτι μου, έκανα σαν τρελή. Δεν ήξερα τι να
πρωτοκάνω. Να βγάλω στη μέση ραψίματα,
ή να πιάσω να καθαρίσω το σπίτι, ή να κεντήσω,
ή …[etc.]…» (p. 79).

Such an idyllic presentation of the life of a woman, whether in the pre- or post-war years, can only but be taken with a pinch of salt. But if one is to accept the all-roundedness of human experience, with all its joys and sorrows, one need also recognize some element of “joy” that went with the fulfillment of specifically feminine chores within the household, and which were a confirmation of Iordanidou as a “female woman” (interestingly, Iordanidou was herself a “Leftist”). Within such context, one need also recognize some element of “joy” in independent creativity when it came to using a sewing machine.

It is the specific circumstances in which any machine is used that determine (positively or negatively) degrees of independence and creativity through the use of that machine – we know that Marxists had defined such circumstances as “relations of production” on the shop-floor. Outside the shop-floor and working independently of it, the user of the sewing machine could discover such independence and creativity for herself, and especially so if the technology of such machine allowed for it. The term “creative control” with reference to the domestic sewing machine belongs to Tenner (op. cit) – in examining the development of the sewing machine through the years, he observes how such appliances become user-friendly and facilitate versatility in creation. The machine would offer such “creative control” to its private user especially given developments in automaticity.

Advertizing discourse in 1960’s Greece would itself dwell on such technicalities of “automaticity” and would, yet again, do so “gently”. Unlike the “provocative-interventionist” type of advertisements which we have discussed above, there would be no trace whatsoever of “challenging” consumers by referring to the supposed erstwhile inaptitude of older generations, or to the use of “anachronistic” sewing appliances, or to whatever “civilizational” exhortations whereby the Greek traditional past is contrasted to “modern global progress” or “superiority”. Of course, there could be a positive reference to the “modern” and the “foreign”, but that would be presented in a manner suggesting that that reflected the popular masses themselves and their self-evident needs. Further, the question of “creativity” itself would be taken for granted – discourse would simply describe the fact of automaticity.

An excellent sample of such “non-provocative” advertizing discourse promoting automaticity in sewing machines circulated in 1964 – it read as follows:

«στενοχωριέσθε;
ΝΕΚΚΙ
η πιο τελειοποιημένη ραπτομηχανή,
που λύνει όλα τα προβλήματα
του σπιτιού. Η supernova JULIA της
NECCHI είναι η πρώτη και η μόνη
ραπτομηχανή στον Κόσμο, εφωδιασμένη
με διπλό αυτόματο σύστημα και με
αυτόματο μικροδιακόπτη κινήσεως. Η
JULIA εκτελεί εύκολα και γρήγορα και
τις πιο πολύπλοκες εργασίες και κεντά
οποιοδήποτε σχέδιο. Η JULIA της NECCHI
είναι η πιο μοντέρνα ραπτομηχανή…
ΓΕΝΙΚΟΙ ΑΝΤΙΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΙ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ
Μ. & Ι. ΠΑΠΑΖΟΓΛΟΥ Α.Ε.»
(cf. Romantso, τεὐχ. 1128,
13.10.1964, p. 49).

As we can see, this advertisement – which constitutes a perfect example of the “adjustive” type reflective of social needs – steers clear of ballyhooing around the issue of “creativity”. Such discourse would ‘speak’ directly to the “Amalia-type”: young ladies of the period who felt they were using their sewing machine in some “creative” manner would not assert their “creativity” in the way young Greek “artists” would, many of whom tended to fantasize about the universality of their creative discourse, belittling the “daily bread of experience” of the “Amalia-type”. From the 1950’s and through to the 1980’s, “Left-wing” poets would declare:

«Κάθε πρωί ξυπνώντας κρατάω τα
κλειδιά ενός κόσμου που βασίλεψα
μέσα στ’ όνειρο…»

And their arrogant haughtiness with respect to everyday life would be blatantly “provocative” and “interventionist”:

«Οι άνθρωποι βιάζονται: έγνοιες,
βιοτικές συνθήκες, όνειρα, συμβιβασμοί –
πού καιρός να γνωρίσουν τη ζωή τους»
(cf., for both quotes, Tasos Levaditis,
 Βιολέτες για μια εποχή, Κέδρος, 1985,
p. 39 & p. 95 respectively).

The poetic discourse presented above had little to nothing to do with the “Amalia-type’s” everydayness and the “creativity” that went with it. The “Amalia-type” would take her “creative” work on the sewing machine as a matter of fact. And she would relate it to the everyday needs of the household, something clearly referred to in the “NECCHI” discourse («που λύνει όλα τα προβλήματα του σπιτιού»). Of course, that would not mean that the “Amalia-type” would not also “dream” as she “created” with her sewing machine, but such “dreaming” would be directly related to her “daily bread of experience” (what Joyce had also referred to as «η σημασία των τετριμμένων» – cf. Richard Ellman, Τζέημς Τζόυς, SCRIPTA, Athens, 2005, p. 210). And further, while the “Amalia-type” would not have made too much fuss about her “creativity” as such – in the general, abstract sense –, she could certainly be proud of and boast about some skirt she might have produced on her sewing machine. The “NECCHI” discourse – being the authentic discourse of the “Amalia-type” (as opposed to that of a Levaditis) – simply announces to young Greek females that its product is capable of facilitating the creation of complex sewing products («τις πιο πολύπλοκες εργασίες»), or of facilitating the creation of whatever design («οποιοδήποτε σχέδιο»). It was precisely such technical facilities that the “Amalia-type” needed so as to affirm her practical and aesthetic “creativity”, and that was exactly what the “NECCHI” would affirm.

A second sample of the “non-provocative” type of advertisement, this time promoting knitting machines in 1965, is the following:

«Εκπαίδευσις Δωρεάν
στις περίφημες
Πλεκτρομηχανές
CABO
ΟΝΥΞ
PASSAP
ΤΥΠΟΙ ΑΠΛΟΙ
ΗΜΙΑΥΤΟΜΑΤΟΙ
ΑΥΤΟΜΑΤΟΙ
20 ΕΤΩΝ ΠΕΙΡΑ ΕΙΣ
ΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ
… Θ. ΜΠΙΤΣΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ»
(cf. Domino Film, τεύχ. 389,
7.8.1965, p. 44).

The advertisement informs the user – and does so “gently” – that this knitting machine offers one the technical capacity to create anything from the most simple to the most complex of patterns, the latter being facilitated through automaticity (Tenner’s “creative control”). Again, it is not the idea of “creativity” itself that is being highlighted – only the technical dimension is presented. The only “bait” used is the free training provided in the use of the machines, though this cannot be said to constitute a “provocation”. In any case, one would not buy such machines unless one had some idea as to how to use them. Let us note here that it was hand-knitting that was most popular amongst Greek females in the post-war period. On the other hand, the general explosion in knitting that would follow the post-war period would also mean that home knitting machines would also be bought by at least some females. By the 1980’s, knitting as an activity would die out.

We may now come to our sixth and final aspect of the social function of the sewing machine – viz. the idea that sewing machines created “free time” for the “Amalia-type”, and especially so when such “type” finally got married and had children. Apart from the fact that this issue touches on the problematic question of “joy” (“free time” may presumably yield “joy”), it is itself highly controversial. We intend to merely present some aspects of the discussion, without necessarily taking sides.

It is quite natural that at least one of the parties in the discussion supporting that sewing machines are time-saving devices would be the “Singer” company’s own “ideologists”. Taken by itself, to observe how the “Singer” company presents its product in its more “theoretical” texts is of historical interest. Further, one needs to examine what the company has to say in a completely bias-free manner, and merely compare its position with those of others. One of the “Singer” texts runs as follows:

“The invention of the sewing machine
coincided with the women’s movement,
which arose, in part, to liberate women
from housework. At a time when, in addition
to making soap, chopping wood, carrying
water, tending fires, cooking, cleaning, and
nursing, women had to hand-sew all the
clothes and linens their families needed,
the sewing machine was a godsend”
(cf. “Singer Memories…”, op. cit.).

Most or all of the activities enumerated above – as tasks done by women – were a reality for the Aliartian females of the pre- and post-war period through to the 1960’s. But one important exception to all this, generally speaking, was that of hand-sewing all of a family’s clothes, given precisely the use of sewing machines. In that sense, one could speak of that home appliance as a time-saving “godsend”.

And yet, it would be going just a bit too far to present the sewing machine as a “liberator”.  Anna Papaspiropoulou, from Kokkino Mylo (op. cit.), who used her sewing machine to do piecework from 7am to even 1am, would have hardly felt such “liberation”. Dido Sotiriou, in her book,Κατεδαφιζόμεθα (op. cit.), presents us with the case of a young man by the name of Petros, who is in a dilemma as to whether or not he should marry his girlfriend. One obstacle to that is the girl’s mother, who worked her sewing machine as did Papaspiropoulou – we read:

«Γάμο! Τι εύκολα που το είπες.
Αναλογίζεσαι λίγο τις σκηνές που θα
κάνουν οι γέροι μου; Να μάθει, λέει,
η… αγαπημένη μου μανούλα… πώς η
μάνα της [i.e. that of his girlfriend]
παίρνει δουλειά με το κομμάτι στο
σπίτι, δηλαδή η πιο χαντακωμένη
περίπτωση ραπτεργάτριας»
(op. cit., p. 96).

If the “ideologists” of the “Singer” company wished to present the sewing machine as an instrument of “liberation”, Sotiriou – a “Leftist” – would present the appliance as an instrument of the worst “exploitation”. Neither would attempt to capture the reality of things at the time – and they would not because, unlike much of advertizing discourse itself, neither of the two would care to understand Greek “deep society”. Of course, when the “ideologists” of “Singer” would translate their “theories” into advertizing discourse, such discourse would steer clear of such simplistic exaggerations, at least as regards the “gentle”, “adjustive” advertisement.

In contradistinction to such oversimplifying approaches, we should rather consider three observations on the use of the domestic sewing machine that are more grounded in historical reality itself. The first observation, coming from Hobsbawm, suggests that the use of the sewing machine by a housewife allowed for a more practical combination of tasks at home, which ultimately benefitted that housewife and her family. It might or might not have created “free time”, but it did allow for a practical management of time. In his The Age of Empire (op. cit.), Hobsbawm refers to the «ράφτρα που δούλευε στην σοφίτα» – and here he also has the Greek female in mind (p. 182) – and has this to say of the benefits of using the sewing machine:

«Η οικιακή βιοτεχνία τους επέτρεπε
τουλάχιστον να συνδυάσουν την αμειβόμενη
εργασία με κάποια επίβλεψη του νοικοκυριού
και των παιδιών. Γι’ αυτό και τόσες παντρεμένες
γυναίκες, που είχαν ανάγκη από χρήματα αλλά
παρέμεναν αλυσοδεμένες στις κουζίνες τους
και στα μικρά παιδιά, βρέθηκαν να κάνουν
τέτοιου τύπου δουλειά» (p. 306, my emph.).

For women who did not work on behalf of some factory, the use of the sewing machine would mean a practical combination of doing housework, looking after their children, and at the same time sewing for their family (or friends, which could also bring in extra money). But it would be this coordinated combination of tasks that could itself yield – potentially speaking – “pockets of free time” for the housewife.

The second observation, coming from E. P. Thompson (in his The Making…, op. cit), suggests that the home-based use of the sewing machine allowed for an escape from a rigidly imposed factory-discipline, itself suggesting some relative element of “freedom”. Thompson writes:

“In good times the domestic economy …
supported a way of life centred upon the
home, in which inner whims and compulsions
were more obvious than external discipline”
(p. 455).

Elsewhere, in his “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism” (in Past and Present, 1967; Greek edition, Νησίδες, 1983, pp. 27-29), Thompson refers to the irregular rhythms of work that characterize the domestic use of, inter alia, a sewing machine and explains how such irregularity can create spaces of “free time” – for instance, he writes:

«Κάθε φορά που οι άνθρωποι ήταν
κύριοι της δραστηριότητάς τους,
οργάνωναν το χρόνο τους ως εναλλαγή
σκληρής δουλειάς και απραξίας… Αυτό
το σχήμα το συναντούμε και σήμερα
ακόμα σε ορισμένους ανεξάρτητους
εργαζόμενους» (p. 29, my emph.).

The third observation regarding the issue of “free time” is based on a 1940’s text published in a Greek local paper and adds yet another dimension to the observations of Hobsbawm and Thompson. One could argue that the process of learning how to use a sewing machine – and especially when such learning process would take place in a formal institution of the type we have encountered above – would open up the overall educational horizons of young ladies in Greece. This would cultivate their “cultural taste”, thus enabling them to make a much more “creative” use of whatever “free time” they had, outside the factory floor (or office) and away from the sewing machine. The newspaper Νεολόγος Πατρών published the following text in 1947:

«Σχολών του Μορφωτικού Συλλόγου
Νυκτερινής Σχολής
Σχολής Αγραμμάτων Γυναικών Μητέρων
Μαθητρίας Κοπτικής
………………………………………………………………..
Λούλα Βαγενά (η εκ των Εφόρων
της Νυκτερινής Σχολής):
………………………………………………………………..
"Δεν είναι υπερβολή αν αποκαλέσωμεν τας
μαθητρίας μας μικράς ηρωίδας. Αι μαθήτριαί
μας εργάζονται. Εργάζονται και ανακουφίζουν
την οικογένειάν των. Είτε ως βοηθοί εις
οικογενείας, είτε εις εργοστάσια και βοηθούν
τον μάρτυρα πατέρα και την ολοκαύτωμα
μητέρα τους, δια την ζωήν και την συντήρησι
της οικογενείας. Κερδίζουν μόναι των, δια της
εργασίας των, την ζωήν. Αλλά παρά την δουλειά
 της ημέρας, έχουσαι εις την ευγενή ψυχήν των
 τον πόθον της μορφώσεως, την δίψαν της μαθήσεως,
 την επιθυμίαν της βελτιώσεως του είναι των,
 παρακολουθούν το σχολείον, αδιαφορούσαι δια
 την κόπωσιν και δια τις δυσκολίες της σπουδής και
 πολλές φορές υπό πικράς  συνθήκας. Έχουν το
 θρανίο ως αναπαυτήρα και το βιβλίο ως
 αναψυκτικό”…»
(cf. Νεολόγος Πατρών, έτος ΝΔ’, αρ.
φύλλου 21652, 13.7.1948, p. 4, my emph.).

The text above, expressive of a discourse articulated by some lady-functionary working for a semi-“private”/semi-“State” educational apparatus, raises a variety of problems for both historian and sociologist. We can only but bracket these, and simply dwell on the basic facts it reveals for our purposes. The young female students of this Patra institution combined work with study, while being trained in cutting and sewing («κοπτική»). The training process therefore, cannot be reduced to the churning out of young women workers ready to be “exploited” by factory owners in the way that Sotiriou (op. cit.) would presuppose. The training process – of the type we have seen in some advertisements discussed above – also involved the experience of «το θρανίο ως αναπαυτήρα και το βιβλίο ως αναψυκτικό». The implication is that their training in «κοπτική» would also mean an opening up of their educational and cultural experiences – this, in itself, suggests that these young ladies were acquiring the capacity to organize whatever “free time” they had at their disposal in more “creative” ways. Despite, that is, their «κόπωσιν», they could nonetheless express «την επιθυμίαν της βελτιώσεως του είναι των». The usual counter-argument to this – coming from the so-called “Left” – would be that these young ladies were merely being subjected to the “ideological indoctrination” of the so-called “system”. But we know that such a dogmatic approach forgets that these young ladies could determine for themselves the “understanding” they had of such educational process – viz. it would be their own discourse that would determine their “understanding” of the world around them. Thereby, they were “free” to structure their own experience of time (more or less in the Heideggerian sense).

To summarize the points we have made regarding the sixth aspect of the social function of the sewing machine in Greece at the time, we note:

• The sewing machine allowed for the coordinational management of time (Hobsbawm);
• It allowed for irregular, self-controlled rhythms of work (Thompson);
• Training on the usage of the sewing machine could further enrich one’s capacity to make creative usage of time, in that it allowed for one’s self-structuring of the experience of time as one “talked” of it through “one’s own” language in the educational process (drawing on Heidegger).

These constitute the more positive aspects regarding the sixth aspect of the social function of the sewing machine. In fact, all six functions – the economic, the emotional, the aesthetic, the sense of ownership, the sense of creativity, and that of free time – must be seen as merely the one, positive side of the reality of an “Amalia-type” and her experience of the sewing machine. It was this positive dimension of the sewing machine that was evident in the relevant advertizing discourse, whether directly stated or as a deeply embedded implication in the discourse. But, then, by focusing on the positive side of such reality (and on the advertizing discourse that could only but have accompanied it), we do not mean to forget the other side of the coin, it being Sotiriou’s emphasis on “economic exploitation”. But the advertizing discourse promoting the sewing machine could obviously not have dwelt on whatever negative reality, for reasons that go without saying. Yet still, when the advertizing discourse only revealed the one side of the coin, it was not at all lying to the “Amalia-type”, since that side of the coin was hers too. Advertizing discourse “talked” of sewing machines in a manner that “adjusted” to the popular discourse of the “Amalia-type” – thereby, at least “gentle” advertizing discourse grounded her experience of the 1960’s. And it would only be the real Amalia Eleftheriadou herself who could experience the difference – and talk of it – between the one side of the coin and the other.

Having examined the social functions of the sewing machine, we may end this section by raising two important issues that remain to be considered and which have proved fairly important in discussions regarding the sewing machine.

The first issue may be put as follows: to what extent did the mass use of sewing machines contribute to a “uniformity” of fashion, or to its “homogenization”? This issue, of course, relates to the question of “creativity” which we have discussed above, and it seems to question that very “creativity”. Elsewhere, we have referred to the circulation of the «ΠΑΤΡΟΝ» (cutout patterns) amongst females who had access to sewing machines, and we had seen how such «ΠΑΤΡΟΝ» – usually inserts in popular periodicals – would promote fashion houses and thereby delimit the definition of what was a “fashionable dress”. Paradoxically, such “fears” of “homogenization” have even been expressed by “theoreticians” of the “Singer” company itself. Consider the following text drawn from “Singer Memories” (op. cit.):

“One irony of the success of Singer internationally
is that, even as its advertising was celebrating the
diversity of costumes around the world, the sewing
machine was responsible for an increasing
uniformity of fashion worldwide. An 1899 ad featuring
Greek women in elaborate costumes acknowledges:
‘The graceful national costume is disappearing
throughout Greece. It is predicted that in another
generation it will have disappeared in favour of
French styles made on Singer Sewing Machines from
English and American materials’…”

But one has to be very cautious with the idea of a “uniformity of fashion worldwide” (and even more cautious with the idea that it was the sewing machine as such which constituted the “cause” of such “uniformity). If by “uniformity” one means that vast masses of people across the globe were accepting “modernity” (in their attire, as in so many other “details” of everyday life) – and that they were therefore moving away from “the national costume” – one can only but accept that as a historical fact starting from the late-19th/early-20th century. And one can only but accept this as a historical phenomenon arising from within the “new tastes” of the popular masses and which would become popularized, “democratized” demands after WWII. We have already seen how the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores would reflect and adjust to such “new tastes” which, in the post-war period in Greece, were to no longer be limited to the “elites”. This phenomenon was what should rather be termed a relative “uniformity of modernity”, and which would even stretch to places as far away as India. Gandhi himself, while sticking to his traditional Hindu costume when in India, nonetheless also subscribed to the cultural dictates of “modernity”. In his The Age of Empire (op. cit.), Hobsbawm notes:

«… ο ίδιος ο Γκάντι άρχισε να γράφει έναν
οδηγό για τον αγγλικό τρόπο ζωής … Γραμμένος
σε υπέροχη αγγλική γλώσσα, ο οδηγός αυτός
… έδινε συμβουλές για τα πάντα … [e.g., and
with reference to Indian students] πώς να
συνηθίσουν την περίεργη δυτική συνήθεια να
ξυρίζονται μόνοι τους αντί να πηγαίνουν σε
κουρέα [and cf. our observations on the issue
of shaving in our discussion of the “PHILISHAVE”
advertisement above]» (p. 127).

Perhaps we should also note here that when Gandhi was in South Africa between 1893 and 1914, the young lawyer would sport a three-piece suit plus tie. Such “uniformity”, therefore, was definitely a world phenomenon even since the early-20th century – though, of course, such new “modern tastes” in attire would at first be limited to various strata of the middle classes. Generally speaking, we may say that the “national costume” was gradually being surpassed across various social strata – that being one particular aspect of “traditionalism” that was already beginning to belong to past history, especially amongst the waves of new generations sprouting in the early-1900’s (and cf. Palamas, Περασμένα χρόνια, pp. 455-461, op. cit.). Of course, the idea that it was the sewing machine that was “responsible” for whatever “modernity” in attire – suggested in the “Singer Memories” text above – is so obviously simplistic that it is not worthy of even being considered.

But all this should not at all be confused with the idea of a “uniformity of fashion”, something which is a completely different kettle of fish. While even in this case a certain minimal degree of “uniformity” did apply – given the hegemony of “modernity” per se – such “uniformity” was never absolute – it had to adapt itself to local conditions. We here need to remind ourselves of our discussion of the “LUX” advertizing discourse above, which had pointed to an absence of “global homogenization” – viz. the absence of a “homogenization of norms” or of whatever “globalized ideal beauty” (a position, we had argued, fully supported by the work of Geoffrey Jones). A similar approach needs to be adopted as regards local “fashions” and the role of the sewing machine.

Our basic position on this issue of the so-called “uniformity of fashion” may be put as follows: the use of the sewing machine by Greek females of the period we are discussing would allow them to both reproduce the “modern fashions” of the day and at the same time experiment by improvising – such on-going improvisation being either dependent on or expressive of the materials that were available. Therein, one could discover the element of “creativity”.

The “mind-set” of the “Amalia-type” was “creative” because it had to be so – she had to continually improvise by imprinting her identity on the materials that were available to her (or given limitations in the quantity and quality of her materials). The popular periodicals she read – and which were written exclusively for her – recognized a certain ineluctable creativity on her part and systematically facilitated such creativity by proposing various ideas of improvisation to her. Consider the following text published in a 1967 issue of Vendeta:

«Άλλος ένας τρόπος να μεταποιήσετε
παλιό φόρεμα: Κόβετε το εμπρός μέρος,
απ’ το στήθος και κάτω, και το αντικαθιστάτε
με ένα φύλλο από διαφορετικό ύφασμα,
σε χρωματισμό που να ταιριάζη»
(cf. Vendeta, τεύχ. 92ον ,
10.2.1967, p. 54).

Such ineluctable creativity of the “Amalia-type” was based on four elements constituting her specific “mind-set” as regards the use of the sewing machine – these elements were the following:

• the exigencies of practical  need;
• a particular understanding of individual “good taste”;
• a relative independence as regards “professional norms”;
• a relegation of primary “fashion norms” to something of only secondary importance.

These four elements are clearly evident in a 1965 text published in the popular periodical Domino film, and which reads as follows:

«Δίνετε κι’ εδώ εξετάσεις για το πρακτικό
 και καλό σας γούστο και δεν έχει σημασία
αν πρόκειται για απλά φορέματα… Ίσως
σ’ αυτή την περίπτωση να χρειάζεται πιο
πολύ το καλό γούστο, γιατί συνήθως τα
φορέματα… τα ετοιμάζουν μόνες τους οι
 γυναίκες, χωρίς να συμβουλεύωνται μοδίστρες
 ή φιγουρίνια. Γι’ αυτό, προκειμένου να
ράψετε … το πρώτο πράγμα που πρέπει να
κοιτάξετε είναι το τι ταιριάζει στον τύπο σας
 και στην ηλικία σας και μετά τη μόδα»
(cf. Domino film, τεύχ. 389, 7.8.1965,
p. 49).

This excellent little text accurately reflects the “mind-set” of the “Amalia-type”, and does so by somehow challenging such “mind-set” (i.e. it wishes to test the extent to which the reader actually meets the standards expected of such “type”): «Δίνετε κι’ εδώ εξετάσεις…» It sets out all four elements determining improvisation and creativity which we have enumerated above:

• practical need: «το πρακτικό γούστο»;
• individual good taste: «το … καλό σας γούστο»; «τι ταιριάζει στον τύπο σας και στην ηλικία σας»;
• independence as regards professionals: «τα ετοιμάζουν μόνες τους … χωρίς να συμβουλεύωνται μοδίστρες ή φιγουρίνια»;
• dominant fashion trends of only secondary importance: «και μετά τη μόδα».

We may now deal with the second and final issue that remains to be considered regarding sewing machines, and which may be seen as a general summary of what we have we been arguing above – viz. what was it that determined the history of the sewing machine?

The very process of marketing a product, as with the sewing machine, would constitute a continual flow of advertizing discourse. In itself, this would mean the spreading of information, whatever the quality or intentions of such information. In the specific case of the “gentle” advertisement which we have been considering here, such information would be “non-provocative” and above all meant to simply inform. This would not necessarily mean that the data provided in the advertizing discourse would all be accurate in themselves. On the other hand, such continual spreading of information would lead to a latent or open competition between “brands”. This competition would in turn inevitably lead to the stimulation of improvements of the product sold, itself suggesting a factor in the determination of the history of the sewing machine. The idea of competition, of course, already brings into the picture the historical role of the buyer and user of the product.

We do not mean to suggest that such an approach to the history of the sewing machine is something that this research project has finally “discovered” – on the other hand, such an approach fully confirms the methodology we have adopted. Edward Tenner (op. cit.) tells us that economic historians have adopted something approximating such a historical approach – he writes:

“Economic historians have suggested that
the vigorous marketing by Singer and other
firms spread information that, in turn,
stimulated new improvements of the machine
in a virtuous circle.”

In the 1920’s, such competition in advertizing discourse was absolutely open and direct, at least as regards the case of promotional campaigns in certain regions of Greece. In 1925, the Cretan-based newspaper Astrapi would carry an advertisement, already referred to above, promoting «ΡΑΠΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΑΣ ΤΖΟΝΕΣ» – the latter part of this advertisement went as follows:

«Τα εργοστάσια ‘ΤΖΟΝΕΣ’, τα οποία ευρίσκονται
εις Μάντσεστερ εξουσιοδότησαν τους εν Κρήτη
αντιπροσώπους των να μετρήσουν 100 λίρας
Αγγλικάς εις εκείνον που θα αποδείξη ότι μπορούν
αι ραπτομηχαναί Σίγγερ να παραβληθούν προς
τα ιδικάς των»
(cf. Astrapi, No 14, 16.7.1925).

Here we have a case of open competition between firms, and wherein the “common user” of sewing machines is asked or challenged to participate as an adjudicator of what is best in quality (hence the historical role of the later “Amalia-type” in the process of “improvements” in the design and technology of the appliance).

It is as interesting to note that such competition between firms was to especially take place between US industry (“Singer”) and Britain’s original dominance in mechanical engineering – an important historical observation brought to our attention by Tenner (op. cit.) himself. In the Αστραπή advertisement, we see that the British “Jones Sewing Machine Company” (founded in 1860) stands in open conflict with the American “Singer” company – it would be precisely such competition, with the consumer as pivotal reference point – that, as Tenner puts it, “stimulated new improvements of the machine in a virtuous circle”. While in 1893 a  Jones advertisement would claim that their factory was the “Largest Factory in England Exclusively Making First Class Machines”, the flow of historical events would decide things otherwise: US technology and mass response to such technological superiority would place the “Singer” sewing machine at the top of all other “brands”. “Singer” would become the first complex standardized technology to be marketed on a mass scale. We know that it would ultimately become the world’s largest sewing company which, by 1973, would have its company stock listed on the London Stock Exchange. Its annual sales at the time would amount to $2,5 billion. The important point here is that, all along, it would be the preferential selectivity of the “Amalia-type” that would play a major role in determining such “Singer” superiority in Greece.

But it was not simply the fact of competition – and the concomitant discourse of such competition (the openness of which would later be “controlled” by a “code of ethics” in the 1970’s, op. cit.) – that would lead to improvements in the sewing machine. Users would contrast whatever discourse to the reality of usage and could come up with complaintsabout the appliance they had bought and were using. Users would use local papers to voice such complaints and the media would willingly satisfy their readers by publishing such complaints (and especially when the complaints concerned “brands” not advertized in the particular paper or when such paper advertized “brands” that could benefit from complaints aimed at their competitors).

A clear example of this appears in the local paper Astrapi of 1925 – on the 9th of July, the following article would be published:

«Πολλά παράπονα ακούονται
από τους αγοράζοντας τελευταίως
ραπτομηχανάς Σίγγερ, ότι αύται
αμέσως μετά την πρώτην χρήσιν
χαλούν καθιστάμεναι άχρηστοι.
Εις τούτο επείσθημεν και ημείς εξ
ιδίας αντιλήψεως, φρονούμεν δε
ότι η ευπάθεια των μικρών ιδίως
εργαλείων των ραπτομηχανών
τούτον οφείλεται εις την κακήν
ποιότητα του μετάλλου, πράγμα
το οποίον πρέπει να απασχόληση
σοβαρώς την κεντρικήν διεύθυνσιν
της εταιρείας, διότι και το γόητρον
αυτής καταπίπτει και η εμπιστοσύνη
με την οποίαν μέχρι σήμερον
περιεβάλλοντο αι ραπτομηχαναί
Σίγγερ εκμηδενίζεται, αλλά και
διότι ο κόσμος δεν έχει καμμίαν
υποχρέωσιν να πληρώνη τόσα
χρήματα δια να αγοράζη μηχανάς
μεταβαλλομένας ταχέως εις
άχρηστα σίδερα»
(cf. Astrapi, No 13,
9.7.1925).

The representatives of “Singer” would of course protest about the contents of the above article, and so the exact next issue of Αστραπή would proceed to reply to them as follows:

«Οι ενταύθα υπάλληλοι [at Rethymno]
των ραπτομηχανών Σίγγερ εξεφράσθησαν,
ως πληροφορούμεθα, καθ’ ημών, διότι
εις το προηγούμενον φύλλον της “Αστραπής”
ωμιλήσαμεν περί της κακής ποιότητος του
μετάλλου των μηχανών τούτων και διότι
συνεστήσαμεν εις την Κεντρικήν Διεύθυνσιν
προσοχήν. Εις τους καθ’ ημών ασεβώς
εκφρασθέντας κ.κ. υπαλλήλους των
ραπτομηχανών Σίγγερ δηλούμεν ότι πάν
ότι γράφει η ”Αστραπή” είναι εντελώς
εξηκριβωμένον και εκ των πραγμάτων
ειλημμένον ως προθύμως δύναται να αποδείξη
εις πάσαν περίπτωσιν»
(cf.Astrapi, No 14, 16.7.1925).

At the same time, while this local controversy with “Singer” was reaching a climax, “Singer’s” British competitor, the “Jones Sewing Machine Company” would be doing good business – and it would make use of the columns of Astrapi to inform the public of how its product was so popular that it had sold out, and in that way of course encouraging still further sales. Of course, one rightly suspects that here the “Jones” company was actually advertizing itself through what appeared in Astrapi as a merely informative article, thus constituting a form of discreet, indirect advertizing that – as discussed elsewhere above – would often be used in the popular periodicals of the 1960’s. Still, it was the complaining of users («εντελώς εξηκριβωμένον και εκ των πραγμάτων ειλημμένον») that had played an important role in galvanizing the whole process, and which would gradually lead to improvements in the quality of the appliance. The successes of the “Jones” sewing machine at the time would be reported as follows:

«Ολόκληρος η παρακαταθήκη εξ
ογδοήκοντα τεμαχίων των ραπτομηχανών
 Τσώνες εξηντλήθησαν… Ειδοποιούνται
οι ενδιαφερόμενοι ότι εντός των ημερών
καταφθάνει εις τον ενταύθα αντιπρόσωπον
έναντι της Αγίας Βαρβάρας νέα αποστολή»
(cf. Astrapi, No 12,2.7.1925, their emph.).

Ultimately, we know of course who it was that would win the race in sales, survival and expansion – “Singer” would pip “Jones” at the post. But it would be the ancestors of the “Amalia-type” – their demanding presence as consumers and users of the product  – that would constitute that very “post”.

Thus, we may generally say that the design and quality of the sewing machine would be determined by the two-way interaction between producer and user, such interaction being mediated by advertizing discourse and the intervention of newspapers themselves (given the pressure of their readers).

This allows us to more or less re-interpret the concepts of “planned obsolescence” and “perceived obsolescence” which we have referred to above, and we may do so at least for the case of Greece, starting even from the 1920’s but gaining momentum in the 1960’s.

The “planned obsolescence” – for instance, that «κακής ποιότητος του μετάλλου» in the case of “Singer” (if, presumably, this was in fact a “planned” phenomenon) – could have a boomerang effect against itself. People would gradually come to refuse to buy things that broke down sooner or later. There could be a generalized complaint about the particular “brand” of the sewing machine and it would be a complaint based on a contrast between the promises of an advertizing discourse and the realities of usage.

Further, and as regards “perceived obsolescence”, we may say that it was the competition within advertizing discourse that would stimulate the change of such perceptions. People would be able to compare and contrast products on the basis of a spreading range of information, and this could lead to a renewal – and improvement – of their appliances in response to such information (and which was also a response to new styles and aesthetics, which could themselves have been either accepted or rejected).

In a nutshell: it is impossible to understand the history of the sewing machine without considering that dialectically interacting “triangle” between manufacturer →advertizing discourse → user. All these three components interacting in-one-whole would constitute the overdetermining force of such history. This multi-causal flow of events (in the Weberian sense) would mean that the sewing machine would have embedded within itself an “aesthetics” also reflecting the user which, by the 1960’s, would be the “Amalia-type”. It would be the “gentle”, “non-provocative” type of advertizing discourse in 1960’s Greece that would prove most functional to such “triangle”.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The next set of “adjusted” advertizing discourse which we shall here need to discuss concerns that which promoted radios, tape recorders and hi-fi sets, especially in the 1960’s. This was a discourse which, considered as-a-whole, had taken on a very specialized form: it was characterized by a series of dimensions – we have identified five in all – each of which had a very specific object in itself and where all five such objects linked to one another, precisely so as to yield such discourse as-a-whole. As we shall see, such series of sub-discourses with their respective objects did not evolve sequentially one after the other – their “birth”, so to speak, was a result of circumstantial contingencies determined by the needs of the “moment”, but which would ultimately come to yield one, organically united discourse for this period.

Elsewhere, we have devoted a section of this research project to an analysis of the use of the radio by the Greek popular masses in the 1960’s (cf. “The Radio”, above). Our purpose here is something completely different, it being to consider the advertizing discourse used to promote the radio and other devices related to sound-production. But before we enter into an examination of such advertizing discourse, it would perhaps be of some interest to recapitulate on some of the basic points made in that analysis (this time using different sources). Such recapitulation is also of interest because it will allow us to pinpoint one general characteristic of all advertizing discourse promoting the radio, etc., which would apply to all five dimensions we have referred to above. We shall argue here that advertizing discourse pertaining to sound-producing devices would avoid “intervening” as to what “sound” ought to be listened to by users – this would mean that the use of such devices would take place in an open cultural-ideological terrain which was also being determined by the popular masses themselves.

On the question of popular radio-usage, we may here refer to an excellent little text by Georgios Kollias, entitled «Το ραδιόφωνο κι η τηλεόραση… Χθες… Διαφημίσεις 1960-1970» [“Radio and TV… Yesterday… Advertisements”, cf. gekollias.blogspot.gr, 2012]. This text, unassuming and unbiased (but thoroughly nostalgic – à la the Aliartian Giannis Statiras mentioned elsewhere), gives us an idea of how the radio had entered the everyday lives of Greeks in the 1960’s. As we shall see below, it is precisely Kollias’ unassuming and experiential approach to the realities of the 1960’s that will allow him to come up with somewhat “primitive concepts” which, if worked on a bit more systematically, can allow us to explain advertizing discourse pertaining to the radio, etc. in a more systematic manner.

As to the appearance of the radio on a mass basis – and especially as regards its ubiquitous presence in Greek villages by the late-1950’s – Kollias writes:

«Το 1959 λοιπόν, το χωριό μου είχε
πλέον ρεύμα. Άναψαν λάμπες στα
σπίτια και τους [sic] δρόμους το βράδυ,
εμφανίστηκε το ψυγείο.
Τα αμέσως επόμενα χρόνια μπήκε
στα σπίτια του χωριού το ραδιόφωνο.
Ξέρεις αυτό το μεγάλο κουτί, με τα
τεράστια κουμπιά, γεμάτος λυχνίες,
που φωτίζανε αμυδρά, όταν ήταν
ανοιχτό» (cf. gekollias.blogspot.gr,
2012).

Simply for the sake of interest, we may note that the village Kollias is referring to is Varnavas, which he calls an «Αρβανιτοχώρι της Αττικής», and which is approximately 68km from Thiva. His basic observation is that the radio came after the electric fridge, which of course itself presupposed the electrification of Greek villages. The observation seems plausible, at least with respect to the poorer working class strata of Greece at the time, such as the “Amalia-type”. It is arguable that in the 1950’s the vast majority of people would care more for their basic necessities (preserving food) than entertaining their ears with the radio. On the other hand, one might point to cases of Aliartian residents of the early-1960’s who did not own an electric fridge but nonetheless did possess a radio (e.g. the Aliartian barber, referred to elsewhere). We may therefore take Kollias’ observation – based on his personal experience – with some pinch of salt.

As to the actual usage of the radio, Kollias’ observations are more or less confirmed by the cases of various Aliartian families. With respect to the daily time-span in which the radio was switched on, Kollias observes:

«Άνοιγε το πρωί στις έξι έκλεινε το
μεσημέρι για να συνεχίσει από το
απόγευμα μέχρι τις δώδεκα, όπου και
έκλεινε με τον εθνικό ύμνο»
(ibid.).

Importantly, Kollias presents the radio as a central form of entertainment for youngsters (we need not agree with him that it constituted the only form of entertainment, given, for instance, the operation of cinemas in places such as Aliarto) – he writes:

«Με το ραδιόφωνο, πάντως, η παιδική
μας ζωή απόκτησε ποικιλία και –
σοβαρά – ήταν η μοναδική μορφή
διασκέδασης που – τότε – διαθέταμε»
(ibid.).

It would be the prodigious use of the radio by different members of the family (each member having or bargaining for his/her favourite time-slot), together with the “space” created for a dominant form of one’s entertainment, that would yield an open terrain of radio-usage on the part of the popular masses, and which could also be determined by these masses themselves, at least in terms of choice of broadcast. Now, whether Greeks did or did not define their own socio-cultural terrain via the radio is here beside the point – what really matters is that advertizing discourse promoting the radio at the time simply did not “intervene” on questions of cultural taste. Its “neutrality” on this matter is quite explainable: it wanted its discourse to appeal to the full range of musical or other tastes that expressed consumers. As we shall see below, all five dimensions of radio advertizing focused on the “neutral” issue of technology and sound, allowing whatever “cultural” preferences to remain an open question. The rather specialized discourse that was to emanate, with its specific objectives, had an impact all of its own, but that impact simply did not dictate the content of sound – i.e. what one listened to (that, at least, is what shows from the samples we have examined, but which does not necessarily rule out the possibility of certain advertisements breaking such ‘rule’). To give us an idea of how advertizing discourse promoting the radio would leave the cultural terrain open for radio-users, let us very briefly consider an advertisement promoting the “Philips” radio in 1962 – it read as follows:

«ΣΤΥΛ – ΤΕΧΝΙΚΗ – ΗΧΟΣ… 63…
ΦΙΛΙΠΣ – ΠΡΟΪΟΝΤΑ ΠΟΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ
ΕΜΠΙΣΤΟΣΥΝΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΕΛΕΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ».
(cf. Romantso, No 1034,
25.12.1962).

This December 1962 advertisement introduces Greeks to the 1963 “modern world” of technology. It is the “quality” and “perfection” of technology per se which is enough to yield a new “style” of life («ΣΤΥΛ»). On the other hand, such “style” remains undefined: it is an open question as regards its cultural content, allowing the user of such technology to decide on such content for himself. Put otherwise, it completely ignores what music the potential possessors of this «Στερεοφωνικόν ραδιογραμμόφωνον» would listen to. We know that such “perfection” in sound could and did relay, for instance, rural-oriented or rural-based folk songs (the “Dimotika”). It would be the reality of technology itself that would determine the early-1960’s “modernity” – but the latter could and did articulate with Greek residual popular culture. That such articulation actually did take place in the 1960’s confirms that the use of the radio remained an open cultural terrain which could potentially be determined by the user, at least to the extent that such user could pick and choose a particular radio broadcast and reject some other.

As regards the relaying of rural-based “Dimotika” songs by the 1960’s radio, Kollias writes:

«… ακούγαμε τραγούδια, πολλά
τραγούδια. Η εκπομπή του Σίμωνα
Καρρά, “ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΙ ΑΝΤΙΛΑΛΟΙ”
ήταν σε πρώτη διάταξη μετά τα σίριαλ.
Από αυτή την εκπομπή, αν και παιδάκι,
μυήθηκα στη δημοτική μας μουσική»
(ibid.).

One might wish to argue that such “open” cultural terrain was in fact not at all “open” after all, it being limited to the residual, “conservative” type of music typical of a radio that was itself State-controlled and “conservative” par excellence. Here, it would not be advertizing discourse itself that would delimit the cultural terrain – the job would be done by the State itself. This manner of thinking would explain why, in Greece at the time, a “marriage” would be effected between modern technology and such rustic musical taste. But this traditional “Left-wing” critique simply ignores the reality of the 1960’s Greek radio (as we tried to show in our discussion of the use of the radio in the 1960’s-1970’s period). If we are to accept that the residual music of the “Dimotika” is to be seen as “conservative” (a term which is itself highly problematic), then we might as well see pop music at the time as being “progressive” (which is itself even more problematic as a term). But if we were to simply accept the “progressive” element of pop music for the sake of argument, we should then point out that that “conservative” radio of the 1960’s would also broadcast pop music as well. Kollias, adopting an unassuming experiential approach and steering clear of highfalutin ideological pronouncements, notes:

«Για τους νέους της εποχής υπήρχε
η εκπομπή “ΧΡΥΣΗ ΔΙΣΚΟΘΗΚΗ” με
τον Λευτέρη Κογκαλίδη, που προωθούσε
όλες τις ποπ και ροκ παραγωγές της
εποχής, ενημερώνοντας τη νεολαία για
τα νέα της εν λόγω σκηνής»
(ibid.).

Our concern in this section is not to examine the workings of the Greek State and its radio at the time – whatever be the strategies of such State, we may nonetheless say that advertising discourse of the 1960’s-1970’s left the manner of radio usage to the user himself. The logic of its own discourse followed a rather different strategy, and below we shall try to show why such strategy need be categorized as “adjustive”, following as it did what may be termed a “virtuous circle” between itself and the consumer.

The approach we shall adopt needs to be clarified. Our starting point shall be based on Kollias’ experience of the manner in which his contemporaries related to the advent of the radio. We believe that the way in which Kollias describes his experience is lucid enough and open to a further systematization of what he is saying. The systematization of his experience may be tested vis-à-vis the advertising discourse of the 1960’s, thus allowing us to come up with some kind of methodological approach in analyzing such discourse. This, finally, would further enable us to yield some tentative interpretation of advertizing discourse pertaining to the radio.

What is it that Kollias has to say regarding developments related to the advent of the radio? He recollects his own experience as follows:

«Εξελίξεις που – τότε – ήσαν εντυπωσιακές
και ραγδαίες. Μιλάω για την εμφάνιση του
ραδιοφώνου… Οι άνθρωποι εντυπωσιασμένοι
και χωρίς να μπορούν να καταλάβουν πώς
λειτουργούν αυτές οι συσκευές, σιγά-σιγά
τις έβαλαν στα σπίτια τους και γρήγορα
 εξοικειώθηκαν με αυτές»
(ibid., my emph.).

We may isolate what may be deemed to be the three key terms that Kollias uses to describe his recollections – these being the following:

• «εντυπωσιασμένοι», which may translate as an experience of “impression”;
• «χωρίς να μπορούν να καταλάβουν», which we may translate as “ignorance”;
• «εξοικειώθηκαν», which may translate as an experience of “familiarization”.

Before we examine how the logic of advertizing discourse would latch onto, “adjust” and reflect such lived experience on the part of the popular masses – and which would yield specific results ensuing from this interaction between experience and discourse – we need to consider the further implications of Kollias’ experiential recollections. The schema of his basic observation, as we have seen, goes like this:

impression → ignorance → familiarization

But we know that whatever experience of “familiarization” cannot in itself be a dead-end, in the sense that once people would “familiarize” themselves with the radio they would supposedly stop at that and simply use its services “passively”. In fact, the process of “familiarization” would open up further terrains of creativity whereby such “familiarization” would mark a full circle back to new “impressions” and to a new “ignorance” and so on. This would happen, not only because the technology of the radio would itself never be static, but also because those “familiarized” (or categories of these) would themselves feel the urge to tinker with what they have acquired as “technical knowledge” and wish to be creative in the usage of what is offered them. Below, we shall try to be more specific on this issue, and will show how circuitous interaction between consumer, producer and advertizing discourse would be reflected within such discourse itself. For the moment, we may simply ‘embellish’ Kollias’ observational schema as follows:

impression I → ignorance I → familiarization I →
impression II (creativity + new developments) →
ignorance II → familiarization II → impression III
etc., etc., etc.

As we shall see, “familiarization” would inevitably lead on to new “impressions” both as regards the “mysteries” of new technological innovations and as regards the “magic” of an ever refined fidelity in sound, and increasing numbers of youngsters – especially this particular social category – would find themselves actively participating in this circuitous process. In this way, especially the male counterpart of the “Amalia-type” would be involved in a continual restructuring of “the real” – this “type” would, in other words, be restructuring its own “reality” as it would try to satisfy its own curiosity vis-à-vis both technology and the sound produced by such technology. This process of restructuring of “the real” would in fact constitute the “virtuous circle” between manufacturer and user, with advertizing discourse acting as mediator. Here, the restructuring of one’s reality would be the “virtuous circle” of “the real” as experienced by the user of a radio, etc.

Now, all this might itself sound rather highfalutin, and thus fly in the face of Kollias’ “simple” experiential wisdom. But we need say, firstly, that such an approach is actually a simplification – or even an oversimplification – of the thought of Benedetto Croce (cf. his Aesthetic, Transaction Publishers, 1995). Secondly, we shall try to show as concretely as possible how such an approach can help us interpret advertizing discourse promoting the radio and related products.

The circuitous restructuring of “the real” has most succinctly been expressed by Croce as follows:

«Ο άνθρωπος δημιουργεί τον ανθρώπινο
κόσμο, τον δημιουργεί μεταπλάθοντας τον
εαυτό του στα γεγονότα της κοινωνίας:
σκεπτόμενος την κοινωνία αναδημιουργεί
τα δικά του δημιουργήματα, διασχίζει ξανά
τα μονοπάτια που έχει ήδη διασχίσει,
επαναδομεί ιδανικά το σύνολο και έτσι
η γνώση του γι’ αυτό είναι πλήρης και αληθινή»
(as quoted in R. Ellman, James Joyce, greek edition: Τζέημς Τζόυς,
Scripta, Athens, 2005, p. 410).

The concrete youth of the 1960’s in Greece, as a visual receptor of advertizing discourse, as a mental processor of that discourse and as participator in the linguistic process between himself and the discourse, would allow him to “travel” back and forth within his own experience of such discourse – and also of the artifacts that accompanied it – and thereby produce and reproduce his own “reality” of things. It is precisely this process that we shall try to trace by examining advertising discourse of the 1960’s promoting sound-producing technology. It is this “restructuring” of “the real” – and especially in the field of sound, which was then being truly revolutionized – that needs to be captured in 1960’s advertizing discourse. To the extent that such “restructuring” was inscribed in advertizing discourse, such discourse would be the type that “adjusted” to both technological developments and to the responses of the consumer – it would be just such “adjustment” that would form the “virtuous circle” of “impressions”, “ignorance” and “familiarization” ad infinitum.

How would such an approach be applied concretely towards an interpretation of 1960’s advertizing discourse? Our general approach shall stick to the following framework:

1st DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE:

STYLE OF DISCOURSE: “realism”/ “adjustment”
This style goes back to the 1910’s in Europe – Hobsbawm describes such advertizing as a discourse characterized by «αδίστακτο ρεαλισμό», which meant that the discourse had to “adjust” to the “realities” of the consumer (cf. The Age Of Empire, op. cit., p. 315).

AIM OF DISCOURSE: to impress, by a simple presentation of the new object, without at all commenting on the newness of such object or on whatever implications this newness might have on one’s style of life – as such, it seemingly “accepts” the given conjuncture and “adjusts” to it as that exists. The simple presentation may also be based on the fact that the new, as yet unfamiliar, object belongs to an already familiar “brand” of products, thus facilitating such simplicity of presentation. Here, the object is placed within the familiarity of an already-known “brand”.

2nd DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE:

STYLE OF DISCOURSE: “realism”/ “adjustment”

AIM OF DISCOURSE: to impress, by a simple presentation of the new object, but this time placing it in a familiar social context – this context is above all the Greek “Home”. It is in this sense that this discourse reflects “realism” and “adjustment”, addressing itself to what already exists for the Greek consumer, i.e. the importance of the Greek Family Unit. Here, the radio and related artifacts are presented as pieces of furniture or as “ornamental” objects of one’s “Home”.

This 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse may of course be seen as a sub-dimension of the 1st dimension – its basic aim being, yet again, to impress the potential consumer, and which makes use of the same style of discourse.

3rd DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE:

STYLE OF DISCOURSE: “realism”/ “adjustment”

AIM OF DISCOURSE: to impress, by a simple presentation of the new object, but this time placing it in a familiar general social environment or “atmosphere”. This was an “atmosphere” of “optimism”, which permeated the whole of 1960’s society – at different levels and of varying intensities – despite the economic hardships and the mass emigration (people leaving the country were themselves hopeful of their future in the new countries that had accepted to receive them). Again, it is for this reason that we may say this discourse reflects “realism” and “adjustment”, addressing itself to current mass sentiment.

This 3rd dimension of advertizing discourse may also be seen as a sub-discourse of the 1st dimension – again because its basic aim was to impress potential consumers, and using a similar style of discourse.

Dimensions 1-3, all of which made use of “realism” and “adjustment” in the style of their discourse, and all of which had “impression” as their purpose, may be considered to belong to a single type of advertisement (with its internal variations) for one very basic reason: their presentation of the product was simple in that they merely presented the object per se – i.e. only in its external appearance – without much focusing, if at all, on the technical aspects of the object. In contrast, the next dimension of advertizing discourse would focus precisely on the technical workings of the object.

4th DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE:

STYLE OF DISCOURSE: “respect”/ “gentleness”
This style, also dating back to Europe of the 1910’s, is what Hobsbawm has described as characterized by a «σεβασμό» towards the potential consumer (ibid., p. 315). Showing such “greater respect” for the consumer, its style was therefore also “gentle”. While it may be taken for granted that dimensions 1-3 were themselves “gentle”, this 4th dimension of advertizing discourse had to be extremely careful as to how it presented to an “ignorant” public the workings and potentialities of technology per se – here, in other words, “respect” and “gentleness” played a necessary, functional role in the discourse.

AIM OF DISCOURSE: the (gentle) arousal of “curiosity” by presenting the “unknown” of the new technology itself – it would thus quietly challenge  the “ignorance” of the (especially young) user of the radio and related equipment. This 4th dimension would presuppose the “realism” of dimensions 1-3, and would thus also presuppose the age of “optimism” which we have referred to above (it would be especially youthful “optimism” that would usually accept the challenge to overcome technical “ignorance” and experiment with new devices). This dimension of discourse would “challenge” through a mere presentation, not of the object itself, but of the technology of that object. This neutral presentation of what was new in technological developments would, we are suggesting, presuppose the “respect” of the potential user, and the presentation would be “gentle” in form.

5th DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE:

STYLE OF DISCOURSE: the “aesthetics of sound” vis-à-vis new technology
This style of discourse would directly presuppose the 4th dimension: the “curiosity” that had been aroused for new technology per se would now be linked to the new “magic” of sound as such, and the “aesthetics” that went with it. The increasingly demanding “curiosity” around matters of technology would be accompanied by an ever-increasing demand for better sound fidelity (in music, for the vast majority of Greek youth).

AIM OF DISCOURSE: to familiarize the user with the “unknown” in new technology via the new “aesthetics of sound”. Put otherwise, to effect a “virtuous circle” of familiarity between technology, aesthetics and sound. Technology would lead to a better refinement of sound, and a better refined sound would call for an even better, or newer, technology. This would constitute the “virtuous circle” that would continually familiarize the user with technology – such technology being central to the new cultural milieu of Greek youth. Categories of the latter – certain male counterparts of the “Amalia-type” – would revel, not only in the musical (and sexual) revolution of the 1960’s-1970’s, but as much in an ever-deeper familiarization with the new technology itself.

While such familiarization would not necessarily make “technicians” out of most of these youngsters, it would nonetheless allow them to experiment by tinkering with their own radios or Hi-Fi sets. These Greek youngsters would be the precursors of the later “techno-kids” – and they would basically be doing what their male counterparts in, say, America, had themselves been doing with the new technology even since the 1950’s or earlier. Consider, for instance, a couple of reports published in the “Chicago Sunday Tribune” of March 7, 1954 – articles would be entitled as follows:

“HI-FI AMATEUR TELLS OF YEARS OF TINKERING”

Or, similarly:

“LISTENER CAN FIX UP OWN HIGH FIDELITY”

We refer to such instances merely so as to illustrate what we mean when we say that the aim of this 5th dimension of advertizing discourse was to effect a practical familiarization with new technology in sound precisely by linking such technology to the “aesthetics” of “modern sound”, and as such “sound aesthetics” were themselves undergoing a cultural revolution spearheaded by youth. But, and this is the “circuitous” nature of this 5th dimension, this emphasis on sound in advertizing discourse would lead the amateur “technician”/listener back to a preoccupation with technology itself, and so on. In fact, such preoccupation with technology would even lead a number of people to the establishment of pirate radio-stations, this constituting the par excellence epitome of all familiarization (apart from that section of youth that would ultimately take up radio technology as its career). As regards pirate stations in 1960’s Greece, Artemis Leontis has written:

“pirate radio stations cropped up in the
1960’s … [they] tended to come and go,
offering nonconfrontational musical
programming, sometimes with a very
specific subject: songs by the Animals or
the music of Stelios Kazantzidis…”
(cf. Artemis Leontis, Culture and Customs
 Of Greece, Greenwood Press, 2009,
p. 166).

This, generally, will constitute our “pilot” approach as we shall now attempt to interpret the discourse of specific advertisements promoting the radio and related products. Before we proceed with our more empirical examination, perhaps we need point out that whatever our conclusions, these stand to be confirmed or rejected by a wider range of sample advertisements that remain to be examined. As such, all conclusions shall have to remain tentative.

1st DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE:
• “realistic adjustment” (accepts the cultural conjuncture as a given)
• to impress
• simple presentation of the product as such

This type of advertizing discourse, we have noted, first made its appearance in the 1910’s, and was most common in countries such as England. We know that at least by the 1940’s, it was also used to promote the radio in Greece. Consider the following advertisement, which would circulate in 1948:

«Ραδιόφωνα…
RCA
ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΝΕΩΝ
ΜΟΔΕΛΛΩΝ
ΠΑΤΡΕΩΣ 44
Αντιπρόσωπος
Α. ΚΟΥΚΟΣ...
[ΑΛΜΑ]»
(cf. Πελοπόννησος
Περίοδος Β’ – έτος Γ’,
αρ. φύλλου 1192,
11.7.1948, p. 2).

We note that the discourse of this advertisement is completely devoid of whatever latent or manifest socio-cultural context, or of any “subject” that is supposed to fit such context – it is thus pliable enough to be potentially responsive to any social context, and thus even to that of a war-torn Greece. This constitutes its style of “realism” and “adjustment”, and it sticks to that because it wants to “gently impress” the potential consumer with a technological artifact that cannot possibly fail to impress – viz. the advent of a machine that “talks”.

It refuses to impress in whatever “provocative” manner – in fact it deliberately hides the economic and technological power that is secreted behind the production and distribution of such radio. The discourse hides such power by simply offering the potential user three dry initials – “RCA” – to describe the product, refusing to reveal what these letters actually stand for. We of course know that “RCA” stands for “Radio Corporation America”: be it due to “anti-American” sentiments at the time, or be it due to a strategy that steered clear of boasting about economic and technological “magnitudes” that simply would not “talk” to the Greek popular masses, it opted for a cultural “non-provocation” and “non-intervention” in its approach. To give us an idea of what was not being revealed, we quote the following little text about RCA available at www.collectorsweekly.com:

“Founded in 1919 as a subsidiary of General
Electric, The Radio Corporation of America
was responsible for many key innovations in
radio technology. In 1929 the company
purchased the Victor Talking Machine Company,
creating RCA Victor. RCA became famous for its
affordable radio tubes, and its iconic ‘His
Master’s Voice’ advertising campaign: Nipper
the fox terrier, looking into a phonograph
horn. After WW2, RCA went on to manufacture
televisions.”

This specific dimension of advertizing discourse would not wish to dwell on the world fame of the company that had manufactured this radio and would not wish to divulge its links to international capital – in short, the company’s obvious innovative might would not be used to “provoke” impressions (we know, of course, that the term “His Master’s Voice” would become almost a household name in 1960’s Greece, at least in the field of record-production, but that is beside the point here). We may further note that even the supposedly “catchy” term related to the company – i.e. the “Talking Machine Company” – was deemed redundant for promotional purposes.

The advertizing discourse wants to impress by a simple presentation of the fact of “newness” – its presentation is there to be simply seen: «ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ». In Giambattista Vico’s (and perhaps Croce’s) “ricorsi storici”, whereby the potential user of the radio “arrives” and “re-arrives” at the experience of radio-usage, this «ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ» would constitute a person’s first experience of impression I (as we have termed it above – and which is similar to Kollias’ «εντυπωσιασμένοι»).

For the sake of interest, we may note that this RCA product was being promoted by a local advertizing company – «ΑΛΜΑ» – which maintained its independence as regards advertizing strategy. It is also a case of cooperation between an American “giant” and a locally-rooted «ατελιέ» that knew its field, it being rooted in it. «ΑΛΜΑ» was one of a series of Greek advertizing companies – others included «ΓΚΡΕΚΑ», «ΖΩΗ», «ΜΕΝΤΩΡ» and «ΜΗΝΥΤΩΡ» – which had sprouted in the 1930’s and 1940’s and which had made use of the newspaper as the major medium of advertizing (in 1925, 150,000 newspapers were in circulation; by 1930-1936, circulation had risen to 350,000).

But it is absolutely important to emphasize that the type of advertizing discourse we are presenting here (1st dimension) was not merely a phenomenon limited to the 1930’s-1940’s and the newspapers that went with it. This 1st dimension of advertizing discourse – both in terms of style, objectives and strategy – would persist in the 1960’s, and there would be no serious divergence as to such discourse parameters. In the period of the 1960’s and even 1970’s, this dimension of advertizing discourse would appear both in newspapers and popular periodicals. It seems, therefore, that such “ricorsi storici”, continually circumscribing the “virtuous circle” we have referred to, always and necessarily had to have such 1st  dimension (corresponding to “impression I”) as its starting point, specifically with respect to the period we are discussing (style, objectives and strategies of advertizing would undergo radical changes by the 1980’s and thereafter).

An excellent sample that would belong to the 1st dimension of advertizing discourse in the period of the 1960’s is the following advertisement that appeared in the newspaper Akropolis – it read as follows:

«δώρα
SINGER
δώρα
που
μένουν
για
πάντα
ΡΑΠΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΕΣ…
ΠΛΕΚΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΕΣ
TRANSISTORS…
“S” δώρα με το σήμα της εμπιστοσύνης
[ΦΑΕΘΩΝ]»
(cf. Akropolis, 16.12.1965, p. 3).

Again, this advertisement does not attempt to sell the transistor radio to whatever type of “subject” meant to be representative of some particular socio-cultural context. It assumes that the “Amalia-type” would be attracted to a transistor as much as she would to a sewing machine, and places both types of appliances side-by-side.

But placing these two products side-by-side as it does, its discourse functions in a manner slightly different to that of the RCA advertisement, though still in keeping with the essential specifications of the 1st dimension. It places the new product – the culturally revolutionizing transistor – within the all too familiar “Singer” brand: the traditional appliance related to economic utility (the sewing machine) is “naturally” placed side-by-side with an appliance meant for sheer entertainment – and it is all done under the rubric of the household “brand” of “Singer”. We here again have a simplicity of presentation, but such presentation is effected by a “brand-name” that had already established itself as the manufacturer of the sewing machine. The quality of the one product would guarantee that of the other. By  allowing the new product to be placed within the familiarity of the well-known “brand”, it thereby facilitates an absolute simplicity of presentation. It is that «σήμα της εμπιστοσύνης» that retains the “realism” and “adjustment”, and which finally impresses the potential consumer (and which could convince the latter that such products «μένουν για πάντα»).

Further, and as in the case of the RCA advertisement, the economic, technological and global might of the “Singer” company is ignored as a means of impression. What matters is to simply present the transistor by placing it within the “family” of well-known products: the presentation limits itself to a mere mentioning of the object, without describing whatever special technical or other qualities. Again, therefore, we have here some form of “exhibition” of the product, albeit this is an exhibition of a “family” of products.

For the sake of interest, we merely mention that the above advertisement had been designed by yet another local advertizing company – called «ΦΑΕΘΩΝ» – and it too would cooperate with the globally-based “SINGER” for the promotion of transistor radios in 1960’s Greece. We were not able to trace any further data around the history of «ΦΑΕΘΩΝ».

2nd DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE:
• “realistic adjustment”
• to impress
• simple presentation of the product as such, but by placing it in the familiar social context
of the Greek “Home” (the product as such in its external appearance)

This 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse, which we have suggested is a sub-category of the 1st, followed a lucid strategy: it wanted to present the new object – the radio – through its merely external characteristics, and would place such external appearance within what was perhaps the most ‘beloved’ and familiar context of all Greeks – their “Home”. This ‘love’ for and ‘familiarity’ with the “Home” would be a “habit” and an “attitude” of all Greeks, across all social strata (bar, perhaps, the more “lumpen” elements).

We do not mean to romanticize such social unit at all. Before we examine how this 2nd dimension of discourse would try to “impress” the popular masses by relating the object of the radio to that of the “Home”, we might as well say a few things about the latter. We have elsewhere discussed the question of Greek family life in some detail and in all its complexities (cf., inter alia, our various discussions of families working for the A&M Flour Mill) – here, we merely wish to make a couple of observations concerning both the blessings and the curses of the Greek “Home” of the 1960’s.

It would be over-simplistic to assert that the Greek “Home” was a paradisial little hub – or “nest”, so to speak – “protecting” working people from the hardships and poverty of 1960’s Greece. It is a truism to say that whatever “Home” in whatever social context cannot possibly function as a watertight compartment oblivious of the social storms that besiege family-members. More than that, it would surely be as short-sighted to ignore the so-called ‘existential’ problems that beset the Greek “Home” of the 1960’s, especially given the sexual revolution and ensuing generation gap. In all, we should not forget that, metaphorically speaking, “Homes” have “windows” to the outside world that allow such world to gate-crash whatever “protective” hub. Perhaps the Greek poet, Miltos Sahtouris, best encapsulates such reality in the words of the following poem written in 1960:

«Το πρωί
βλέπεις το θάνατο
να κοιτάζει απ’ το παράθυρο
τον κήπο
το σκληρό πουλί
και την ήσυχη γάτα
πάνω στο κλαδί

έξω στο δρόμο
περνάει
τ’ αυτοκίνητο-φάντασμα
ο υποθετικός σωφέρ
ο άνθρωπος με τη σκούπα
τα χρυσά δόντια
γελάει…»
(cf. Μίλτος Σαχτούρης, «Φωνή
από την άλλη ακρογιαλιά»,
Ερμής, Athens, 1997, p. 84).

The suggestion is, at least by way of an interpretation, that “death” resides right inside the “Home” itself and what it sees outside the window is an extension of itself (cat about to devour bird etc.). In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the Sahtouris perspective contained elements of truth as regards the Greek “Home” (though one suspects that such perspective is perhaps tilted towards an “intellectualist” bias).

And yet, one cannot reduce the Greek “Home” – as a “form of life” of the period – to an ‘existentialist’ experience of “death”. Working people had little time for such ‘existentialist’ concerns: they most often ignored the fact of death (or joked over it) until such time as it struck them or their families directly. What we need to focus on here as regards the Greek “Home” at the time – and which was precisely what advertizing discourse (2nd dimension) would hook onto – was the fact that such “Home” remained a relatively autonomous “form of life” – a relatively “free zone” – wherein the popular masses would re-make their own self-identity and do so independently of their experience as mere working people who had to perhaps face the “despotism” of an employer such as Marakis at the A&M Mill. This re-making of their identity required the material and psychological structures constituting a “Home”. We may here contrast the Sahtouris perspective to one that presents the average Greek “Home” as a structure which enshrined the values of traditional order, rhythm and an indigenous aesthetics – consider the following text describing the interior of a Greek dwelling in 1955:

«Όλα στην εντέλεια: Το νερό, η πετσέτα,
το σαπούνι. Όλα παστρικά και μοσκομυρισμένα.
Στο βάθος, μέσα σ’ ένα καμαράκι, καίει
ακοίμητο ένα πράσινο καντήλι κρεμασμένο
στον τοίχο. Ένα ράφι είναι γεμάτο λαϊκά
πραγματάκια: Πήλινα βαζάκια, πήλινα θυμιατήρια,
μπουκαλάκια, ένα κανάτι με άσπρες και πράσινες
ζουγραφιές… Τα χαρτιά στα ράφια και στην
πιατοθήκη στο ίδιο πνεύμα και στον ίδιο τόνο με
τ’ άλλα πράγματα. Όλα τους συνθέτουν ένα
αρμονικό σύνολο. Συνθετικά και αισθητικά στη
θέση τους. Αυτό δεν είναι σπίτι, είναι… λαϊκή
ζουγραφιά. Η γυναίκα με οδηγό μονάχα το ένστιχτό
της βρήκε τη σωστή θέση στο κάθε αντικείμενο.
Βρήκε τον τόνο του, τη χρωματική του αξία. Το
άσπρο λόγου χάρη του τοίχου θα ενοχλούσε αν δεν
είταν αποπάνω το καφέ του ντουλαπιού, το πράσινο
του ραφιού, το μπλε της πόρτας, το κίτρινο του
τραπεζιού…»
(cf. Γιάννης Σφακιανάκης, «Στην ασπροθάλασσα»,
in Nea Hestia, No
663, Athens, 15.2.1955, p. 223).

It would be that self-created «αρμονικό σύνολο» – created, that is, by the “instinct” of the woman who was the organizer of the household – that would constitute those material and psychological structures of what we have referred to as the autonomous “free zone” of a family’s “Home”. And it would be this hub of traditional order, rhythm  and aesthetics wherein that definitely “modern” object – the radio – would be placed, and it would be placed in such “space” by the 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse as an “ornamental” object. Taking its place therein, we would have the inevitable osmosis of traditionality and modernity in household objects.

Within the “Home”, this osmosis would come to determine a transitional form of family identity, it being so characteristic of the 1960’s period. Family members would re-identify themselves in relation to the coincidence of “old” and “new” objects that would re-structure their “Home” environment. Many of the “new” objects – such as the fridge – would be seen as “necessary” objects (for Kollias, the radio only came after the fridge). But specifically as regards the radio and other related appliances, we would here have an essentially “ornamental” object – and which was of course an “ornamental” object that produced sound (as we shall see below, advertizing discourse would refer to the radio as a «πολυτελές κομψοτέχνημα»). The 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse would be “realistic” and “adjustive” enough to either presuppose the importance of the Greek “Home” or to overtly point to its importance – and it would wish to impress the popular masses by placing this new, sound-producing “ornament” within the familiar social context of the “Home”. When, by the late-1950’s and early-1960’s, the radio would be introduced to the Aliartian homes, families would experience that first impression of awe that the 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse was meant to effect. The awe was so spontaneous that advertizing discourse simply felt no need to “intervene”, “provoke” or in whatever way “sensationalize” the event of radio-usage.

Quite “naturally”, therefore, the radio would occupy as conspicuous a place within the “Home” as would the sewing machine (as we have discussed above regarding the latter). While both sewing machine and radio had their respective technical functions, both would come to express an as specific aesthetic function within the “atmosphere” of that “free zone” which we have said applied to the “Home”.

Before we proceed any further, we need to say that there is one central caveat which concerns the historical or sociological validity of what we have suggested thus far regarding the 1960’s Greek “Home” (and the role of the radio therein). One may argue that such Greek “Home” had functioned as a “shelter” of relative “security” and “happiness” for the Greek popular masses at the time. And yet, apart from the possible miseries of family life as such, we also need to emphasize that such “shelter” merely constituted a “bracketed moment” of respite in the lives of working people such as the “Amalia-type”. On the other hand, while such “moment” was a mere “bracket”, it did recur, and would do so over the weekends (for Amalia Eleftheriadou, this would often be reduced to Sundays). This key experience has been well captured by a Greek poetess writing in 1960 – entitling her poem «Κυριακάτικη δέηση», Olymbia Karageorga writes:

«Και τα σπίτια (το καθένα μια σίγουρη
καλοζωϊσμένη ευτυχία,
ντυμένη σ’ ομορφιά)

Όλα τέλεια, ωραία, χωρίς ψεγάδι.

“Θεέ μου! Θεέ της λιγόζωης Κυριακάτικης
ευτυχίας,
Βοήθησέ με,
Βοήθησε τον στεναγμό να μην ξεσπάση,
Να μην ραγίση την κρυσταλλένια αυτή Στιγμή,
Που όλα είναι τόσο όμορφα, τόσο τέλεια,
τόσο κοντά μου”…»
(cf. Nea Hestia, No 792, Athens, 1.7.1960, p.855).

Keeping such caveat in mind, we may return to the empirical observations of Kollias and note what he has to say about the positioning of the radio in his own home in the 1960’s – he writes:

«Το δικό μας ραδιόφωνο, ένα ‘blaupunkt’
είχε βρει τη θέση του στο τραπέζι του
καθιστικού-κουζίνας-κρεβατοκάμαράς μας.
Μια κεραία, χάλκινη σπιράλ, διέσχιζε απ’
άκρη σ’ άκρη το δωμάτιο, κι έβγαινε έξω
για να έχουμε σήμα δυνατό και καθαρό…»

We simply note the manner in which Kollias describes the positioning of their radio within the household: it had found, as he puts it, its own position on the central table of their  “Home”, and had come to dominate the place with its antenna.

Such positioning of the radio within the Greek household is clearly – though only “gently” – evident in the following 1965 advertisement published in the newspaper, Akropolis, and which read as follows:

«Η PHILIPS ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ – 35 χρόνια –
1930 – 1965…
Β4 x 31T
Επιτραπέζιον ραδιόφωνον τρανζίστορ
μπατταριών Παγκοσμίου λήψεως
ΔΡΧ. 2800
PHILIPS
35 ΧΡΟΝΙΑ ΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΑΣ
ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΑ
[γκρέκα]»
(cf. Akropolis, 2.12.1965, p. 5).

One may observe that perhaps the most striking theme in the discourse of this advertisement is its emphasis on the role of the “PHILIPS” company in Greece, and especially as regards the services such company has offered to the “Greek Family”. Here, it is not the global might of a company such as “PHILIPS” that needs to be exposed to the popular masses. Rather, we have a “realistic adjustment” of the discourse to the question of “Greekness”, and especially to the familiar social context of the “Greek Family” – a reality which ineluctably needs to be served (and which has been served from 1930 up to 1965). The service now offered by “PHILIPS” is an object that both links Greek family-members to the world («Παγκοσμίου λήψεως»), and at the same time provides their “Home” with an object that can be placed on their table («Επιτραπέζιον» – as also in the Kollias “Home”). We therefore have here a simple presentation of the radio as an object of the Greek “Home” – its external “ornamental” function is only indirectly alluded to by suggesting that its place is on a table (or that it “takes its place” thereon, as Kollias puts it). Nothing else need be said, since what is being so laconically suggested is a reality that would naturally attract the interest of the popular masses. This interest would yield the first impressions of a people who were only just beginning to infuse the traditionality of their “Homes” with modern, technically functioning objects.

We need to contrast this “realistic” and “adjustive” advertizing discourse on the part of the “PHILIPS” company to its highly “provocative” and “interventionist” strategy in promoting “Philishave” (cf. above). The latter product, as we have seen, was something completely alien to the vast majority of Greek males at the time, and the advertizing campaigns of the “PHILIPS” company could only have been warped by such a reality – ultimately, the advertizing discourse for “Philishave” would only speak to élite elements of Greek civil society. Things would be completely different with the radio in the post-war period – we know that radio-usage would turn out to be a mass phenomenon, and whatever advertizing campaign had no choice but to take the “reality” of the Greek socio-cultural context into account. For this 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse, we have said that such “reality” was the “Home” of the popular masses. Thus, the object of advertizing discourse in this case was to effect a first impression amongst people within the context of the «αρμονικό σύνολο» as that had already been established by the “instinct” of Greek housewives (and, often enough, in combination with their daughters).

While, therefore, there was no room in this 1965 “PHILIPS” advertisement promoting the radio for any “provocative” semantics, the “PHILIPS” company would nonetheless not shy away from reminding the Greek public about its long-standing presence in the Greek market. Again, and as in the case of the “Singer” advertisement promoting transistor radios, the familiarity of the “brand name” of “PHILIPS” would be used to facilitate both a sense of guarantee and a simplicity of presentation (in the sense that we, the “PHILIPS” company, are in no need of any further introduction to you, the Greek people).

This particular advertizing campaign for “PHILIPS” had been organized by the local advertizing company, «ΓΚΡΕΚΑ» (mentioned in discussing the RCA advertisement above). We know little about this company bar three things: First, it had been established sometime in the decade of the 1920’s. Second, we know that the founder of the well-known advertizing company, «ΛΕΟΥΣΗΣ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΕΙΣ» (op. cit.), Fotini Leoussi, had started off her career by working for the «ΓΚΡΕΚΑ» advertizing company in the 1920’s, and which perhaps shows the tight inter-connection between local advertizing companies at the time. The «ΓΚΡΕΚΑ» company had belonged to a K. Kotzias, and Leoussi had worked in his company for thirteen years. Finally, and judging by the frequency in which one comes across advertisements designed by «ΓΚΡΕΚΑ» in the 1960’s, one can fairly confidently say that this was a rather prolific advertizing company.

We have suggested that this 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse promoting the radio aimed at impressing the popular masses by placing such object – as an “ornament” – within the familiar context of their “Greek Home”. Discourse could at times place a paramount emphasis on the external appearance of the radio, intending to have it fit into the already existing “aesthetics” of that “Home”, and as such “space” was being created by the initiatives of Greek women. Kollias provides us with an excellent picture of how his mother would immediately “relate” to this newly-found “ornament”, such “relationship” being both “natural” and “creative” – in that way, she was in fact responding to advertizing discourse in the manner that the discourse would intend (first impression). On the other hand, one may say that the discourse was itself responding to the “natural” expectations of the housewife herself. Kollias very simply describes us how his mother would immediately react as soon as the radio would have entered their home:

 

«Και φυσικά πάνω του [i.e. on the radio]
η μητέρα έβαλε αμέσως ένα “σεμεδάκι”
πλεχτό. Αργότερα του έφτιαξε και
πάνινη “θήκη”, για να μην σκονίζεται!»
(ibid.).

In some contrast to the “PHILIPS” advertisement which we have discussed above (and which had only “gently” made reference to household “ornamentation”), we may now present a sample which most aptly represents the 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse and which would have made an even more direct impression on Greek women who, like Kollias’ mother, were ready to prepare crochets and protective coverings specifically for the radio. Consider the following advertisement promoting the German Schaub-Lorenz radio, and which appeared in 1965:

«Ξεχωρίζει… Ξεχωρίζει… Ξεχωρίζει… Ξεχωρίζει
Με τα ασυναγώνιστα μοντέλα του που
 ομορφαίνουν κάθε σπίτι
• Με τον τέλειο μηχανισμό του, που εξασφαλίζει
την πιο υψηλή πιστότητα
• Με το μοντέρνο έπιπλό του,
 σε ανοιχτό ή σκούρο ξύλο, που είναι
 ένα πολυτελές κομψοτέχνημα.
Με την ποικιλία μοντέλων, που εκτίθενται
στο Ράδιο-Αθήναι στις μεγαλύτερες Εκθέσεις
της χώρας μας. Με τις μικρές τιμές που
εξασφαλίζονται με την κατευθείαν πώλησι
από την εισαγωγή.
ΕΛΑΤΕ ΝΑ ΔΗΤΕ ΤΑ 16 ΜΟΝΤΕΛΑ ΜΑΣ
SCHAUB-LORENZ
το όνομα που θεωρείται ασυναγώνιστο
σε όλο τον κόσμο
ΡΑΔΙΟ-ΑΘΗΝΑΙ…
ΣΕ 50 ΠΟΛΕΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ.
[Γνώμη]»
(cf. Akropolis, 12.12.1965, p. 5, my emph.).

There are a number of observations one may make with respect to this advertisement, all of which verify its “realism” and its “adjustiveness” to the socio-cultural conjuncture, and thus also its intention to effect a primary impression on the Greek housewife by presenting the radio as an “ornament” for her “Home”. It does this, further, without at all pointing to whatever “technical” complexities which could have alienated either the “Amalia-type” or, say, her mother. The basic observations are as follows:

• Here, the function of the radio is to “beautify the home” («που ομορφαίνουν κάθε σπίτι»).
• The function of the radio, further, is to “modernize” the already existing Greek “Home” («μοντέρνο»), which we know was in any case steeped in a pre-existing “traditionality”.
• The object being promoted is the radio-as-furniture («έπιπλο»), and the advertisement focuses on the “aesthetic” and material quality of the radio («σε ανοιχτό ή σκούρο ξύλο»).
• The radio is an “aesthetic luxury” («πολυτελές») – and it is so, not because of its technical functionality but given its external appearance.
• Its external appearance is such as to make of it an objet d’ art right there, in the hovels of Aliartian families in the early-1960’s – the advertisement clearly speaks of a «κομψοτέχνημα». Here, the “ornamental functionality” of the radio takes a paramount position in the discourse.
• As in the 1st dimension, and precisely because this 2nd dimension is a sub-category of the 1st in more ways than one, the discourse of this Schaub-Lorenz advertisement  wants to stick to a simple presentation of the object as an objet d’ art so as to effect that first impression which we came across in discussing the RCA advertisement – here again, the radio is to be seen («εκτίθενται… στις μεγαλύτερες Εκθέσεις της χώρας μας»). The radio, we note, could be seen in fifty towns or cities of Greece.
• Although the radio is presented as an objet d’ art of “modernity” and “luxury”, it nonetheless remains economically accessible to the popular masses given low prices («Με τις μικρές τιμές»), and it therefore presented as a popular objet d’ art.
• All or most advertizing discourse of the 1960’s and 1970’s which would abide by principles of “adjustment” had an inherently “rational” conceptualization of reality and of the needs of such reality. The Schaub-Lorenz advertisement was “rational” enough not to ignore the fact that both the Greek housewife and the rest of the family-members would expect of this particular objet d’ art to produce a certain quality of sound: «Με τον τέλειο μηχανισμό του, που εξασφαλίζει την πιο υψηλή πιστότητα». And yet, precisely because such 2nd dimension advertizing discourse was “realistically rational”, the reference to sound fidelity would only take second place. Above all, that «τέλειο μηχανισμό» would not be described in whatever detail. Not wishing to alienate the Greek housewife with jargon foreign to her, all technical specifications would be omitted, or in any case play a merely secondary function in the discourse.

Let us here note that this Schaub-Lorenz advertisement had been designed by the local advertizing company, «Γνώμη», a company which we have referred to above in some detail. By way of a reminder, we merely note here that «Γνώμη» had been an ΕΔΕΕ member which had actively participated in the establishment of ΚΕΣΔΙ by the early-1970’s. As already noted, it was the Greek artist, Georgos Bakirtzis, who would head the company by 1963.

3rd DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE
• “realistic adjustment”
• to impress
• simple presentation of the product as such, but by placing it in the familiar general social
environment or “atmosphere” of what we may call “optimism”.

This 3rd dimension of advertizing discourse, also a sub-category of the 1st and 2nd categories, aimed at achieving a primary impression on the consumer by presenting the radio as an artifact symbolic of the “optimism” of the age. It was therefore “realistically adjusting” itself to the pre-existing «nous» of, above all but not exclusively so, the more younger generations.

Before we proceed to examine such type of advertisement, it is obviously necessary to first briefly dwell on this question of Greek “optimism” in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The issue is obviously complex and never one-dimensional, and we have already tried to approach it in various instances of this work-in-progress (cf., for instance, our reference to “popular optimism” in discussing the “Sinatra cultural brand”, where we spoke of the 4th “entertainment revolution” in the field of communication, as presented by Irving Fang, etc.).

Perhaps the best handling of this major issue has been the work of Andreas Karandonis who, in a series of lectures delivered in 1954, attempted to critically assess the work of Greek “intellectuals” (specifically poets, though not only) vis-à-vis the reality of the “modern world”, and as such “modernity” was also permeating the Greek reality (cf. Andreas Karandonis, Α’ Εισαγωγή στη νεότερη ποίηση – Β’ Γύρω από τη σύγχρονη ελληνική ποίηση, [Introduction to Modern Poetry – About Modern Greek Poetry, 7th edition, Δημ. Ν. Παπαδήμας, Athens, 1990, pp. 300-302 & pp. 318-319). What he has to say allows us to draw certain conclusions, not only with respect to Greek “intellectuals” of the period, but also as regards the “atmosphere” of that period. We intend to use the observations made by Karandonis to show that it was precisely what Greek “intellectuals” had failed to capture with respect to the “atmosphere” of the day – the new “optimism” – that advertizing discourse had itself fully captured in its “realistically adjusting” approach. And we shall be arguing that it was the “movement” of discourse promoting the radio from its 1st dimension and through to its final 5th dimension that captured in penetrating accuracy the “optimistic” sentiments of the “Amalia-type”. Precisely because such “optimism” would initially rest on first impressions, it would be the 3rd dimension of advertizing discourse that would act as catalyst for the 4th and 5th dimensions (and which would further effect that “ricorsi storici” which we have referred to above, yielding the “virtuous circle” of fulfilled “promises” and then back again to new, positive “anxieties” for some other “new” based on ever renewed – and technologically renewable – “impressions”).

At some point in his lectures, Karandonis observes what we may call a “discordance” between Greek “intellectual thought” and real life itself. Such “thought”, he suggests, can neither “feel” nor “breathe” that real life. As he puts it:

«Νομίζουμε πως τη στιγμή αυτή, η ελληνική
σκέψη γενικά, – επιστήμη, φιλοσοφία, τέχνη –
δεν έχει ούτε την έφεση, ούτε την πείρα, ούτε
τα εφόδια για να μας μπάσει μια και καλή
μέσα στην ατμόσφαιρα του σύγχρονου, έτσι
όπως μας κάνει να την αισθανόμαστε και να
την ανασαίνουμε η άμεση ζωή…»
(p. 300, his emph.).

Greek “intellectual thought” was incapable of capturing the real “feelings” of the “Amalia-type” and how such “type” would “breathe” the socio-cultural “atmosphere” around her and in her (in fact, it was the flesh-and-blood Amalia Eleftheriadou that constituted just such “atmosphere”). We shall be arguing that, in direct contrast to Greek “intellectual thought”, it would be the advertizing discourse of the day that would capture the real discourse of life, and which would be a discourse of some form of “optimism”.

In contrast to such form of “optimism”, Greek “intellectual thought” would dwell on what we may call the “miserable passions” – Karandonis continues with respect to Greek poets of the period:

«Μ’ αυτά τ’ αρνητικά πνευματικά και
ψυχικά δεδομένα, τι μπορεί να φτιάξει
ένας σύγχρονος ποιητής, έστω κι αν έχει
ένα αξιόλογο ταλέντο; Τίποτε άλλο, παρά
να μας λέει τον προσωπικό του καημό για
τούτο και για κείνο» (ibid.).

For Karandonis, such “miserable passions” are outside of the post-war epoch:

«Κι ακριβώς, “ετούτο κ’ εκείνο”, με τα οποία
απασχολούνται, σχεδόν ομοιότυπα και ισοβάθμια,
όλοι σχεδόν οι νεώτατοι ποιητές μας, βρίσκονται
λίγο ή πολύ, έξω από το νόημα ή τα νοήματα
 του σύγχρονου» (ibid., my emph.).

And the heartache or anguish of the “intellectual” is well outside the epoch of the post-war period because such epoch is “creative” and “positive”, and it is so to the point of “intoxication” – Karandonis puts it as follows:

«Εκείνο, ίσως, που θα μπορούσαμε να πούμε,
σχηματικά βέβαια και μόνο, είναι πως η εποχή
μας είναι τιτανικά δημιουργική, προωθητική,
φανταστικά φουτουριστική – δίνουμε πλατύτερη
σημασία στην γνωστή έννοια του φουτουρισμού –
πως απορρίπτει ολοένα κι ολοένα δημιουργεί,
πως ανεβάζει συνεχώς τον πυρετό της ύπαρξης,
πως έχει ξεπεράσει το θετικό, τείνοντας προς
το υπερθετικό, πως αντιπαθεί την άρνηση για
την άρνηση. Κυριολεκτικά, πρόκειται για μια εποχή
 μεθυσμένη για δημιουργία»
(pp. 300-301, his emph.).

This particular quote does not merely allow us to capture the specific “optimism” of the period – it goes much further than that, but without ever forgetting the essential question of “optimism”. When Karandonis says that the post-war epoch continually rejects so that it may re-create («απορρίπτει ολοένα κι ολοένα δημιουργεί»), he in fact confirms our overall approach in understanding, not only advertizing discourse promoting the radio, but in understanding both the role of devices such as the radio as also of the whole 1960’s-1970’s period. To say that the epoch continually rejects so as to re-create is to point to what we have referred to as the “ricorsi storici” or the “virtuous circle” moving from “impression” to “curiosity” to “familiarization” and then back again. This was a “movement”, not of technology per se, but of the “Amalia-type” – or her male counterparts – that participated in the process. In that, they embodied Karandonis’ “atmosphere” of “creativity” and “positivity” («τιτανικά δημιουργική» and «τείνοντας προς το υπερθετικό», etc.). And that was precisely what the five dimensions of advertizing discourse would reflect, with the 5th dimension, as we shall see, yielding a “familiarity” with radio technology that would allow users to re-discover ever higher levels of “familiarization” (Karandonis’ «πυρετό της ύπαρξης» and « εποχή μεθυσμένη για δημιουργία»). The crux of the matter here is that the spiraling “movement” of impression → ignorance/curiosity → familiarity → and so on, is ipso facto a “movement” of “creativity” and “positivity” and therefore of “optimism”, and it would be the 3rd dimension of advertizing discourse which would focus on such semantics, especially addressing itself to youth.

Elsewhere, we have suggested that the period in question was a “celebration” of youth and of the looming middle class milieu – that, we were implying, was the veritable “optimism” of the age. Karandonis himself talks of a “new joy” that was being promised to the popular, and especially youthful, masses: this post-war period, he insists –

«… Έχει τάξει μια καινούργια χαρά στον
άνθρωπο, και πασκίζει να την πραγματοποιήσει
παλεύοντας μ’ όλους τους δαίμονες που έχει
από καταβολής κόσμου, ο άνθρωπος, μέσα του»
(ibid., his emph.).

It was this promise of a “new joy” that was inscribed in much of advertizing discourse in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and especially so in the 3rd dimension of advertizing discourse promoting the radio. In direct contrast to the Greek “intellectualist” attitude of what Karandonis calls «υπαρξιακή κακομοιριά» (p. 302), advertizing discourse promoting the radio, at least in its 3rd dimension, would openly and unabashedly speak of “optimism”.

On the other hand, such “optimism” had gone hand-in-hand with a certain “angst”, and this needs to be stressed so that whatever “romanticization” of the epoch again be avoided. Both in the Karandonis position, as also in the advertizing discourse promoting the radio itself, such “angst” would be steadily present or at least be presupposed. Before we briefly examine the manner in which Karandonis approaches the question of “angst”, we need to explain how such mental state was inscribed in advertizing discourse. One may observe that any one particular advertisement promoting the radio would not necessarily provoke a state of “angst”, except perhaps in two ways: First, and quite obviously, the potential consumer could be beset by a certain anxiety regarding the economic matter of things (economic capacity), though advertisements would often stress the realistic price of a radio (in the case of the Schaub-Lorenz advertisement presented above, there was a clear reference to «μικρές τιμές»). Second, especially the 4th dimension of advertizing discourse, which we shall deal with below, could possibly provoke a certain “angst”, given the technical details on which it focused, and which would expose the consumer’s technical ignorance and the arousal of an expectant curiosity. But both such cases, which dwell on the effect of single advertisements, do not truly convey the rather dominant sense of “angst” that ran across this paradoxical age of “optimism”. It was the incessant “movement” from impression to ignorance/curiosity to familiarization and the further “movement” to new impressions themselves yielding a new ignorance, etc., which would define the “angst” of this age of a “promised optimism” (Karandonis’ «έχει τάξει μια καινούρια χαρά»). It could not be otherwise in an age which continually rejected what had been discovered («απορρίπτει ολοένα») so that it may create anew («ολοένα δημιουργεί»), this of course constituting the “circle” that was both “promising” (and therefore “virtuous”) and also “futuristic” enough to break the nerves of those who could not endure the continually changing present (these usually being the “conservatively”-inclined older generations).

In some sense, for Karandonis, this “angst” was perhaps one of those «δαίμονες» he refers to which the promised “new joy” had to continually struggle with. But this was an altogether “new joy” for the popular masses because it was now a new “paradisial” modernity offering people precisely those objects that advertisements promoted. It was also and at the same time a new “angst” for what was being promised, though such “angst” had little or nothing to do with the “angst” of the Greek “intellectuals”. Here, Karandonis fails to contrast the “inauthenticity” of Greek “intellectuals” to the “authenticity” of advertizing discourse, it being this very discourse that introduced the popular masses to the new “paradisial” modernity of objects and the promises that went with these (and with which the “Amalia-type” would inevitably interact). This is how Karandonis approaches the issue:

«Η σύγχρονη ανθρωπότητα, συνωστίζεται
τραγικά μπροστά στις πύλες ενός παραδείσου
που δεν είναι πια από δέντρα και ποτάμια
και καλόβολα ζώα και αγγέλους με λύρες και
άρπες, αλλά από εργοστάσια παραγωγής
τροφίμων, αυτοκινήτων, φωτογραφικών
μηχανών, ψυγείων, και μύριων άλλων θαμπωτικών
 πραγμάτων… Όλοι ανεξαίρετα θέλουν το μερδικό
τους απ’ αυτή τη μαγεία κι όλοι πασχίζουν
αγχωτικά να το πετύχουν κάποια μέρα»
(pp. 318-319, his emph.).

Writing as early as 1954, Karandonis will argue that a major cause of the “angst” of the period was that most people were still struggling to possess such “dazzling goods”. But we know that by the mid-1960’s and especially by the 1970’s, ever-increasing numbers of people would actually be able to buy a “dazzling good” such as the radio, which would thus mean that the “angst” would now be transferred to a struggle to keep up with the latest in technology. But both in the early-1950’s as also by the 1960’s and on, whatever “angst” would be a positive, creative “anxiety”. It was this positive anxiety which would secrete within itself that “optimism” of the age which Karandonis goes on to aptly dub «άγχος αναμονής ευτυχίας». And it was precisely the latter that advertizing discourse would “authentically” reflect, and do so in contradistinction to the Greek “intellectuals”. By the time the popular masses would be able to start renewing their sound-producing “dazzling goods” (from the radio to the tape-recorder and so on) for ever higher fidelity in sound, that “angst” would mutate into an even more “creative” practice, especially reflected in the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse. But, we are suggesting, it would be the 3rd dimension of advertizing discourse that would underline the ideological and cultural “atmosphere” of “optimism”. We shall present here just one representative sample of this 3rd dimension of advertizing promoting the radio.

Consider the following advertisement which appeared in the mid-1960’s:

«… το “κουμπί” της αισιοδοξίας
είναι το κουμπί ενός
NATIONAL
“NATIONAL” ΤΕΧΝΙΚΟΣ ΑΣΥΝΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΑ
ΡΑΔΙΟ-ΓΡΑΜΜΟΦΩΝΑ NATIONAL
Πρακτικός συνδυασμός Ραδιοφώνου που
μετατρέπεται στιγμιαίως σε γραμμόφωνο
μεγάλης αποδόσεως.
Μια ακόμα Παγκόσμιος επιτυχία
της National.
…
 Μακάρι η αισιοδοξία νάναι
 η ομπρέλλα που θα σας
 προστατεύη από τις μπόρες
 της ζωής.
ΙΑΠΩΝΙΚΗ ΠΑΡΟΙΜΙΑ
…
NATIONAL
ΠΩΛΟΥΝΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΚΑΤΑΣΤΗΜΑΤΑ
ΑΠΟΚΛΕΙΣΤΙΚΟΙ ΑΝΤΙΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΙ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ
–ΤΕΛΕΣΤΑΡ – a.e.»
(cf. Akropolis, 29.12.1965, p. 2,
my emph.).

This advertisement may refer to both the technical superiority and the “global” success of the particular “brand name” it is promoting, but both such references are overshadowed by the clear “philosophy” underlying the discourse. Such “philosophy” may be presented as follows:

• One needs to discover for oneself the “key” – or the “button” – to “optimism”;
• The question of “optimism” is taken for granted, it being the prevalent and familiar “atmosphere” of the epoch (this being the “adjustive” nature of the discourse);
• This “button” is essentially a “technical” or “practical” means to the sense of “optimism”;
• “Technology” (the radio and related electrical appliances) is thus directly translated into “optimism”;
• The implication is that by using the latest in technology, one naturally discovers the sense of “optimism”: technology is the definition of “optimism” and vice versa –  both-as-one define the age;
• A primary impression is effected by making use of the technique of empathy and solidarity: «μακάρι…» (“if only…”);
• The discourse is therefore both “gentle” and, as mentioned, highly “adjustive” (and thus the exact opposite to whatever “provocative-interventionism”;
• It sincerely wishes that consumers have “optimism” as their “umbrella” against the ravages of the epoch – it therefore suggests an understanding that “optimism” goes hand-in-hand with a possible “angst”;
• Put otherwise, “optimism” – effected via the use of a “technical button” (switching on the radio) – is a protective measure against the risks and anxieties of the mid-1960’s («μπόρες της ζωής»).

We note, of course, that such discourse “philosophy” is based on a Japanese proverb, and the advertisement makes such choice of proverb because the product it promotes is Japanese. We know that the “brand name” of the appliance that is being advertized, “NATIONAL”, is the Japanese “Nashonaru” of the what was then known as the Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., which concentrated on home appliances. At the time, “NATIONAL” was the first well-known brand of Japanese electronics (this brand was to later become defunct, and Matsushita would itself evolve into the as well-known “National Panasonic”).

One question that ought to be raised here could be put as follows: would it not have been some form of “cultural interventionism” – a separate issue we intend exploring in some detail further below – to speak of “optimism” in 1960’s Greece via a specifically Japanese “cultural wisdom”? The question holds water, and it would be of interest to consider how the “Amalia-type” would have received such reference to an «ΙΑΠΩΝΙΚΗ ΠΑΡΟΙΜΙΑ». We should, however, keep in mind that, at least for the 1950’s and 1960’s, Japanese products represented an international standard for “quality” at accessible prices, thus popularizing them in Greece as elsewhere. Competing with its American and European trading partners, Japan would soon come to be seen as the very epitome of “optimism” across the world, its rapid growth rate constituting a “miracle economy”. The Greek popular masses were fully aware of such “miracle” and inevitably felt a certain awe for it, without of course adopting whatever servile attitude to Japanese culture (here based on discussions amongst Greek immigrants in South Africa in the 1960’s). There was, further, an important sense in which the growth rate of the Japanese economy would be comparable to that of Greece at the time, itself a factor contributing to Greek “optimism”. We know that, for Japan, the rate of economic growth would range from 13.12% in 1960 to an as sizeable 5.8% in 1965. With respect to Greece, well-known figures themselves suggest the country’s own “economic miracle” with a sustained economic growth from 1950 to 1973 averaging 7.7%, second only to Japan itself (and South Africa). The Japanese “philosophy” of “optimism” would therefore converge with Greek “optimism” – for the latter case, of course, such “optimism” would take its own specific form, that which Karandonis had so aptly described as «άγχος αναμονής ευτυχίας» (op. cit.).

We simply note here that this advertisement promoting the “NATIONAL” radio-gramophone in 1965 had been designed by a local advertizing company that signed its work by using the initials «λa» (sic) – we have not been able to gather whatever background information relating to this particular company.

4th DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE
• “respect” / “gentleness” (necessary, functional role)
• the arousal of curiosity
• presentation of the “unknown” in the new technology itself, thus “gently” challenging the
given “ignorance” of users with respect to such new technology – a positive challenge     mainly addressing Greek youth in an age of “optimism”

As we have seen above, Kollias had pointed to the fact that the Greek popular masses would be exposed to a gadget – the radio – «χωρίς να μπορούν να καταλάβουν πως λειτουργούν αυτές οι συσκευές» (op. cit.). Such “ignorance” would be a given fact for advertizing companies – in this 4th dimension of advertizing discourse, the intention would be to gently “bombard” users with data that would both expose such “ignorance” and at the same time arouse a positive “curiosity” amongst the more experimental elements of 1960’s and 1970’s Greek society.

We would therefore see here a “movement” from the 1st/2nd/3rd dimensions – all of which focused on the first impressions of an object presented in its external appearance – to a 4th dimension of advertizing discourse that focused on the details of technology and which would “gently” play with the “ignorance”-“curiosity” dialectic (such dialectic, as we shall see, could not have been fully resolved within this dimension, dwelling as it did on the mere factor of “curiosity” – it would only be in the 5th dimension that the ultimate catalyst to “creativity” would be activated). But here, in any case, what would “dazzle” would not be the appearance of the object (Karandonis’ «θαμπωτικά πράγματα»), but the riddle of their technical functionality, the “magic” that remained alien to the user. Unless such user could somehow penetrate such technically functioning “magic”, he could remain alien to “modernity” itself. It is absolutely important to stress that such advertizing discourse would, all along, have taken youthful “optimism” as the engine of “curiosity” itself – in the absence of “optimism”, such a challenge to “curiosity” would have been a self-defeating “provocative-interventionism”. But, again, precisely because such a technological challenge would be presented to a mass of people as yet untutored in the mysteries of technology, this 4th dimension had to remain “gently realistic” – the technical details would be presented without any touch of “provocation”, and they would be meted out in manageable dosages of mental “management”. As such, “respect” for the potential user would remain steady throughout this dimension, it being functional to its purpose.

To give us an idea of such “ignorance” with respect to the radio and its functionality, we present below the case of Roula Papayoannou, all-time resident of Moulki, Aliarto, whose family had come to possess a radio by the 1950’s – this is how she presents her initial experience with the appliance:

«Θυμάμαι, μια φορά, ήμουν τριών τεσσάρων
χρονών [born 1956], είχα ανέβει πάνω σε μια
καρέκλα και στεκόμουν ακριβώς μπροστά απ’
το ραδιόφωνο, αυτά τα μεγάλα, όπως καθόμαστε
τώρα μπροστά στην τηλεόραση. Και είχε μια
διαφήμιση, δε θυμάμαι αν ήταν για τη ΔΕΗ ή
για κάποιο ρύζι, και έλεγε: “Δώσε μου κι εμένα…
Δώσε μου κι εμένα… Δώσε μου κι εμένα…”, έτσι,
τρεις φορές. Εγώ κρατούσα μια φέτα ψωμί και
τυρί. Και μόλις λέει “Δώσε μου κι εμένα…”, “Δε
φτάνει!” λέω εγώ. “Δώσε μου κι εμένα…” Κάνω
έτσι και το τρώω μεμιάς όλο. “Το ‘φαγα!” απαντάω.
“Δώσε μου κι εμένα…” “Ε, δε σου δίνω!” φώναξα…»
(cf. 27η Προφορική Μαρτυρία, στο σπίτι της
Ρούλας Παπαϊωάννου, Μούλκι, 16.7. 2013).

The very personal reaction here described by Roula Papayoannou may of course simply be put down to her age at the time. Still, it can give us some idea of how “alien” this “talking box” must have been to both young and old, at least in the 1950’s and early-1960’s. And while adults would finally take it for granted that such “box” could “talk”, they would nonetheless have no idea as to how such a “box” – «αυτό το μεγάλο κουτί, με τα τεράστια κουμπιά, γεμάτο λυχνίες, που φωτίζανε αμυδρά» – actually functioned. The “ignorance” of a category of young adults would mutate into a “curiosity”, and especially as such “curiosity” would be “gently” activated by this 4th dimension of advertizing discourse. On the other hand, such “curiosity”-for-the-technical, while in itself an important factor in defining the epoch, would not be enough to attract youth to the point of “familiarization” (the ultimate catalyst, as mentioned, would appear in the final 5th dimension of advertizing discourse).

One sample of advertizing discourse “gently” initiating Greeks to the “mysteries” of new technology would be the following 1965 advertisement:

«WARTBURG 5160
5160 – ΡΑΔΙΟΦΩΝΟΝ
• 6 λυχνιών
• Κλίμακες: 1 μεσαίων – 1 μακρών – 2 βραχέων
• 5 πλήκτρα
• Τόνος φωνής
• Έπιπλον εκ καρυδιάς πολυτελές
• Υποδοχή Β’ μεγαφώνου
• Υποδοχή PICK-UP.
ΤΑ ΡΑΔΙΟΦΩΝΑ ΜΑΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΑ
ΜΟΝΑΔΙΚΑ ΠΟΥ ΣΥΝΔΥΑΖΟΥΝ ΤΗΝ
ΤΕΛΕΙΟΤΗΤΑ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΧΑΜΗΛΗΝ ΤΙΜΗΝ.
ΕΞΑΓΩΓΕΥΣ: HEIM ELECTRIC
BERLIN C 2 LIEBKNECHSTRASS 14 –
ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ
ΓΕΝ. ΑΝΤΙΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΙ: Γ.Δ. ΣΑΛΙΑΡΗΣ Α.Ε.»
(cf. Akropolis, 21.11.1965, p. 4).

The main focus of this advertisement – which, by the way, had been placed adjacent to the Greek radio programme of the day as published in the newspaper Akropolis – was on the technical details of the “WARTBURG 5160” radio. But this 4th dimension of advertizing discourse would abide by a “respect” for the potential user, and would therefore not attempt to overwhelm him with such technical details. Such “respect” played a necessary, functional role in the discourse: overwhelming the Greek popular masses with technical jargon beyond their reach would be indulging in overkill – what would be stifled was precisely that which needed to be aroused – viz. curiosity.

The “respect” and therefore “gentleness” of the discourse is further effected by maintaining a delicate balance between, on the one hand, the need to “modernize” the Greek “Home” (by introducing to it a piece of “luxury” furniture, dominant in the 2nd dimension) and, on the other, the references to the new technology.

A further balance is effected between that new, as yet unknown, technology and its economic accessibility («ΤΕΛΕΙΟΤΗΤΑ» does not preclude «ΧΑΜΗΛΗΝ ΤΙΜΗΝ»). The language of discourse reflects the language of the male counterparts of the “Amalia-type”: it was a language both burdened by matters of economic exigency and at the same time tensed towards a need for “perfection”, and which goes hand-in-hand with a “curiosity” typical of Karandonis’ «άγχος αναμονής ευτυχίας». This tension towards “perfection”, which will be more obvious in the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse (and which would ultimately yield the “virtuous circle” we have referred to), characterized Greek youth in a contradictory manner. As users of technology related to sound, they would be in search for the “perfect” in such technology (and would even compete with one another as to who has the best appliances, especially by the 1970’s). At the same time, as a generation experimenting with the post-war cultural revolution, the more extreme elements of this social grouping could even turn to phenomena of so-called “teddyboyism” (discussed elsewhere). Both realities would co-exist within the youthful “lifeworld” of the period.

There is one final observation that one may make regarding this “gentle” descriptive advertisement which would further verify both its “respectful” nature and its central intention to merely arouse “curiosity”: there is no trace whatsoever of any “manipulation” or “provocation” related to the Germanic make of the product (the reference to “uniqueness” had been so often used in most advertizing discourse promoting radios that consumers would automatically cancel out whatever plausibility of such claims).

Perhaps an even more representative sample of this 4th dimension of advertizing discourse was an advertisement promoting the “SONY” tape-recorder in 1965. Again, the central focus would be on technology, and it was meant, not only to “impress”, but to prompt “curiosity” in a “gentle” manner through a simple presentation of the technological variations of the product. This advertisement read as follows:

«η ΡΑΔΕΞ Α.Ε. σας παρουσιάζει αποκλειστικώς
προϊόντα εκλεκτής ποιότητος
…
ΓΙΑΤΙ ΝΑ ΔΙΑΘΕΣΕΤΕ ΥΠΕΡΒΟΛΙΚΑ ΠΟΣΑ
ΓΙΑ ΜΙΑ ΣΤΕΡΕΟΦΩΝΙΚΗ ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ ΟΤΑΝ
ΤΑ ΜΑΓΝΗΤΟΦΩΝΑ SONY TC 200 Ή TC 500A
(ΠΛΗΡΩΣ ΣΤΕΡΕΟΦΩΝΙΚΑ) ΣΑΣ ΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΟΥΝ
ΑΠΟΛΥΤΗ ΙΚΑΝΟΠΟΙΗΣΙ.
…
SONY
ΣΤΕΡΕΟΦΩΝΙΚΑ ΜΑΓΝΗΤΟΦΩΝΑ
ΑΝΩΤΕΡΑΣ ΚΛΑΣΕΩΣ TC 500
ΖΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΜΑΣ
ΜΙΑ ΕΠΙΔΕΙΞΕΙ
…
ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΝ ΣΑΣ 6 ΑΚΟΜΗ ΤΥΠΟΙ
TC 200
TC 900
TC 272
TC 123
TC 357/4
TC 135
…
ΑΠΟ ΔΡΧ. 1.950 ΜΕΧΡΙ 12.200»
(cf. Akropolis, 7.12.1965, p. 3).

The tape-recorder being promoted here was the well-known “brand name” of the Japanese company “SONY”, a multinational conglomerate with a history stretching back to 1946 (and which was a competitor of “NATIONAL”). It is important to note that the company had adopted its name from a combination of “SONIC” (which of course means “sound”, deriving from the Latin “SONUS”) and “SONNY” (which we know refers one to youth). This well-chosen combination would directly reflect the cultural reality of the period, wherein the element of “sound” (in the form of music) would be an express cultural urge amongst youth (to be analyzed in the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse, it being this dimension of discourse which would most succinctly underline the equation “technology” = “sound” = “music” = by implication, “youth”).

This advertisement would not forget to point to the “absolute satisfaction” («ΑΠΟΛΥΤΗ ΙΚΑΝΟΠΟΙΗΣΙ») of stereophonic sound offered by its appliances. It would also not forget to emphasize the ever-troubling question of price. And yet, the psychological effect that the discourse would aim at would be the singular, albeit “gentle”, arousal of curiosity. Such arousal of curiosity would take the following form:

• What, the potential user would ask himself, be this insistent reference to “TC”?
• And how was one to understand the meaning of those different “TC’s” (ranging from “TC 123” to “TC 900”)?
• What difference would it make to one’s ears – and to one’s prized “free time” – to listen to this “type” rather than that “type” of those «6 ΑΚΟΜΗ ΤΥΠΟΙ»?
• But the potential user would ultimately not be flabbergasted by all such technicalities (accommodated by the functionally “gentle” / “respectful” approach in discourse): the “TC”, standing for “TAPECORDER”, would be the reel-to-reel tape-recorder player, as it would be depicted in drawings accompanying the written discourse. The numerals next to each “TC” would obviously be different models of the appliance, their differences again being shown pictorially.
• The practical implications of each variation of model – pertaining exclusively to results in sound – would need to be explored: the discourse opens up such possibility («ΖΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΜΑΣ ΜΙΑ ΕΠΙΔΕΙΞΙ»).
• “USER GUIDES” would also be offered to consumers, further provoking them to experiment on their “curiosity”, and thereby gradually closing the then yawning gap between, on the one hand, the “ignorance” of the popular masses regarding all things technical and, on the other, the relentless, on-going explosions in technological developments.

Prompting consumer “curiosity” at the level of the “technical” would, in itself, not be enough to complete the “virtuous circle” of “familiarization” with technology on a mass scale in 1960’s Greece. But “curiosity”, at least as regards categories of Greek youth, would have been galvanized to the point of no return. There are certainly problems with the term “curiosity”, especially if one wants to deal with this phenomenon from the point of view of historical sociology or history. The term could be used to describe behaviour across time and may take on an endless variety of forms, thus possibly rendering it useless as a possible “concept”. On the other hand, one may hold that the “curiosity” of 1960’s Greek youth had taken on very specific characteristics unheard of in the Greek “traditional” past.

Writing in April 1966, the “Left-wing” Rosa Imvrioti, in an article entitled «Ο άνθρωπος δημιουργός», would note:

«Ποιες είναι οι κύριες ιδιότητες, η
ποιότητα του σύγχρονου ανθρώπου…;
Πρώτο χαρακτηριστικό γνώρισμα
είναι ο άνθρωπος να απορεί και να
 θαυμάζει… Η απορία είναι διεγερτική,
 παρορμητική…»
(cf. Epitheorisi Technis [Επιθεώρηση Τέχνης],
Απρίλης 1966, Νο 136, p. 362, my emph.).

Presumably, this is what Imvrioti would see around her in Greece in the mid-1960’s. Her observations could be said to be quite accurate, at least judging by the fact that there would ultimately be a “familiarization” with technology («γρήγορα εξοικειώθηκαν με αυτές [τις συσκευές]», as Kollias himself observed) – such “familiarization” presupposing the will to get to know what still remained foreign to people, such “will-to-knowledge” being “curiosity” per se. Of course, Imvrioti’s observations are made in a long, winding text full of half-digested “Marxist” waffle that the New Left in Europe would have simply ignored. Still, Imvrioti’s references to «απορεί» (posing questions to oneself), «θαυμάζει» (is impressed), «διεγερτική» (is stimulated or positively provoked) and «παρορμητική» (is impulsively stimulated) – all weave together the psychology of the “New Type” that would lead to at least the first cycle of “familiarization” with technology. Put otherwise, Imvrioti’s observations would actually be reflected in this 4th dimension of advertizing discourse, and which would lead to the 5th dimension expressing “familiarity”. But what Imvrioti could not see was that such «απορία», etc., would yield new practices and values that would have little to do with her own half-educated “socialist utopianism”.

At least as regards the vast masses of young working people, such «απορία» would lead to a “creativity” expressive of the gradually surging Greek “middle class milieu”, and it would be a “creativity” informed by an “anxious optimism” within conditions of economic hardship but also gradual amelioration (the 7.7% growth rate would include both realities). Both the “curiosity” and the “anxious optimism” would lead to a “creativity” related to technology (the radio, the transistor, the tape-recorder, etc.), and this would be evident in the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse – viz. a relative “familiarization” with such technology.

“Curiosity” does just that – it “creates”: in discussing the so-called “scientific spirit”, and developments therein, Gaston Bachelard would write:

«Στην περιέργεια δίνει χώρο
η ελπίδα για δημιουργία»
(cf. Gaston Bachelard, “The Formation of the Scientific Mind – The Epistemological Obstacle” [greek edition: «Η μόρφωση του επιστημονικού πνεύματος – Το επιστημονικό εμπόδιο» in Επιστημολογία –
 Κείμενα (ed. G. Kouzelis), Nήσος, 1993,
p. 325).

To the extent that one may locate an empirical or practical “scientific spirit” within the practices of the popular masses themselves – and as that is inscribed in “adjustive” advertizing discourse – such «περιέργεια», «ελπίδα» and «δημιουργία» would be a “movement” from “curiosity” pertaining to technology, to the need for “perfection” or “fidelity” in sound, and thus back to the need for a “familiarization” with sound-producing technology. That brings us to the 5th dimension of Greek advertizing discourse.

5th DIMENSION OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE
• focus on the “aesthetics of sound” – presupposing an aroused “curiosity” around matters
of new technology; at the same time hooking onto the new cultural practices of youth          organized around new music trends
• to familiarize
• effecting a “virtuous circle” between technology and sound

This 5th dimension of advertizing discourse would be par excellence “adjustive” in that it would take into consideration what was already an on-going reality amongst especially young consumers – viz. their “curiosity” around issues related to new technology. Similarly, and at the same time, it would take into consideration a parallel on-going reality amongst vast masses of youth – viz. their demand for better “sound fidelity”. As such, it would be hooking onto the new “aesthetics of sound” permeating the cultural practices of youth. In the last instance, it would be effecting a “virtuous circle” of “familiarity” between technology, the sound that technology produces, and the “aesthetics” which that creates. It would thus yield a continual, on-going “familiarity” with technology itself. In a nutshell: “familiarity” with the unknown in technology would be materialized via the “lived aesthetics” of sound. In practice, and as is well known, this would mean that one’s attachment to a portable appliance such as the transistor radio would become almost as “necessary” as sporting a pair of bell-bottoms (or a miniskirt) by the mid-1960’s and through to the 1970’s.

Such an approach to the radio and other sound-producing technology – and especially the advertizing discourse that accompanied such appliances in the 1960’s and 1970’s – hinges on a basic theoretical understanding of such appliances and their role in modern social history: all along, we will be arguing the position that the radio as a social phenomenon makes little sense unless it is viewed as a cultural phenomenon sprouting from the network of “aesthetic practices” whereby the popular masses forged their identity within the constraints of the social formations of the post-war period. The role of advertizing discourse related to the radio cannot be grasped unless seen as an expression of a “popular aesthetics” pertaining both to technology and sound (music).

Saying this, of course, seems to raise a major paradox: how be it possible that a “popular aesthetics” of 1960’s and 1970’s youth – bent as it was on “cultural freedom” and the “frenetic sounds” which it espoused – could have possibly co-existed with the “mechanical discipline” and hard-core “rationality” of whatever technology? This paradox, in fact, is resolved within the advertizing discourse itself.

We know that popular and especially youthful “aesthetic taste” constituted a series of cultural practices which revolved around music – it would be music above all that would organize youthful entertainment, and it would do so at times “formally” through concerts, but much more often through parties spontaneously thrown by the youths themselves. Such entertainment would be mostly centered in cities, but the “aesthetic taste” which informed such cultural practice would filter through to the “peripheries” (be that Thiva or Levadia, etc. – cf. our paper examining the issue of 1960’s and 1970’s music in Greece)). Whatever the differences in cultural practice between “centre” and “periphery”, there would nonetheless be one common denominator uniting both, and that would be the technical means of diffusion («ηλεκτρονική»): wherever one was, it was the “fidelity of sound” that one would chase after. But it was this ever-increasing demand for “fidelity” that seems to raise the paradox we have referred to: “free”, “sensual” and “spontaneous” cultural practices would be as “spontaneously” organized via electrically-powered (or battery-powered) appliances that hid within their shells the “mysteries” of a disciplined, mechanical world. In discussing the 4th dimension of advertizing discourse, we have tried to show that there was at least some category of youths whose “curiosity” would be aroused by the inner technicalities of such appliances (at least as regards their “variations” – say, the TC 123 of “SONY” vis-à-vis that of TC 900 – and to the extent that such “variations” corresponded to different levels of “fidelity”). Here, it seems, the “cultural freedom” of the listener would run up against the “mechanical discipline” of the user.

But, we are to suggest, it was the very form of discourse of the 5th dimension that would resolve such apparent paradox: it would do so by bridging the gap between an “ignorance” of technology and a “familiarity” with it via the grassroots need for “SOUND”. By focusing on the “aesthetics of sound” it would appeal to the needs of youthful cultural practices, and as such practices had music as their kernel. “Familiarity” with technology would be materialized through that which was already absolutely “familiar” – viz. grassroots cultural practices, and this would yield the new, youthful “techno-type” who could indulge in technical “tinkering” and even “fix up his own high fidelity” (op. cit). It would be this “techno-type” who would continually go back to new technology, thus starting afresh the search for ever-higher “fidelity” and thus re-start and re-complete the “virtuous circle” of “impression → ignorance → familiarization”. Reality – and especially cultural reality – would thus be continually restructured, and it would be this 5th dimension of advertizing discourse that would function as the central mediator for this. Its mediatory function would be to try to effect a “balance” between, on the one hand, what in the “WARTBURG 5160” advertisement was presented as «ΤΕΛΕΙΟΤΗΤΑ» (technical), and, on the other hand, the “frenzy” of cultural practices amongst youth. Perhaps we should add here that this 5th dimension promoting radios and related appliances would be further supplemented by advertizing discourse promoting music records, thus again effecting a “balance” between technology and cultural practices, and therefore again making use of “SOUND” as bridge between the “ignorance”/ “familiarity” hybrid.

There is one final point that needs further clarification before we go on to present and analyze samples of the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse. It would be a mistake to assume that what we have referred to as the “techno-type” merely constituted a “special” or “exceptional category” of youngsters who stood out from the vast mass of Greek youth. To fully understand the widespread “curiosity” around things technical, it would perhaps be useful to consider that other “techno-type” that would sprout in the late-1960’s and 1970’s around the neighbourhoods of Greece, both urban and as much rural, who would be a fanatic DIY car mechanic. Youngsters who had grown up in the villages of Thiva or Levadia and who had hardly finished their elementary education would nonetheless be able to dismantle a car engine and put its pieces back again with an ease that would make even professional car mechanics blush. Of course, such observations raise an issue that is well beyond our present purposes – viz. that of the “DIY” cultural practices of the late-1960’s and onto the 1980’s, and which were rampant throughout Greece. Specifically with reference to the radio, such culture or sub-culture would take the form of pirate radio stations (cf. Leontis above). If in the case of DIY sub-cultural practices concerning the radio the purpose behind such preoccupation was the production of “sound”, in the case of DIY practices concerning the car, the purpose could be the sheer love for car engines, or car design, or “speed”. DIY cultural practices could take a variety of forms. One friend of the Aliartian barber (cf. above) would combine a preoccupation with cars with yet another interest in manufacturing hand-made pieces of iron furniture. This man’s son would “inherit” his father’s interest in cars, but would combine that with an intense interest in the technicalities of HI-FI sets. In some sense, this new-found DIY interest in things technical amongst males would complement that age-old DIY interest amongst females to sew clothes for their families (cf. our notes concerning the sewing machine above). We may end this note on the grassroots “technological revolution” taking place amongst the Greek popular masses by emphasizing that such phenomenon would be evident in all the sub-strata of the popular masses, whatever be the “wage-bracket” to which they belonged. By the early-1980’s, a poor house-painter of a Boeotian village would come to own both a HI-FI set and a car, and he would occasionally tinker with both. For him, both “speed” and “sound” would be the perfect mediators for an interest in the new technology (he had never completed his elementary education).

We may now go on to present a number of samples representative of the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse. Our first sample is a rather weak example of this type of advertisement, though it does contain rudimentary elements of the 5th dimension (in some sense, this advertisement may be seen as representative of the transition from dimensions 1-4 to that of the 5th dimension). The advertisement appeared in the newspaper Akropolis in early-1966, and read as follows:

«ΑΠΟΚΤΗΜΑ!
Ένα ραδιογραμμόφωνο – έπιπλο
SABA
SONORAMA
Το μόνο που διαθέτει ρυθμιστή εξ αποστάσεως…
Είναι αυτό που ολοκληρώνει το σύγχρονο σπίτι,
είναι ότι αντανακλά τις προσδοκίες
ενός εξελιγμένου ανθρώπου.
…
Αποτελεί ιδανική σύνθεση των τελευταίων
επιτεύξεων της ηλεκτρονικής.
Διαθέτει τηλεκατευθυνόμενο ρυθμιστή
σταθμών μεταδόσεως.
Ειδικά κατασκευασμένο για λήψεις
στερεοφωνικών εκπομπών F.M.
Προσαρμόζεται ακριβώς στην ακουστική
κάθε διαμερίσματος.
…
Γραμμόφωνο στερεοφωνικό.
Αυτόματη αλλαγή δίσκων.
Προενισχυτής τρανζίστορς.
Μαγνητική κεφαλή.
Τα 4 μεγάφωνά του εξασφαλίζουν
τελεία ηχητική απόδοση, που για πρώτη φορά
επιτυγχάνεται.
Ελάτε να το απολαύσετε στο STUDIO SABA HI-FI…
ΣΑΡΑΒΕΛΟΣ Ε.Π.Ε.
[Γνώμη]»
(cf. Akropolis, 4.1.1966, p. 4).

As we have said, the discourse of this advertisement may be taken to be transitional, and such transitionality is here very coherently structured – its discourse moves as follows:

• It begins by relating the appliance to the “modern home”, suggesting that it completes («ολοκληρώνει») such “modern home” – in that way, it carries elements of the 2nd dimension of advertizing discourse.
• From the idea of functionality vis-à-vis the “modern home”, the advertisement moves directly on to the hopes and expectations of “modern man” («αντανακλά τις προσδοκίες ενός εξελιγμένου ανθρώπου») – it thereby carries elements of the 3rd dimension of advertizing discourse («προσδοκίες» = “optimism”).
• The advertisement inevitably includes references to the functional “magic” of the new technology, thus arousing “curiosity” around it, and in that way it also carries elements of the 4th dimension of advertizing discourse. Examples of this include: «διαθέτει ρυθμιστή εξ αποστάσεως», «αποτελεί ιδανική σύνθεση των τελευταίων επιτεύξεων της ηλεκτρονικής», etc.
• It is such “latest achievements” in technology which, remaining as yet unfamiliar to users in 1966, need to be made “familiar”. Embodying in its discourse a recapitulation of dimensions 2-4, it now needs to discover a mediator whereby such “familiarity” can be materialized. The mediative medium is not at all invented – it is not, that is, an “ideological manufacture” of some fantastic reality imposed on consumers – rather, it is discovered in what already exists within the socio-cultural practices of “modern man”, it being the latter’s preoccupation with sound.
• Thus, there is an attempt at materializing “familiarity” via the need for stereophonic sound: «Ειδικά κατασκευασμένο για λήψεις στερεοφωνικών εκπομπών F.M.» We should note here that, with the introduction of Stereo FM on a mass basis across the world in 1961, we had a veritable revolution in sound – at least by the mid-1960’s in Greece, it would be just such revolution that would facilitate a “familiarization” with sound technology. Stereo FM would make for “easy listening” by overcoming static and skywave interferences. The “ease” in listening, constituting a revolution in the cultural practices of the Greek popular masses, would be that mediative medium facilitating “familiarity” with technology and giving birth to the new “techno-type” amongst youth by the 1970’s.
• The discourse of the advertisement further dwells on “familiarization” via sound by implying that such “familiarization” with the new technology of SABA-SONORAMA would take place through its adjustment to the acoustics of the home – the role of the radio and other related appliances as “ornamental” pieces of furniture for the Greek “Home” (2nd dimension) now mutates into a technology that produces sound in a manner that adapts to the sound waves within that Greek “Home”. Put otherwise, we may say that the “sound fidelity” of the new technology is such as to interact with the “fidelity” with which sound can be heard within a Greek “Home” – “familiarization” takes place within the given “space” wherein the user lives. As the advertisement declares: «Προσαρμόζεται ακριβώς στην ακουστική κάθε διαμερίσματος».
• “Familiarization” with technology – for instance, as regards the speakers of the radio-gramophone – is yet again directly related to the need for perfect sound performance: the search for “perfection” which we have referred to above would be a “virtuous circle” whereby the search for perfection in sound would translate into a search for perfection in technology and vice versa and on like that. As the advertisement further declares: «Τα 4 μεγάφωνά του εξασφαλίζουν τελεία ηχητική απόδοση».
• Thus, when the advertisement finally calls on people to come and “enjoy” the appliance – «Ελάτε να το απολαύσετε» – it is of course asking the public to come and enjoy the sound.
• We may therefore conclude that the essential function of this advertisement, albeit transitional, is to “familiarize” the masses with the “magic” of the “unknown” in sound-technology via the “aesthetics of sound”. Both the relative technological “ignorance” of the Greek popular masses, as also their aroused “curiosity” around things technological, is taken for granted. But “curiosity” could not have been satisfied through the mere exposition of the technical “magic” itself (the 4th dimension), as this would inevitably have short-circuited into a dead-end given the untrained mind of the user. The latter, however, was already developing a “trained ear” with respect to sound, given the “musicality” of such ear – it would be this cultural reality that the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse would be systematically tapping. The full circle would be completed by the assimilation of technology itself through the cultural practices of a musically-inspired youth.

The youthful “love” for sound would naturally translate into a “love” for the radio and related appliances – it would be this double-“love” that would “familiarize” users with technology as such, thus completing the “virtuous circle” of the age. It would be a “circle” characterizing the post-war “Golden Age”, it being an age in “love” with itself and its new-found technological gadgets. Such “love” was characterized by a double “frenetic need” – viz. the need for the “melody” or “frenzy” of sound, as also the need to disembowel the “guts” of technological devises so that their secret might be penetrated. But such disemboweling would be undertaken with great “love” and respect for the device: the purpose of the new “techno-kid” was to re-assemble in ways that suited his needs. Interestingly, Kollias himself makes a reference to such “love” – he writes:

«Το αγάπησα το ραδιόφωνο και
παρ’ όλο που τα επόμενα χρόνια
αποκτήσαμε και τηλεόραση, έμεινε
 και παραμένει μέχρι και σήμερα η
 μεγάλη αγάπη μου»
(op. cit., my emph.).

Perhaps one of the best samples of advertisement representative of this 5th dimension of advertizing discourse, and which therefore encapsulates all of what we have said above relating to such dimension, appeared in 1965 and promoted the German-manufactured “GRUNDIG” tape-recorder. This important piece of discourse read as follows:

«ΣΑΣ ΟΜΙΛΕΙ Η GRUNDIG
Και κάθε φορά, που η GRUNDIG αναγγέλλει
ένα νέο, αυτό το νέο, είναι πάντοτε σημαντικό.
…
ΝΕΑ ΣΕΙΡΑ ΜΑΓΝΗΤΟΦΩΝΩΝ
LUXUS AUTOMATIC
…
Είναι τα τελευταία επιτεύγματα της ηλεκτρονικής!
Είναι τα επιτεύγματα της πείρας και του πάθους
της GRUNDIG για την ποιότητα!
…
Τα μαγνητόφωνα GRUNDIG LUXUS AUTOMATIC,
 ανοίγουν, για όσους αγαπούν την μουσική,
 νέο παράδεισο υψηλής απολαύσεως των ήχων.
…
Τα GRUNDIG LUXUS AUTOMATIC, εξωπλισμένα με
αυτόματον ρυθμιστήν της στάθμης μαγνητοφωνήσεως
και δημιουργημένα με βάσι τις απαιτήσεις της
 σύγχρονης αισθητικής, ικανοποιούν το υψηλό γούστο
 και των πιο απαιτητικών αγοραστών.
…
Μόνον η GRUNDIG διαθέτει 14 διαφορετικούς
τύπους μαγνητοφώνων: από τις απλές συσκευές
 για τον ερασιτέχνη και τις στερεοφωνικές
 συσκευές για τους φανατικούς της υψηλής πιστότητας,
 ως τις επαγγελματικές συσκευές μεγίστης ακριβείας.
…
ΕΝΑ GRUNDIG ΕΙΝΑΙ ΚΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΣΑΣ»
(cf. Akropolis, 28.11.1965, p. 3).

If one were to read this advertisement of the mid-1960’s carefully, one would see that its whole discourse is organized around a “movement” which progresses in the following “circular” order:

 technology (curiosity-for as a given) →
music →
sound →
 sound aesthetics (taste) →
technology (familiarization-with)

More specifically, we clearly observe the commencement and completion of the “virtuous circle” as follows:

• The discourse begins by announcing the “new” in technological achievements: «τα τελευταία επιτεύγματα της ηλεκτρονικής». It takes it for granted that everyone wishes to hear – or is waiting to hear – something “important” about the latest developments in technology.
• It then goes on directly to the issue of music, suggesting that it is this new technology that is now the best medium for a cultural need which already exists – it therefore appeals to “music-lovers”: «για όσους αγαπούν την μουσική» (remember our reference to the “Golden Age” as an age “in love” with itself, its practices, and its gadgets – this of course also reminds us of Kollias’ «η μεγάλη αγάπη μου» with reference to his radio).
• Obviously, the discourse then immediately raises the issue of sound, but does so in a manner which presents sound exactly as it was “lived” at the time – viz. as a major socio-cultural practice informing the consciousness of both the “Amalia-type” and her male counterparts. It refers to the “paradise of sound” – «τα μαγνητόφωνα GRUNDIG … ανοίγουν … νέο παράδεισο υψηλής απολαύσεως των ήχων». Such reference to the “paradisial”, of course, constitutes an excellent reading of the age, and which relates to Karandonis’ «πύλες ενός παραδείσου … θαμπωτικών πραγμάτων». Delighting or indulging in such sound («απολαύσεως») was, perforce, the impulse towards those «πύλες» of a socio-cultural revolution that was of course constrained by the social inequality of the period – and yet, the impulse was there, if only as an «άγχος αναμονής ευτυχίας» (Karandonis), but which was nonetheless an impulse translated into a music which was “lived” as the opening («ανοίγουν») of a «νέο παράδεισο».
• The discourse goes further: music and sound are not merely the frivolous pastimes of certain “music-lovers” – they in fact constitute the kernel of “modern aesthetics” («σύγχρονης αισθητικής»). Such “modern aesthetics” is recognized as having its own demands («απαιτήσεις»), something which the discourse can only but respect and try to satisfy.
• But, the discourse further suggests, this “modern aesthetics” is not some abstract or external cultural phenomenon hovering over the minds of consumers – in fact, such “aesthetics” is a “taste” («γούστο») which belongs to the consumer himself. It is the buyers themselves that demand the fulfillment of such “taste”, and may do so even to the point of that being a “high taste”: «ικανοποιούν το υψηλό γούστο και των πιο απαιτητικών αγοραστών».
• The discourse thereby acknowledges and is “adjustive” to the “lifeworld” infrastructure of a given socio-cultural or “aesthetic” reality of the Greek popular masses. It will use precisely such infrastructure – viz. that of music/sound/aesthetics/taste – to attract consumers to, and thus “familiarize” them with, the new sound-technology. The given “familiar” (the “lifeworld” reality) will be activated as medium to introduce people to the as yet “unfamiliar” (sound technology).
• For the discourse, the “familiarization” with sound-technology is a variegated relationship with such technology, encompassing different degrees of “familiarization”. This is absolutely important: by pointing to the possibility of a variety of degrees of “familiarization”, it implies that such “familiarization” can be attained by whoever is interested in it, and thus points to the widespread interest of youth in “tinkering” with such technology. Thereby, the age of the new “techno-kid” is opened up for thousands of Greek youngsters. It is the variegated relationship with sound-technology that shall activate the terrain of young male “DIY” culture and sub-culture. It would be such type of discourse that will be completing the “virtuous circle” we have been referring to all along, thus accurately expressing important elements of the up-and-coming Greek middle class milieu, and which will be consummated in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
• How is such variegated relationship with sound-technology expressed in the discourse? The advertisement is crystal-clear on this: to begin with, it announces that there are “simple” appliances for the “amateurs” in sound technology («απλές συσκευές για τον ερασιτέχνη»). It thereby recognizes that “familiarization” with sound technology is feasible at an elementary level, and it further recognizes the existence of that category of users who may be considered “amateurs”. The “DIY” culture at an elementary level is therefore also recognized, which would presumably have covered the vast majority of that category of youth interested in sound technology.
• The discourse then goes on to recognize the truly pioneering type amongst Greek youth of the mid-1960’s – viz. that type who would most efficiently bridge the gap between a “love” for music as such (“free”, “sensual”, “spontaneous”) and as great a “love” for the mysteries of sound technology, presupposing “mechanical discipline”. This is the “fanatic” of the age, and specific technological gadgets are reserved for him: «τις στερεοφωνικές συσκευές για τους φανατικούς». Here, a more advanced form of “DIY” culture is recognized, such culture being a “fanatic” double-love – viz. both a love for sound/music and a love for sound technology. At this stage, “familiarization” with technology may get highly intense, and would most probably be characterized by an almost obsessive urge to continually renew such “familiarization” with the latest in technology. This category of youth did not only function as bridge between music and technical gadgets. The social role of the “fanatic” would be infinitely richer and much more complex in the realm of “technical familiarization” than one would initially suspect. On the one hand, his technical knowledge would trickle down to the wider category of the “amateurs”, thereby effecting a dialectical process of technically-minded exchanges between the elementary level of “DIY” culture and this secondary level of “DIY” culture (both such cultures having one common denominator, viz. sound/music). On the other hand, the “fanatic” would prepare the ground for the emergence of the “professional” in sound technology (such “professional” being either his own self or some other belonging to his “DIY” environment, or in any case would be having some remote or indirect influence leading to “professionalism”).
• The GRUNDIG advertisement, of course, goes on to recognize precisely such possible developments in “technical familiarization”: «για τους φανατικούς της υψηλής πιστότητας, ως τις επαγγελματικές συσκευές μεγίστης ακρίβειας».
• The variegated relationship of “familiarization” with sound technology allows for the technology = sound = (new) technology equation to establish a widespread social phenomenon characteristic of the up-and-coming middle class milieu amongst youth. The amateur → fanatic → professional interplay would be such as to continually reinforce itself: amateurs would give birth to fanatics; fanatics would reinforce amateurs; both amateurs and fanatics would form the breeding ground for professionals; professionals would engage in the production of sound and sound technology that would arouse the passions of both the technically-minded and the music-lovers at once.
• It would be exactly this socially “organic” function that this “adjustive” advertisement promoting the GRUNDIG reel-to-reel tape-recorder would be fulfilling – addressing itself to this realm of widespread techno-cultural practices amongst youth, it can justifiably declare in closing: «ΕΝΑ GRUNDIG ΕΙΝΑΙ ΚΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΣΑΣ» (be you a mere music-lover, or an amateur technician, or a fanatic techno-kid, or a professional).

Before we go on to examine our next sample of the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse, perhaps it would be of interest to present just one case of such “techno-kid” of the period who best represents this “marriage” between, on the one hand, a “fanatic” preoccupation with sound/music and, on the other hand, as “fanatic” an interest in sound technology. The case is also representative of a social mobility that would allow this individual to move from the popular ranks of poor, working people through to becoming a member of the Greek nouveau riche of the 1980’s. Before we proceed with the case, it should be noted that the middle class milieu which we have identified – and which was primarily a cultural-ideological position encompassing a variety of social strata – would later give birth to a variety of objective class positions within the Greek social formation, one such outgrowth being a new endogenous capitalist class (the self-made nouveau riche of the 1980’s, part of which was of a “parasitical” nature). Quite a number of members of this new, powerful social stratum (often supported by strong client-patron relationships with Political Parties) were related to the field of sound technology, new radio stations and advertizing companies usually promoting new musical trends and nightclubs. It is precisely to such stratum that Giorgos Politis, a “techno-type” of the period, belonged.

Born in 1960, Politis grew up in the “popular” West Attica suburb of Agioi Anargiroi. He started off as a hawker of, amongst other merchandise, encyclopaedias. As an itinerant salesman, he would also ply his trade along the streets of the Athens city centre. He would soon come to work as some kind of a self-taught “technician”, and this would ultimately lead him to a major interest in sound mixing and other aspects of sound engineering. He would enrich his knowledge by working side by side with already established sound engineers of the period (such as someone by the name of Fouskopoulos – note the “amateur” vis-à-vis “professional” interplay discussed above).

By the 1980’s, and given his interest in and preoccupation with the latest in Greek musical trends, he would launch his own advertizing company, “Master Media”, which would specialize in the setting up of billboards on rooftops promoting singers and nightclubs.

Throughout his life, he would be a “fanatic” in his “love” for music, as also obsessed with sound engineering. Since the days of his youth and onwards, these two obsessions would characterize his personality (apart from his experimental entrepreneurial talents, as much characteristic of the 1980’s). Concerning Politis’ interest in sound mixing, an acquaintance of his has had this to say:

«Θυμάμαι που στα πάρτι που έδινε
του άρεσε στο τέλος να αναλαμβάνει
ρόλο dj»
(cf., inter alia, www.protothema.gr;
www.tlife.gr; www.gazzetta.gr – all data
here presented have been drawn from
these sources).

Naturally, Politis would also engage in the writing of lyrics. As naturally, he would come to be the owner of two popular radio stations, “Sfera” and “Derti”. In all, the case of Politis cannot be explained outside the context of this 1960’s-1970’s “frenetic” interplay between music and technology, it being precisely what the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse would reflect.

The remaining samples that we intend to present for the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse will not really add much to what we have already said regarding this dimension. But, apart from being interesting in themselves in that they register the dominant semantics of advertizing promoting the radio at the time, they also help to reinforce and supplement our observations for the 5th dimension. The popular periodical Romantso would carry the following advertisement promoting the “SHARP” radio transistor early in 1964 – it went as follows:

«SHARP…
Εάν επιθυμείτε ν’ αποκτήσετε το
τελειότερο ραδιόφωνο Τρανζίστορ
 από απόψεως φυσικής αποδόσεως και
 κρυσταλλικού τόνου, αυτό είναι το
ραδιόφωνο για σας.
ΓΕΝ. ΑΝΤ/ΠΟΙ: ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ»
(cf. Romantso, No 1100,
31.3.1964, p. 13, my emph.).

We simply note that this advertisement places an exclusive emphasis on the quality of sound, which as we know was the central mediator in bridging the gap with technology in this 5th dimension of discourse. For the sake of interest, we note that the distributors of this transistor radio in 1964 were the «ΑΦΟΙ ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΙ» department stores which we have discussed above in some detail, though with special reference to clothes, it being the basic merchandise with which they had initially started out.

Our final sample is certainly a major confirmation of the content of the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse, constituting an excellent example of the “marriage” between the “magic” of sound and that of technology, with the former being especially dwelt on. In a periodical launched in December 1967, and which was especially popular amongst fairly educated youngsters (to which Amalia Eleftheriadiou would have belonged), we had the appearance of the following advertisement:

«ΟΛΗ Η ΜΑΓΕΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΗΧΟΥ…
…από ένα μαγνητόφωνο PHILIPS
…
Γεμίστε τις ελεύθερες ώρες σας
με την απέραντη γοητεία της μουσικής.
Της μουσικής που μόνον ένα μαγνητόφωνο
PHILIPS ξέρει να αποδίδη πιστά.
Γιατί το μαγνητόφωνο PHILIPS
σέβεται τον ήχο.
Δημιουργήθηκε για να υπερέχει στον ήχο.
Και υπερέχει, με την πιστότητα στην εγγραφή
και στην απόδοση, και με την τέλεια τεχνική του.
Ακούστε και διαλέξτε απ’ την μεγαλύτερη
σειρά μαγνητοφώνων που υπάρχει στην Ελλάδα,
σ’ οποιοδήποτε κατάστημα με το σήμα της
PHILIPS.
…
 Νέο μαγνητόφωνο PHILIPS
4 εγγραφών και 4 ταχυτήτων,
με θαυμάσια απόδοση και δυνατότητα στερεοφωνικής
αναπαραγωγής. Με πολυτελές εξωτερικό περίβλημα
από ξύλο τικ, ο τύπος του είναι EL3576 και η τιμή του
Δρχ. 6.130. Και θυμηθήτε: οι ταινίες PHILIPS είναι υψηλής
πιστότητος και μεγάλης αντοχής. Διατίθενται σε μεγάλη
ποικιλία μεγεθών.
“ΑΛΕΚΤΩΡ”…»
(cf. Συλλογή, έτος 1, τεύχ. 1, Δεκέμβριος 1967,
p.25).

According to this advertisement, the PHILIPS tape-recorder captures the “magic” of sound, the latter being that «απέραντη γοητεία της μουσικής». It is this music that the appliance respects («σέβεται»), and that is the very reason for its creation («δημιουργήθηκε για να…»).

For the period under discussion, sound-producing devices such as the PHILIPS tape-recorder would capture a popular music which constituted, as Antoine Hennion so well expresses it, “the frenetic expression of collective impulses” (cf. A. Hennion, The Passion for Music: A Sociology of Mediation, Ashgate, 2015, p. 287). By capturing such “frenetic expression”, it functioned as the technical “mediator” of music.

Such “frenetic expression” of spontaneous impulse would be accompanied by the “frenetic” need for “familiarization” with technology itself, whereby – at different, variegated levels of “familiarization” – Greek youngsters would wish to uncover the inner secrets of sound-producing technology, so as to tinker with such technology and improvise with respect to the various technological “mediators” of sound. They would thereby try to intervene in the quality of sound itself.

Throughout the 5th dimension of advertizing discourse, both sound and music are “privileged” (as Hennion – whose work more or less reflects our own approach – puts it). Within the discourse, technology “privileges” music, and music in turn “privileges” technology.

Quite naturally, this “virtuous circle” of “familiarity” within two intertwining “collective impulses” (for sound and for its technical “mediator”) would mean that sound-producing technology would become ubiquitous. And by this we mean literally ubiquitous: throughout Greece, both in urban and rural areas, people would gradually come to possess some type or types of sound-producing gadget. In a short story entitled «Το Τελευταίο Αγώι» written by G. Gregoris and published in a 1965 issue of the literary journal  Epitheorisi Technis , we read the following revealing dialogue between two Greek peasants and which is indicative of how the popular “lifeworld” was undergoing dramatic changes, and doing so even in the rural areas:

• Δεν είν’ ο κόσμος πλέον όπως τον ξέραμε.
• Ο κόσμος δεν αλλάζει.
• Έτσι ε; Κοίτα κει πέρα αυτόν τον τσοπανάκο. Ξέρεις τ’ είν’ αυτό το κουτί που κρέμεται απ’ τον ώμο του;
• Παγούρι.
• Κοντοθορίζεις. Τρανζίστορ το λένε. Ξέρεις τ’ είν’ αυτό;
• Καβουρντιστήρι… πείσμωσε ο Τζάρας.
• Ε, τότε σύρε ρώτα τον πού είναι η τσοπάνικη φλογέρα του

(cf. Epitheorisi Technis, No 130-132,
November-December 1965, p. 457).

Perhaps we should add here that, even by the late-1980’s, one would still see a young shepherd tending his flock of sheep around the Theban village of Domvraina, and the young man would be doing so with a transistor radio perched on his arm. He would, however, not be listening to the “frenetic” sounds of “modern music” but to the traditional “Dimotika” songs. This, of course, brings us back to what we had been suggesting at the start of this section examining advertisements promoting the radio – viz. users retained the freedom to choose between listening to either “traditional” or “modern” music, and advertizing discourse would not necessarily dictate any particular “cultural” preferences. Even in cases where the discourse happened to be tilted towards the “modern” taste, such bias could be ignored and was in fact ignored by sections of the population who insisted on listening to music expressive of “residual culture”. (Since the 1950’s, village tavernas around Thiva – as, for example, in Domvraina – would be using radio gramophones to relay especially traditional music to their customers – cf. Giannis L. Lambrou, Η Δομβραίνα στο Χρόνο [Domvraina Through the Years], Εθνική Τράπεζα της Ελλάδος (Χορηγός), 1999, p. 74, where a 1951 advertisement would declare: «Ραδιογραμμόφωνον προς ψυχαγωγίαν των θαμώνων μας…».)

The ubiquity of sound-producing devices could take an almost endless variety of forms – Greeks migrating to Germany in search of employment would carry around their own transistor radio – consider, for instance, the following lines of a poem published in yet another 1965 issue of Epitheorisi Technis:

«Δουλεύω σε φάμπρικα γερμανική
…
Στέλνω δέκα μάρκα στη Βάσω
κατά μήνα, για τα προικιά.
Πήρα τρανζίστορ, το σέρνω στο σουλάτσο
την Κυριακή, γραβάτα, κουμπιά…
Στις μπυραρίες…»
(cf. Sotiris Themelis, «Γράμμα» [“Letter”],
in Epitheorisi Technis, No 128,
September 1965, pp. 171-172).

One would even have Greek families considering the economic pros and cons of importing various sound-producing devices from overseas – in a letter written in 1973, a father would write to his daughter – who was about to return from the USA – advising her not to buy a stereophonic radio from the USA. The father, A. Th., writes to his daughter, Miss B., as follows:

«Και στ’ άλλα γράμματά μου σου γράφω
στο τονίζω και τώρα. Κύταξε να μην
πάρης πράγματα που έχουν την ίδια αξία
που έχουν κι εδώ, όπως το ραδιοστερεόφωνον [sic]
του αυτοκινήτου. Γιατί όπως μου έλεγε κάποιος
που ήλθε προχθές, λόγω της νομισματικής διαφοράς
δολαρίου και άλλων νομισμάτων τα πράγματα
αυτού [in the USA] έχουν ακριβύνει»
(Private Collection, “Letter”, written 4.4.1973).

The matter of perhaps buying some sound-producing device for her family in Greece was in fact being entertained by the daughter since 1971. In one of Miss B.’s diaries kept sometime round July 1971 while in the USA, one comes across an entry which considers what items she should send to her family – the list reads as follows:

«κασσέτες
μαγνητόφωνο
παντελόνια
φούστα…
μπλούζες
μπισκότα»
(Private Collection, “Diary”, 17.7.1971 –
circa 28.7.1971).

It would be important to stress here that the ubiquity of the transistor radio actually cut across all social strata, from poor working people and through to the upper middle classes and the various social “elite” groups. The well-known Greek actress, Xenia Kalogeropoulou, who certainly belonged to the upper middle classes, has this to say of her experiences as a youth in the 1950’s:

«Τώρα είχαμε μπόλικες παρέες. Θυμάμαι
ότι πηγαίναμε δίπλα στην εκκλησία του
Αγίου Χαράλαμπου και ξαπλώναμε, όσοι
χωρούσαμε, σε μια μεγάλη πέτρα που τη
λέγαμε “ξαπλώστρα”… Βάζαμε ένα
ραδιοφωνάκι να μας παίζει μουσική και
χαζεύαμε τ’ αστέρια».
(cf. Xenia Kalogeropoulou, Γράμμα στον
 Κωστή [Letter to Kostis], Εκδόσεις Πατάκη, 2015, p. 145).

We have tried to show above that it was in this 5th dimension of advertizing discourse that we could most clearly see how sound-producing technology would most effectively capture a socio-cultural practice such as music – in that way, it would capture the history of the period. It was a history of both “frenetic passion” for entertainment as also a “frenetic passion” for material survival and a will to “optimistic” material progress. That it was the sound-producing technology that did this capturing of passion is an idea somewhat reminiscent of Benedetto Croce’s own approach to historiography – in his Κείμενα αισθητικής, ιστοριογραφίας, δοκιμίων» (Δωδώνη, Athens, 1976), he writes:

«Εκείνα που στην ιστοριογραφική χρήση
καλούνται … έγκλειστα σε φωνογράφους …
δεν ενεργούν ως ντοκουμέντα ούτε και
είναι τέτοια, παρά εφ’ όσον διεγείρουν ή
ενισχύουν μέσα μου ενθυμήματα ψυχικών
καταστάσεων που είναι μέσα μου … Υπό
οποιαδήποτε άλλη άποψη μένουν … δίσκοι
μετάλλου [etc.], δίχως καμμιά ψυχική επήρεια»
(p. 243, my emph.).

One need not necessarily adopt Croce’s “idealism” to see the potential value of what he is saying: to the extent that sound-producing devices captured the “spirit” of the age (whatever be the origins of such “spirit”), such devices recorded the history of that age. Further, to the extent that advertizing discourse promulgated this relationship between technology and (musical) “spirit”, they too constitute historiographical records for that period.

For the Greek case at least, and as regards the vast popular masses, this period of a multiple “frenetic passion” is quite specific, and it points to the 1950’s, the 1960’s and the 1970’s. Even for the rest of the European continent, sound-producing technology would be quite late in coming. As Hobsbawm has pointed out, sound-producing technology would be only available to the elite few up until at least 1914 – he writes:

«Εν τω μεταξύ, η πραγματική τέχνη της
τεχνολογικής επανάστασης, στηριζόμενη
στη μαζική αγορά, αναπτυσσόταν με ταχύτητα
που δεν είχε προηγούμενο στην ίσαμε τότε
ιστορία. Δύο από αυτά τα τεχνολογικά-
οικονομικά μέσα ήσαν ακόμη ελάσσονος
σημασίας: η μηχανική αναμετάδοση του ήχου
και ο Τύπος. Ο φωνογράφος είχε περιορισμένη
απήχηση εξαιτίας του κόστους των εξαρτημάτων
που απαιτούσε, με αποτέλεσμα οι ιδιοκτήτες του
να είναι σχεδόν αποκλειστικά οι λίγο-πολύ
ευκατάστατοι»
(cf. The Age of Empire, op. cit, p. 367).

What we have referred to as the “virtuous circle” between sound and technology would really only be consummated throughout Europe in the period following the Second World War – it would only be then that improved material conditions, in combination with an on-going series of technological revolutions, would allow even the “Left-wing” commentators of Epitheorisi Technis to describe such period in 1965 as follows:

«Η ανήσυχη εποχή μας εκδηλώνεται με
τρόπους πολλούς και ποικίλλους κι όχι
μόνο στον καλλιτεχνικό τομέα … Η ανάπτυξη
 της τεχνικής μας οδηγεί σ’ έναν καινούργιο
 κύκλο γνώσης και υλικών»
(cf. Epitheorisi Technis, No 128,
September1965, p. 218, my emph.).

We shall end this section on advertizing discourse promoting the radio – i.e. discourse in its specifically “adjustive” version – by quoting a passage from Susan Douglas’ work, Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004). This work, focusing on what Douglas calls the “high-fidelity counterculture”, seems to fully confirm the approach we have here adopted (as does the work of Antoine Hennion, op. cit.). She writes:

“As music came to rule the airwaves, FM
radio drew in new listeners because of its
high-fidelity sound capabilities … Both the
high-fidelity market and the growing youth
counterculture of the 1960’s had similar
goals for the FM spectrum … Both groups
wanted to treat music as an important experience
rather than as just a trendy pastime … The goals
and market potential of both the high-fidelity
lovers and the youth counterculture created an
atmosphere on the FM dial that had never before
occurred” (cf. esp. pp. 266-278).

GLOSSARY

NOTES:
● «… στις ίδιες βιτρίνες απεικονίζεται ο νεωτερικός εφιάλτης. Το νέο είναι τελικά το διαρκώς ίδιο. Ο νεωτερισμός εκφυλίζεται σε μόδα. Μόδα που σαρώνει και τις ίδιες τις στοές»: … it is in those very shop windows themselves that the modernist nightmare is portrayed. The new is ultimately that which is perpetually the same. Modernism degenerates into fashion. A fashion that also engulfs the shopping arcades themselves (free translation)
● «6 ΑΚΟΜΗ ΤΥΠΟΙ»: six more types/models
● «Dimotika»: traditional Greek folk songs
● «άγχος αναμονής ευτυχίας»: an expectant anxiety, anticipative of joy
● «αδίστακτο ρεαλισμό»: hard realism (free translation)
● «αιώνιον»: eternal
● «Αμερικλάνος»: a play on the word «Αμερικάνος», which means “an American”; here, the rather vulgar sounding «Αμερικλάνος» may be freely translated as suggesting an “American fart”
● «απέραντη γοητεία της μουσικής»: the boundless charm of music
● «απολαύσεως»: pleasures (of sound)
● «απορία»: puzzlement/question; «να απορεί»: to question, to wonder
● «αποτελεί ιδανική σύνθεση των τελευταίων επιτεύξεων της ηλεκτρονικής»: it constitutes the ideal synthesis of the latest achievements in electronics
● «Αρβανιτοχώρι της Αττικής»: Arvanitic village of Attica
● «αρμονικό σύνολο»: harmonious whole
● «ατελιέ»: studio
● «αυτό το μεγάλο κουτί, με τα τεράστια κουμπιά, γεμάτο λυχνίες, που φωτίζανε αμυδρά»: that large box, with the huge buttons, and full of dimly lit radio tubes
● «βλαχοπρόξενος»: a synthetic word, with a derogatory meaning – it combines the word «βλάχος», meaning a country bumpkin/hillbilly with the word «πρόξενος», meaning consul
● «για να μην την βουτήξουνε»: so that the others do not grab it (the sewing machine)
● «για όλο τον κόσμο»: for everyone; the phrase plays on the word «κόσμο», which can mean both “world” and “everyone” or “all the people”
● «για πολλά χρόνια κατέβαιναν απλά για να θαυμάσουν… κυρίως “όλα τα νέα Ευρωπαϊκά μοντέλα”…»: for many years, people would go to the department stores so as to mainly marvel at “all the new European fashions”… (free translation)
● «για πολλά χρόνια κατέβαιναν… για να… δουν τις τιμές»: for many years, people would go to the department stores so as to check on the prices (free translation)
● «για τους φανατικούς της υψηλής πιστότητας, ως τις επαγγελματικές συσκευές μεγίστης ακρίβειας»: (includes tape recorders) for the fanatics of high fidelity, but also offers professional equipment of maximum precision (free translation)
● «γρήγορα εξοικειώθηκαν με αυτές [τις συσκευές]»: people quickly familiarized themselves with these devices/that equipment
● «δαίμονες»: demons
● «δεν υποκύπτει»: does not succumb, give in
● «δημιουργία»: creativity
● «διαθέτει ρυθμιστή εξ αποστάσεως»: equipped with a remote control
● «Δίνετε κι’ εδώ εξετάσεις…»: literally: here too you sit for exams – in the sense of meeting the expected standards, as explained in the text
● «Ειδικά κατασκευασμένο για λήψεις στερεοφωνικών εκπομπών FM»: specially manufactured for the reception of FM stereophonic broadcasting
● «Εικόνες λαμπερές, διαφημίσεις, επιδεικνυόμενα τεχνολογικά επιτεύγματα, φωτισμένες βιτρίνες, όψεις του πλήθους στα βουλεβάρτα. Ολη τούτη η εικονογραφία συνεργεί στη μυθική κατασκευή που αξιώνει την υπεροπτική και διαχρονική αίγλη του νεωτερικού μύθου της προόδου. Μια τέτοια μυθολογική εικονογραφία μαγεύει την πόλη όπως μαγεύει και τους κατοίκους της»: Bright images, advertisements, exhibited technological achievements, illuminated shop windows, views of the crowd in the boulevards. The whole of this iconography colludes in the creation of the mythical construct which asserts the overbearing and diachronic glamour of the modernist myth of progress. Such mythical iconography entrances/enchants the city as it also entrances/enchants its inhabitants (free translation)
● «ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ»: exhibition, exposition or fair
● «Εκθέτοντας στις βιτρίνες των καταστημάτων τους ό,τι πιο καινούργιο και εντυπωσιακό, οι στοές… γίνονται ο πιο χαρακτηριστικός τόπος της νεωτερικής φαντασμαγορίας. Τα εμπορεύματα είναι εκθέματα: Οι επισκέπτες τους, παρόλο που δεν μπορούν οι πιο πολλοί να τα αγοράσουν, ζουν τη δύναμη του μύθου τους, την υπόσχεση ενός μέλλοντος γεμάτου ανακαλύψεις, γεμάτου θαύματα. Στις στοές, μοιάζει να υλοποιήθηκε το πιο λαμπρό παράδειγμα της νεωτερικής μυθολογίας»: Exhibiting in the shop windows of their department stores whatever be newest and most impressive, the shopping arcades (of Paris) become the most characteristic place of modernist phantasmagoria. Here, commodities are exhibits: Although most visitors cannot buy these, they live the power of their myth, the promise of a future full of discoveries, full of miracles. It is in the arcades that the most glorious paradigm of modernistic mythology seems to have been materialized (free translation)
● «εκτίθενται… στις μεγαλύτερες Εκθέσεις της χώρας μας»: displayed in the biggest exhibitions/expos of our country
● «Ελάτε να το απολαύσετε»: come to enjoy it
● «ελπίδα»: hope
● «ΕΝΑ GRUNDIG ΕΙΝΑΙ ΚΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΣΑΣ»: a GRUNDIG tape recorder is also for you
● «έναν ολόκληρο κόσμο»: a whole world
● «εντελώς εξηκριβωμένον και εκ των πραγμάτων ειλημμένον»: (whatever stated in the article) is fully verified and de facto settled/finalized/conclusive
● «Επιστήμη-Ανοικοδόμηση»: Science-Reconstruction
● «Επιτραπέζιον»: tabletop radio, as an ornamental piece
● «εποχή μεθυσμένη για δημιουργία»: an epoch intoxicated by or with the wish to create (free translation)
● «ευθηνάς τιμάς»: cheap prices
● «ΖΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΜΑΣ ΜΙΑ ΕΠΙΔΕΙΞΙ»: ask us for a demonstration (of how the device functions)
● «η επανάσταση ξεμαγεύει… την πόλη»: revolution disenchants/demystifies/breaks the spell of… the city
● «η μεγάλη αγάπη μου»: my great love
● «η σημασία των τετριμμένων»: the meaning/significance of the commonplace/mundane
● «ηλεκτρονική»: electronics
● «θαμπωτικά πράγματα»: dazzling objects
● «θαυμάζω»: admire, marvel at
● «ΘΡΑΝΙΟΜΟΔΑ»: literally, school desk fashion
● «ΙΑΠΩΝΙΚΗ ΠΑΡΟΙΜΙΑ»: a Japanese saying
● «ικανοποιούν το υψηλό γούστο και των πιο απαιτητικών αγοραστών»: they satisfy the high taste of even the most demanding consumers/shoppers
● «και μετά τη μόδα»: fashion as such only comes second (free translation)
● «και σεις»: you too
● «κακής ποιότητος του μετάλλου»: bad quality of the metal
● «Κας ΣΙΑΣ ΚΩΣΤΑΡΕΛΛΟΥ»: Mrs./Ms. Sia Kostarellou
● «Καταστήματα Λαμπρόπουλοι»: Lambropouli Department Stores
● «ΚΛΩΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ ΒΑΜΒΑΚΟΣ»: cotton spinning unit (of a factory)
● «Κομοδίνα καρυδιάς… σε 5 τύπους»: bedside tables, made of walnut wood – five different types of these (singular: «κομοδίνο»)
● «κοπτική»: cutting and sewing, as explained in the text itself
● «κόπωσιν»: fatigue
● «κυρά Γιώργαινα»: similar to Mrs. Georgia or, more accurately, Mrs. Georgena, feminine of George
● «Λεύκα»: Lefka, one of the oldest suburbs of Pireaus, located more or less midway between the suburbs of Maniatika and Kaminia
● «μάγκας»: cf. our explanation of «μαγκιά» above; «μάγκας» is the person who adopts the style of life as described
● «Με τον τέλειο μηχανισμό του, που εξασφαλίζει την πιο υψηλή πιστότητα»: with its perfect technology, which ensures the highest fidelity
● «Μεγάλο Κατάστημα»: large department store
● «μένουν για πάντα»: last forever (free translation)
● «μετράω»: count or, more accurately in the context, calculate
● «μικρές τιμές»: low prices
● «μικροπωλητής με πάγκο στην οδό Αιόλου»: a street peddler plying his trade from a stand at Aiolou Street
● «Μοδιστρούλα»: little seamstress
● «μπλε σχολική ποδιά»: blue schoolgirl outfit/apron
● «να αποκτήσετε»: to obtain, get, possess
● «να χαζεύει»/ «χαζεύοντας»: to lounge around, hang about, look around, stare – essentially suggesting the act of engaging in window-shopping
● «νεωτερισμούς»: modern fashions
● «Ο άνθρωπος δημιουργός»: the creative person, or: the human being as creator (free translation)
● «Ο κόσμος πυκνότατος, αστράφτοντας μέσα στα γιορτερά του»: dense crowds of people, resplendent in their formal Easter/church going clothes
● «ΟΔΟΣ ΘΗΒΩΝ ΕΛΕΥΣΙΝΑΣ»: the old national road Thivon (Thebes) – Elefsinas
● «Παγκοσμίου λήψεως»: worldwide radio reception/radio signal
● «περιέργεια»: curiosity
● «πλανόδιος»: street vendor/itinerant trader
● «ΠΛΕΚΤΗΡΙΑ»: knitting unit (of a factory)
● «ποδοκίνητες ραπτομηχανές»: foot- or pedal-operated sewing machines
● «ποδοκίνητες»: foot- or pedal-operated
● «πολυτελές κομψοτέχνημα»: luxury work of art/objet d’art
● «που λύνει όλα τα προβλήματα του σπιτιού»: which solves all problems related to the household
● «Πρόκειται για την “επανενεργοποίηση των μυθικών δυνάμεων” που χαρακτηρίζει τον “ύπνο γεμάτο όνειρα” στον οποίο βύθισε την πόλη η καπιταλιστική νεωτερικότητα»: This involves a “reactivation of the mythical powers” which characterizes that “sleep full of dreams” within which capitalist modernism has sunk the city (free translation)
● «Προσαρμόζεται ακριβώς στην ακουστική κάθε διαμερίσματος»: it fully adjusts to the acoustics of each and every apartment (free translation)
● «προσδοκίες»: expectations
● «πύλες ενός παραδείσου… θαμπωτικών πραγμάτων»: the gates of a paradise full of dazzling things/objects (free translation)
● «πυρετό της ύπαρξης»: the fever of existence
● «ΡΑΠΤΟΜΗΧΑΝΑΣ ΤΖΟΝΕΣ»: Jones sewing machines
● «ράφτρα που δούλευε στην σοφίτα»: the seamstress who worked in her attic (“the attic seamstress”)
● «Ρετσίνας»: Retsinas, Greek surname
● «σε ανοιχτό ή σκούρο ξύλο»: in light or dark colour wood
● «σεβασμό»: respect, as also explained in the text
● «σήμα της εμπιστοσύνης»: trademark trust/trustmark
● «σκυλίσιο ντρίλι ύφασμα»: drill fabric, a stout, durable cotton fabric, usually with a strong bias (diagonal) in the weave; here compared to dog skin
● «Στερεοφωνικόν ραδιογραμμόφωνον»: stereophonic radio gramophone
● «στις πτυχές των γεωλογικών στρώσεων, που γεννούν την πόλη, στη φυσιογνωμία αντικειμένων και συμβάντων, ο Μπένγιαμιν πίστευε πως θα έβρισκε αποτυπωμένο τον χαρακτήρα της νεωτερικής ζωής»: it was in the folds of the geological layers, which give birth to a city, in the physiognomy of objects and events/happenings, that Benjamin believed he would discover – impressed therein – the nature of modernity (free translation)
● «Σχέδια αποκλειστικά»: exclusive designs
● «Τα 4 μεγάφωνά του εξασφαλίζουν τέλεια ηχητική απόδοση»: its four speakers ensure perfect sound/audio performance
● «τα ετοιμάζουν μόνες τους… χωρίς να συμβουλεύωνται μοδίστρες ή φιγουρίνια»: they make their own dresses without consulting seamstresses or fashion journals
● «τα μαγνητόφωνα GRUNDIG… ανοίγουν… νέο παράδεισο υψηλής απολαύσεως των ηχών»: the GRUNDIG tape recorders open up a new paradise of the highest pleasure in sounds (free translation)
● «τείνοντας προς το υπερθετικό»: (an age) tending towards a “hyper-positive” attitude (rejecting whatever negativism)
● «ΤΕΛΕΙΟΤΗΤΑ»: perfection
● «την επιθυμίαν της βελτιώσεως του είναι των»: the wish to improve/ameliorate their being/their own existence
● «τι ταιριάζει στον τύπο σας και στην ηλικία σας»: what is it that suits your “type” and your age
● «τις πιο πολύπλοκες εργασίες»: the most complex of tasks
● «τις στερεοφωνικές συσκευές για τους φανατικούς»: the stereophonic equipment for the fanatics
● «τιτανικά δημιουργική»: titanically creative
● «Το εμπόρευμα μετατρέπεται σε θέαμα και οι περαστικοί σε θαμπωμένους θεατές που ονειρεύονται»: The commodity transforms into a spectacle and the passersby become mesmerized spectators who dream (free translation)
● «το θρανίο ως αναπαυτήρα και το βιβλίο ως αναψυκτικό»: the desk as a place to rest/relax and the book as a refreshment
● «το πρακτικό γούστο»: the practical taste
● «το… καλό σας γούστο»: your good taste
● «τον νόμο της φετιχιστικής φαντασμαγορίας»: the law of fetishist phantasmagoria
● «υλικότητα του αστικού κόσμου»: the materiality/corporality of the urban bourgeois world
● «υπαρξιακή κακομοιριά»: existential misery, wretchedness
● «ΧΑΜΗΛΗΝ ΤΙΜΗΝ»: low price
● «ψευτοπράγματα»: little cheap things, of no real use

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE “ADJUSTIVE” TYPE OF ADVERTIZING DISCOURSE: THE ISSUE OF “EROS” AND WORK

One of the most important manifestations of the “adjustive” type of advertizing discourse in the socio-economic history of Greek advertizing has been that which has addressed itself to the question of work and to that of sex. While these two issues may be said to be distinct in themselves, there is nonetheless an invisible line which adjoins them in much of thematic discourse. For one thing, both European and Greek ideological discourse, dating back to the 1920’s and on, has critically entertained the relationship between these two central spheres of human life. If only for that reason, we shall have to consider the history of ideological discourse pertaining to the questions of work and feminine sensuality, and thereby establish some rudiments of a context wherein Greek advertizing of this sort in the 1950’s-1970’s may be placed.

The conceptual link between work and sex has not been an arbitrary choice either on the part of academic intellectuals or on the part of organic intellectuals formulating advertizing discourse. At a very simple level, while the sphere of work may be seen as an act of “production”, the sphere of sexuality may be taken to be an act of “reproduction” (whether in the narrow sense of biological reproduction or in the broader sense of a socio-cultural reproduction of the working person’s self-identity in the community). Thus, the seesawing symbiosis of the production-reproduction spheres of life have long tortured the thought of both academic theoreticians and the creative imagination of agents promoting commodities and services through advertizing discourse. On the part of theoreticians, the questions posited at least since the early 20th century have revolved around the exact relationship between the “economic” sphere (work) and the “extra-economic” sphere (by some, as we shall see, referred to as “eros”), and the extent to which the former determines – or perhaps even stifles – the latter. On the part of organic intellectuals designing advertizing discourse, the agenda had been rather different (though not unrelated to the work of theoreticians) – for them, the problem had taken two basic forms: firstly, one would have to discover the appropriate language and symbols so as to manufacture a discourse that best reflected both the demands located in the “economic” sphere and the tastes and values located in the “extra-economic” sphere. Here, advertizing strategy would be of the “adjustive” type. But secondly, and at the same time, the advertizing industry would try to “provoke”the popular masses through the manufacturing of discourse that either misrepresented the real limitations pertaining to the “economic” sphere or, and especially, that distorted the sphere of the “extra-economic” by indulging in highly “sexist” discourse whereby females were presented as luscious or even beddable “sex-machines”.

At least since the 1940’s and through to the 1960’s and 1970’s, both forms of discourse co-existed, at least as regards the Greek case. But while we have throughout this project drawn a clear-cut dividing line between the “adjustive” and the “provocative” forms of advertizing discourse, we have at the same time assumed that both these forms constitute elements of a holistic ideological structure united in itself and within its internal contradictions. Such advertizing discourse as-a-Whole, however,would tilt either towards “adjustment” or “provocation” depending on a variety of both objective forces (such as material conditions/standards of living) and subjective forces (such as the life experiences and social/personal consciousness of an “Amalia-type”). For our purposes here, our approach shall be to somewhat “freeze” this ever-changing flux of ideological “tilts” and focus on the “adjustive” type of advertizing discourse focusing on work and sex in post-war Greece (this will, of course, not mean that we shall simply ignore whatever elements of “sexism” had permeated even the “adjustive” form of advertizing discourse itself).

But seeing all advertisements as ideological traces belonging to a structural practice constituting a “Whole” allows for a methodological tool that shall enable us to examine the Greek case from a bird’s-eye view, so to speak. By this we mean that Greek advertizing discourse related to work and sex shall be examined by presenting samples that may be of two distinct but interrelated types – these being: a) advertisements which promoted some product or service by directly or indirectly implying some form of interaction between the “economic” and the “extra-economic” spheres of life; and b) advertisements which promoted some product or service by directly or indirectly addressing themselves to either the “economic” or the “extra-economic” spheres exclusively but which, seen through the bird’s-eye view of a holistic ideological structure, in fact constituted different dimensions of the selfsame discourse.

The European context – the ideological heritage of a George Bataille

Perhaps the best way to fully understand the history of ideological discourse of post-war Europe is to consider its more immoderate representatives, but whose work nonetheless remains symptomatic of the whole of the European ideological heritage. Jürgen Habermas does just that when he chooses to present us with the thinking of a George Bataille, who was himself deeply interested in researching the relationship between “work” and “eroticism”. Thus, in his Ο φιλοσοφικός λόγος της νεωτερικότητας (op. cit.), Habermas devotes a special section to this rather egregious thinker who we know was to influence the thought of post-structuralism, Derrida’s “deconstructionism” and the various Althusserian notions of “materialism”. Entitled «Μεταξύ ερωτισμού και γενικής οικονομίας: Bataille», Habermas’ chapter on Bataille outlines this mode of thinking and critically draws out its de facto implications. We may simply add that, throughout the thinking of Bataille, there is that outright rejection of all manifestations of “work” insofar as such practice is a process of “alienation” (itself a rather problematic concept posited by a young Marx and later more or less dropped in his mature work). But it is almost impossible to truly understand the manner in which the European intellectual tradition has dealt with the work ↔ eros interface without considering the extremities of a Bataille; it is also as impossible to understand the positions of Greek intellectuals on the same issue without again keeping the thinking of a Bataille in mind. Finally, both Bataille and Greek thinking of the post-war period need be kept in mind if we are to understand advertizing discourse on work/eros in 1960’s-1970’s Greece. And it can only but be in such context that the “Amalia-type’s” relationship to work and sensuality can best be understood. But before we examine such interrelated contexts, we shall need to briefly outline the thinking of Bataille, or at least how such thinking has been critically presented to us by Habermas.

Based on the critical presentation of Habermas’ work, the thought of Bataille regarding the work ↔ eros interface may be summarized as follows:

1. Bataille is against the very existence of the “economic” sphere – he sees a need for its annulment («άρση της οικονομίας», cf. Habermas, p.292).
2. He posits the “erotic” sphere as a form of life directly opposed to the “economic” sphere – these are two spheres of life that stand in an irreconcilable contradiction with respect to one another (ibid., p. 263).
3. They are irreconcilable since the “economic” sphere constitutes the habits of everydayness, and such habits are equated to the “world of profanity” («τον κόσμο του βέβηλου», ibid., p. 271).
4. The irreconcilability with the “erotic” field is further stamped by the fact that the “profanity” of the “economic” sphere renders the latter a “redundant world” («περιττό», ibid., p.271). Put simply, «βέβηλο» = «περιττό» (profanity = redundant).
5. The “profane” and the “redundant” world of the “economy” needs to be annulled since such world constitutes a “homogeneity/uniformity of everydayness” – that which is anathema for Bataille is what Habermas refers to as «Η ομοιογένεια και ομοιομορφία της κανονικής καθημερινής ζωής» (ibid., p.271). Thus, one may expand the equation of Bataille’s thought by stating that «βέβηλο» = «περιττό» = «ομοιογένεια»/«ομοιομορφία» (homogeneity/uniformity) = «κανονική καθημερινή ζωή» (everydayness) = «οικονομία» (the “economic” sphere)). This equation is naturally the direct opposite of the “erotic” sphere of life.
6. All forms of life that are the habits of everydayness are the «επιταγές του κανονικού» (ibid., p. 264), and Bataille is radically opposed to such “order” of the “regular”, the “normal” and the “routine”.
7. In essence, Bataille posits himself against all forms of “bourgeois” life, such forms being precisely the habits of everydayness and “routineness” – as Habermas puts it, Bataille’s work is radically critical of all the «αστικές μορφές ζωής», as also – and which comes down to the exact same thing – against «τις πάγιες συνήθειες της καθημερινότητας» (ibid., p. 264).
8. For Bataille, the very “logic” of society needs to be done away with, and this is so because such “logic” means an enchainment to the structures of work. As Habermas puts it, society and the “logic” which rules it means – for Bataille – that a person is «αγκυρωμένος στις δομές της εργασίας» (ibid., p. 279). As we shall see when we discuss the case of the “Amalia-type” below, such “enchainment” was of course a de facto reality for such type of person. But what we shall try to gauge is the extent to which such “enchainment” to the everydayness of the structures of work was in fact reducible to a profane banality completely devoid of the ambitions and capacities related to work as such. And further, we shall have to consider the as tangible possibility that the “Amalia-type” could possibly (and the same time as she worked as a “Clerk”) find herself as much “chained” to the “structures” of the “erotic” field itself. For our purposes, such questions shall have to be considered by investigating the public “language” that best reflected her condition – viz. the “adjustive” advertizing discourse dealing with work/eros (and which, while being manufactured for her, had to be manufactured in ways that established at least some token rapport with her whims, desires, dreams and superstitions).
9. In direct contrast to our approach, Bataille’s understanding of the work process – which is for him ipso facto a definitive phenomenon of capitalism – has the effect of “chaining” people to its structures and by so “chaining” them it ultimately “homogenizes” them – as Habermas writes: «Στην καπιταλιστική κοινωνία ενεργεί ως ομοιογενοποιητική δύναμη κυρίως η μετρούμενη σε χρόνο και χρήμα εργασία, δηλαδή η μισθωτή εργασία» (ibid., p. 271). For Bataille – as also for most Marxists let it be said – the overpowering or overdetermining force in any working person’s life was, not simply the “economic” sphere with all its transactions and in-built constraints, but the act of working as such. Such an abstracted conception of life, however – in direct contrast to a real person even working extremely long hours on the shop floor (as would the “Practical Mechanics” at the A&M Mill factory, op. cit.) – simply ignores the multidimensionality of such person’s life, and especially as such multiplicity of life-forms is enacted outside the factory gates, and as especially so when a working person indulges in the overpowering “structures” of the “erotic” field. Such latter field, as we shall try to show below, could itself have had a steamroller effect on the “Amalia-type” in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Further, Bataille’s understanding of “homogeneity” is itself a dismal oversimplification of a socio-historical phenomenon: it simply refuses to entertain the possibility that such so-called “homogeneity” could have as well functioned in society as an active agent of the emergent Greek middle class milieu (such milieu encompassing both “economic” and “extra-economic” demands, self-images and potential worldviews). Specifically as concerns advertizing discourse itself, whatever degrees of social “homogeneity” were literally scattered asunder by the very fact that the market could offer consumers the capacity to choose from an ever-widening variety of styles, tastes, etc. with respect to goods and services. Such freedom of choice, determining the personal/private manner in which one lived one’s life, diluted the density of whatever “homogeneity” and “uniformity”.
10. Taking “homogeneity” and “uniformity” as a totalitarian fixity of some monolithic subconsciousness mechanically imposed on people by the act of work, Bataille can only but draw the conclusions he has a priorily assumed to be the case: work is, to quote Habermas, an «ανιαρή ομοιογένεια» (ibid., 279). And he thus makes his next move, further expanding his equation: work = monotonous “homogeneity” = the world of “things” («η κοινωνία των πραγμάτων», Habermas, ibid., p. 279). It is this profane, banal world of “things” that Bataille wishes to utterly destroy, it being the sine qua non of the “bourgeois” world (for classical Marxists, such “things” being more accurately termed “commodities”). For us, of course, it was precisely such “things” that the “Amalia-type” would wish to come to possess, and she could even go on strike so that she gained the capacity to buy them. And further, it would be these very “things” that would allow the “Amalia-type” to actively engage – potentially at least – in the field of the “erotic” (and which could have included a pair of somewhat “sexy” stockings, a handbag, or a set of makeup products). It would be advertizing discourse, naturally, that would mediate for the fulfillment of such real needs on the part of the “Amalia-type”.
11. If, for us, the “Amalia-type” is a real historical personality, in the sense that such type has a history, for Bataille such type of person is a veritable ghost in a world she has been manipulatively marooned in. The world of work, which is the capitalist world of “things”, has a very specific effect on those who engage in whatever forms of wage-labour – the person suffers a “loss” of his person or, and which comes down to the same thing, we see a “loss” of the subject in history. And, as far as Bataille is concerned, the likes of an “Amalia-type” suffer a loss of real self-respect. Now, while such a conclusion suggests the epitome of all judgmental arrogance, it would be precisely such self-righteous attitude that would be expressed by the Greek “Left” itself, and not only in the period we are examining. The Bataille position, expressed in 1949, is quoted by Habermas himself – it reads as follows: «Εξαιτίας της συσσώρευσης του πλούτου με σκοπό την όλο και μεγαλύτερη βιομηχανική παραγωγή, η αστική κοινωνία είναι η κοινωνία των πραγμάτων. Δεν είναι, σε σύγκριση με την εικόνα της φεουδαρχικής κοινωνίας, μια κοινωνία προσώπων… Το μετατρέψιμο σε χρήμα αντικείμενο έχει μεγαλύτερη ισχύ από το υποκείμενο, το οποίο αφότου βρίσκεται σε εξάρτηση από τα αντικείμενα (εφόσον τα κατέχει) δεν υπάρχει πια πραγματικά για τον εαυτό του και δεν έχει πια αληθινή αξιοπρέπεια» (ibid., p. 297, my emph.).
12. Bataille is therefore in search for an emergency exit to make his escape from a world peopled by self-abnegating ghosts chained to the cogs of work – even more than that, he needs to escape the Western “Logos” of “modernity” itself. According to Habermas, Bataille had one central aim in mind: to escape from the «αιχμαλωσία της νεωτερικότητας», from the «κλειστό σύμπαν του κοσμοϊστορικού νικητή, του δυτικού Λόγου» (ibid., p. 265).
13. But where was this morbid radical philosopher and serial womanizer to escape to? It had to be to some “higher level” of “reality” («ανώτερο επίπεδο της πραγματικότητας», Habermas, ibid., p. 271) – a “reality” that was never meant for the “average” person as was the “Amalia-type” and which, in any case, the latter would have found absolutely perverse, not to say quite laughable. If, for Nietzsche – and for reasons of his own – «Η μελέτη του μέσου ανθρώπου… αποτελεί απαραίτητο μέρος της ιστορίας της ζωής κάθε φιλοσόφου» (Πέρα από το καλό και το κακό, Νησίδες, 1991, p. 36), for Bataille, all “average” persons constituted an «ανιαρή ομοιογένεια» to be replaced by some «αντίκοσμο» (Habermas, ibid., p. 272 & p. 265).
14. Essentially, for the likes of a Bataille, it was the “Amalia-type” that had to be destroyed and to be substituted by something else – for him, it was exactly this “Amalia-type” that constituted a monotonous bore lacking all self-respect and devoid of that “other world” of “eros”. And, being so unauthentic, this “type” had to be replaced by the “ecstasy of eros” (Bataille meant this both in a philosophical sense and in a literal sense: apart from himself being a rampant womanizer, he could even – as he did – masturbate in front of the body of his dead mother). Bataille therefore dreamt of an “anti-world” peopled by “heterogeneity”, such “heterogeneity” being informed by an “erotic ecstasy” and driven by dream images and other impulses. Habermas sees this kind of thinking as expressive of a whole school of thought and which was a radical critique of “bourgeois modernism” with theoretical ramifications filtering through to the 1960’s and on. As Habermas writes, Bataille’s thought belongs to that stream of European theory that «επιμένουν να κινητοποιούν προκλητικά τις εκστατικές δυνάμεις της μέθης, της ονειρικής ζωής και των ορμών εν γένει» (ibid., p. 264).
15. Of course – and with respect to such “radical critique” – it was never really a case of “mobilizing” anything or anyone in whatever important sense of the word (apart, perhaps, from the essentially “cultural” dimensions of 1968 Paris youth). Bataille’s real contribution to the history of ideological discourse was to “discover” and disclose that the “Amalia-type” – wherever that type found itself in the workplaces of Europe – was the “anti-erotic” type, and an Amalia Eleftheriadou would be thus precisely because she worked.
16. What Bataille – and his essentially “Left” epigones – would in fact be doing was to posit what Habermas calls some sort of a «μεταφυσική κοσμοεικόνα» (ibid., p. 292) in direct contradistinction to the apparently “anti-erotic” homogenous monotony of the “Amalia-type” (especially, though not exclusively, the European version of such “type”). The metaphysical would substitute real history.
17. Thus, the real dreams, hopes, wishes and impulses of whichever “Amalia-type” would have to be rejected and some kind of an “eschatological hope” («εσχατολογική προσδοκία», Habermas, ibid., p. 284) would take its place.

 

There are just two critical points we need to make here regarding the thinking of a Bataille before we move on to consider the ideological discourse of Greek intellectuals on the question of the work ↔ eros interface since the 1920’s and on. Firstly, we have seen that Bataille would reduce capitalism to work and would reduce both to a world of “things”. This would lead him to drawing an irreconcilable division between work and the “erotic”, and in that way he would deny whichever “Amalia-type” the possibility of engaging in the “erotic” field (apart, of course, from engaging in banal, profane manifestations of such “erotic”, something which, as we shall see, Horkheimer would himself come to call “cheap”). For Bataille, the world of “things” swallows up the “erotic” as it were, and the “Amalia-type” is just that type that has fallen victim to such “things”. But would an Amalia Eleftheriadou have necessarily “lived” her relationship to “things” in just that way? At this point, it would simply be of some interest to compare and contrast Bataille’s understanding of “things” to that of his contemporary, Hermann Hesse (they both died in 1962). Consider how Hesse, himself hardly a “conventional” thinker (and as critical of “modernism”), could approach the whole question of the world of “things” – in 1927 he would write as follows:

 

«Γι’ αυτά τα πράγματα, για τα οποία ήξερα και
καταλάβαινα λιγότερα από ό,τι μια γλώσσα των
εσκιμώων, έμαθα πολλά από τη Μαρία. Έμαθα
προπαντός άλλου πως αυτά τα μικρά παιχνίδια,
τα πολυτελή αντικείμενα της μόδας, δεν είναι
απλώς ασήμαντα πράγματα και μια επινόηση των
ακόρεστων για το χρήμα εργοστασιαρχών και εμπόρων,
αλλά δικαιολογημένα, ωραία, ποικίλα πράγματα,
ένας μικρός ή μάλλον μεγάλος κόσμος από αντικείμενα,
που όλα έχουν ένα μοναδικό σκοπό, να υπηρετήσουν
τον έρωτα, να εκλεπτύνουν τις αισθήσεις, να ζωντανέψουν
το νεκρό περιβάλλον και να το πλουτίσουν με μαγευτικά
και νέα όργανα αγάπης, από αρώματα μέχρι παπούτσια
για χορό, από δαχτυλίδια μέχρι κουτιά με τσιγάρα, από
ζώνη μέχρι γάντια. Αυτή η τσάντα δεν ήταν καμιά τσάντα,
αυτό το πορτοφολάκι κανένα πορτοφολάκι, τα λουλούδια
δεν ήταν λουλούδια, η βεντάλια καμιά βεντάλια… όλα
ήταν πλαστικό υλικό της αγάπης, της μαγείας, του
θέλγητρου…»
(cf. Hermann Hesse, Der Steppenwolf (1927); O λύκος
της στέπας, Γράμματα, 1982, p. 147, my emph.).

 

The second critical point one need make with respect to the thinking of a Bataille is perhaps more obvious, especially as one writes in the early 21st century. For Bataille, the field of “eroticism” secretes an “essence” the status of which can only be discovered through some type of “mystical” experience. Habermas puts it as follows: «Ο ερωτισμός τον οδηγεί στη σκέψη ότι η γνώση του ουσιώδους επιτυγχάνεται μόνο μέσω μιας μυστικιστικής εμπειρίας» (ibid., p. 293, my emph.). Of course, whatever forms of metaphysical essentialism can only but be rejected out of hand if one is to understand the “Amalia-type” from a socio-historical point of view (for an excellent post-Marxist critique of “essentialism”, cf. Ernesto Laclau, New Reflections on the Revolution of our Time, Verso, London, 1990; also New Left Review, No. 166, Nov.-Dec. 1987, pp. 79-106). It would be such “essentialism” that would lead thinkers such as Bataille to reject the real world of the “Amalia-type”, a world that could encompass the real and possible combination or co-existence of both “eros” and work itself – such combination would, as we shall try to show below, take the form of a “continuum” interlinking the practice of “eros” and the practice of work in advertizing discourse of the 1960’s and 1970’s, and would lead to an explosion of the “luxuries” of the “erotic” practice by the 1980’s in Greece.

The Greek context since the 1920’s and on – a refracted form of essentialism: the “practical spirit” versus “ethical conduct”

It is well beyond the purposes of this project to examine the relationship between the European ideological heritage and the thinking of Greek intellectual élites since the 1920’s. We shall simply try to present the thinking of the latter and attempt some ad hoc comparisons and contrasts with respect to thinkers such as Bataille. This may to some extent delineate the overall ideological context which would ultimately succumb to the overpowering ideology of Greek advertizing discourse by the 1960’s. Wary of whatever in-depth analysis, we shall basically let available Greek texts on the work ↔ eros interface do the speaking for us, if only so as to gauge the depth of the ideological rupture that was to ensue in the 1960’s.

There was a definite “essentialism” in the ideological discourse of Greek intellectuals of the 1920’s and 1930’s, though this was an indigenous “essentialism” attempting to define some form of “ethical conduct” for the Greek popular masses. That there was such an element of “essentialism” can definitely be traced back to the old European ideological heritage (for instance, Kantian philosophy was being promoted by Konstandinos Tsatsos and Panagiotis Kanellopoulos in the 1930’s and which would somehow reverberate at least within the Greek educational system). On the other hand, such “essentialism” was being adopted in refracted forms, given the particular socio-cultural circumstances of Greek society at the time (something which we cannot go into here, but cf., for instance, P. Kanellopoulos, «Ο γερμανικός ιδεαλισμός και αι ιστορικαί επιστήμαι», Archeion Philosophias kai Theorias ton Epistimon, vol. 1, issue 2, April-June, 1929).

And yet, despite the “ethicalist essentialism” or, rather, precisely because of it, Greek intellectuals were very much aware of the radical changes in “conduct” that were, at some point in time, to besiege even Greece. And they could sense that it would be the factor of “fashion” that would be the catalyst. They could see that the ways of the world – and its various local life-forms – were changing, and were doing so thanks to the new waves in taste and “fashion” heralding from Western Europe, at least in spermatic form. Such a realization – regarding the “ethics” of conduct and not necessarily the “Greekness” or otherwise of local life-forms – was not limited to the thinking of the top academic élite. This was a rampart consciousness evident amongst most organic intellectuals starting from the 1920’s. And further, it was an awareness of change that was certainly not limited to Athenian intellectuals. Here, we may consider, for the sake of historical interest, a publication entitled ΚΥΚΛΑΔΙΚΟΝ ΗΜΕΡΟΛΟΓΙΟΝ, edited by a certain Petros M. Stephanos back in the year 1925. This publication would carry a text very tellingly entitled «ΑΛΛΟΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΤΩΡΑ» and as tellingly sub-titled «Από τα Τραγούδια της μόδας» – the lighthearted text read as follows:

 

«Αλλάζ’ ο κόσμος κ’ η ζωή κ’ η μόδα καθ’ ημέρα,
τα κρινολίνα άλλοτε φορούσαν η γυναίκες,
που, σαν αλώνι εφαίνετο κάθε ζουρλοπαντιέρα,
τώρα σαν βέργες στέκονται και σαν μπιλιάρδου στέκες».
(cf. Κυκλαδικόν Ημερολόγιον, 1925 [έτος
πρώτον), p. 103, my emph.).

 

Such awareness of change had to be dealt with in terms of the prevailing “ethicalist essentialism”. But here we need to dwell on an extremely important – though also paradoxical – commonality of focus between Greek thinking and that of European thought: whatever “essentialism” in the thinking of Greek intellectuals starting from the 1920’s and on addressed itself to the exact same issues that concerned the thinking of intellectuals such as Bataille – viz. the “economic” field and the field of the “erotic”, and the relationship between these. But while the issues themselves were the exact same, the handling of these was different. Yet still – we are suggesting – and despite the difference in handling, both Greek and European thought was characterized by the rudiments of a common “essentialism”. We may here consider how the Κυκλαδικόν Ημερολόγιον of 1925 would handle the issues of the “economic” and the “erotic”. In an article entitled «Κοινωνικά ζητήματα» and with a sub-title calling on the “moral guardians” of Greece to be on the alert («Φύλακες γρηγορείτε!»), Stephanos writes:

 

«Δεν καταδικάζομεν τον έρωτα, αφού ο έρως
πρέπει να προηγείται του γάμου, και ημείς είμεθα
υπέρ του γάμου. Δυστυχώς ευρισκόμεθα σήμερον…
εις την εποχήν της ύλης και της σαρκός».
(ibid., p. 35, my emph.).

 

For Stephanos, his “epoch” was marked by the values (or, rather, the vices) of “materialism” and those of the “flesh”, and which may fairly accurately be translated into Bataille’s “economic” and “erotic” fields respectively. Thus, both a Greek intellectual of the 1920’s and a French intellectual (whose work first made its appearance in the same decade) would evaluate their times in terms of these two distinct life-forms. One wonders if, at the time, it could really have been otherwise, although it remains an open question as to whether these two intellectuals understood these two life-forms in the exact same way. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that both Stephanos and Bataille would choose to look down on “materialistic” obsessions, albeit for different reasons. While, as we have seen, whatever “materialism” would necessarily be a manifestation of the “bourgeois” world for Bataille, this would not necessarily be the case for a Greek intellectual such as Stephanos (unless he had fallen under the spell of Marxist thinking, something already sprouting by the 1920’s). Both, however, would wish to move away from “materialism” and the exigencies of the “economic”, and look to life-forms more expressive of the “spiritual” – in that sense, both would be espousing some form of “essentialist” thinking.

From that point of a certain commonality of thinking and thereafter, Stephanos and Bataille actually part their ways. At face value, it seems that while the French thinker is all for the so-called “erotic”, the Greek intellectual seems to reject what he calls «την εποχήν… της σαρκός». But, on a slightly closer reading, things are not as simplistic as that – in fact, Stephanos’ real position clashes with that of a Bataille for reasons which are somehow reflective of his own socio-cultural circumstances. We have seen above how, for Bataille, the “Amalia-type” had to be overcome, there being no salvation for someone “chained” to the “structures of work”. It could only be the eschatologically hoped-for “heterogeneity” of some “anti-world” that could take the place of an “Amalia-type”. For the Greek Stephanos, the “Amalia-type” – and the possible carnal passions of such type – would be “saved” by marriage and the Greek family experience – the implication here being that the field of the “erotic” was possible for a working person, and it was even possible as a virtue. Of course, the inexorable problem would emerge – and it would gradually emerge in the history of Greek “conduct”, “taste” and “attitude” – when that “Amalia-type” would begin to experiment with the “erotic” for the sake of it, outside of marriage and especially when there were no intentions for any marriage. This would be no mass phenomenon amongst the popular masses in the 1920’s – but, theoretically speaking, had there been such a phenomenon, an intellectual such as Stephanos could in some way have re-united his thought with that of a Bataille: outside the intentions of marriage, the carnal passions of an “Amalia-type” would be seen as “banal”, “profane” and “cheap”, exactly as Bataille or Horkheimer had come to evaluate them.

But, we are suggesting, the standing difference between the thinking of a Stephanos and that of Europeans such as Bataille would be that there was a certain “salvation” for working people such as the “Amalia-type” so long as the traditional values of marriage and the Greek Family Unit were upheld – in fact, that would have “salvaged” all the “Amalia-types” both from the vices of the “erotic” field and the vices of the “economic” field («της ύλης»). We say this because a thinker such as Stephanos had no real objections to the field of work, as did Bataille and as would the emerging “Left” in Greece.

The Greek variation of a Kantian-inspired “ethicalist essentialism” that one finds in the thinking of a Stephanos would mean that both the “economic” field and that of the “erotic” could, in some sense, undergo a “sublimation” so long as both fields were infused by the “spiritual”. This form of spiritualist infusion has been aptly expressed by a writer such as M. Karagatsis who, in his terribly written two-volume novel referring to the 1930’s, Ο Κίτρινος Φάκελος (Βιβλιοπωλείον της Εστίας, 1956), has this to say of a Greek industrialist:

 

«Ο Μίλτος, σήμερα, θεωρείται ο προφήτης του
εκβιομηχανισμού της Ελλάδας: ο μυστικιστής
“πεφωτισμένος” μιας αλτρουιστικής ιδεολογίας
και προσπάθειας. Πιστεύει φανατικά, καμιά
φορά και άκριτα, πως η ανάπτυξη της βιομηχανίας
το έπακρο θα εξασφαλίση την υλικήν ευημερία
του ελληνικού λαού. Όταν μοντάρη ένα νέο εργοστάσιο,
δεν ονειρεύεται τα κέρδη που θα εισρεύσουν στο
χρηματοκιβώτιό του. Οραματίζεται τα προϊόντα του
εργοστασίου, που θα σκορπιστούν άφθονα και φθηνά
στην κατανάλωση, και θα προσθέσουν μια πέτρα στο
οικοδόμημα του υλικού μας πολιτισμού. Το κέρδος το
επιδιώκει, όχι όμως για να το απολαύση θετικά ή αρνητικά
… αλλά για να ιδρύση με αυτό κι άλλο εργοστάσιο, κι
άλλο, κι άλλο… Κι όταν ιδή την Ελλάδα σκεπασμένη
εργοστάσια, όπου χιλιάδες καλοπληρωμένοι εργάτες θα
κατασκευάζουν αντικείμενα εξυπηρετικά του υλικού μας
πολιτισμού, θα ανακράξη: “Νυν απολύοις τον δούλον Σου,
από μια ζωή μόχθου σκληρού!”…»
(pp. 138-139).

 

Thus, if “materialism” were to be impregnated with the “spiritual” values of altruism («μιας αλτρουιστικής ιδεολογίας»), the industrialist himself would emerge as an enlightened “mystic” («μυστικιστής», «πεφωτισμένος») and he would be contributing to what Karagatsis calls the «οικοδόμημα του υλικού πολιτισμού». Within such context, further, the “erotic” would itself sublimate into “love”, and such “love” would go hand-in-hand with work as such. Interestingly, Karagatsis presents us with the case of a young lady who simply yearns to work as a “Clerk” – more specifically a “typist” – and who at the same time yearns to be loved, and both of these terrains are presented as being necessary to one another. In his novel, Karagatsis puts the following words in the mouth of his key female character (who is in her early twenties):

 

«Μα είμαι φτωχή. Βοήθησέ με να βγάλω το ψωμί μου.
Θα μάθω γραφομηχανή, στενογραφία. Εσύ, με τις
τόσες σχέσεις σου, κάπου θα μου βρης μια θέση, με δυο
χιλιάρικα το μήνα. Μου είναι αρκετά… Βρες μου μια
θέση μ’ ένα μισθάκο, να κουτσοζώ. Αγάπα με. Και
τίποτ’ άλλο δεν θέλω». (p. 65; and p. 139, my emph.).

 

We see here that, in contrast to the thinking of Bataille, a Greek intellectual such as Karagatsis sees no necessary irreconcilability between the “economic” sphere and that of the “erotic” – so long as both such spheres were infused with the “spiritual” element. This element, of course, reflected what we have referred to as the “ethicalist essentialism” of Greek intellectuals at the time. As we shall see, the “Amalia-type” – both as a real person and as portrayed in 1960’s-1970’s advertizing discourse – would in fact herself come to embody a synthesis of the sphere of work and that of the “erotic”. In that, her paradigm would fly in the face of Bataille’s metaphysical “anti-world” and concomitant eschatological hopes. On the other hand, the paradigm of the “Amalia-type” would also and as much challenge the specifically Greek “ethicalist essentialism” underlying the thought of both a Stephanos and a Karagatsis – in fact, it would be precisely this “ethicalist essentialism” that would be challenged by the “Amalia-type” as a person and especially so by the advertizing discourse that was addressed to her by the 1960’s and thereafter.

What we are implying, therefore, is that the ideological positions of someone such as a Stephanos or a Karagatsis would express a manner of thinking that would set the arena for the socio-cultural struggles of the 1930’s and on, and especially as regards the post-war period. The issues of work and the “work ethic”, the issues of sexual practices and the later sexual revolution, as also the role of the Greek Family Unit, etc., would set the framework for the ideological struggles that were to ensue, and which would do so – at least as far as the “common nous” («νους») was concerned – within the ideological terrain of advertizing discourse.

We have said that Karagatsis’ observations referred to the 1930’s. This decade would see Greek intellectuals attempting to present a rather more sophisticated version of their “ethicalist essentialism”, sensing the socio-cultural challenges that were to come (though, one may say, hardly suspecting the forms and weight of such challenges in the post-war period). One of the basic organs of such more sophisticated “ethicalist essentialism” would be that mighty Athens-based ideological organ, Βραδυνή. This newspaper would publish a series of booklets constituting what it would dubΤο Λαϊκόν Πανεπιστήμιον της Βραδυνής – Τριμηνιαία επιστημονική επιθεώρησις. In 1936, the then well-known Greek intellectual, Antonios G. Andrianopoulos, would publish a text therein, entitled: «Η ελληνική φιλοσοφία και το ενιαίον αυτής». Although Andrianopoulos’ work would usually center around ancient Greek philosophy, the purpose of his 1936 article was to criticize what he referred to as «ο τρόπος του συγχρόνου βίου» – this is what, inter alia, he would have to say:

 

«Και η ροπή όμως αύτη της συγχρόνου διανοήσεως
και ο τρόπος του συγχρόνου βίου και η νοοτροπία
των ανθρώπων γενικώς εξηφάνισαν από τον
πνευματικόν ορίζοντα της ανθρωπότητος κάθε ιδανικόν
και ούτως εξέλιπε κάθε σύστημα, το οποίον θα ηδύνατο
να ρυθμίζη την διαγωγήν των ανθρώπων. Εις το
γεγονός τούτο πρέπει ν’ αποδώσωμεν την κρατούσαν
υλοφροσύνην και τον ηδονισμόν, αντιλήψεις, αίτινες
επικρατούν σήμερον εις τας σκέψεις των ανθρώπων
και αποτελούν τας βάσεις της νοοτροπίας, την οποίαν
αποκαλούν πρακτικόν πνεύμα. Ούτω την κρατούσαν
σήμερον πνευματικήν, ηθικήν, πολιτικήν και κοινωνικήν
αναρχίαν, προς τα τρομερά αποτελέσματα της οποίας
όλοι μετά φόβου προσβλέπομεν, δέον ν’ αποδώσωμεν
εις την νοοτροπίαν ταύτην».
(cf. Αντώνιος Γ. Αδριανόπουλος, «Η ελληνική φιλοσοφία
και το ενιαιον αυτης», in Το Λαϊκόν Πανεπιστήμιον της
Βραδυνής – Τριμηνιαία επιστημονική επιθεώρησις
– Έτος τέταρτον – τεύχος δεύτερον (14ον) –
Φεβρουάριος – Μάρτιος – Απρίλιος, 1936, pp. 193-194,
my emph.).

 

Unlike Karagatsis, Andrianopoulos seems to be much more pessimistic: for him, that which prevails («κρατούσαν») is a mode of life and a mentality – evident both amongst intellectuals and “people generally” – which he calls «υλοφροσύνην» and «ηδονισμόν». As is apparent, such terms are reminiscent of Stephanos’ «εποχήν της ύλης και της σαρκός», and in some convoluted form relate to Bataille’s “economic” and “erotic” fields. Such parallels, of course, yet again go to show a similar “deep structure” in the object of concern running right across the 1920’s and 1930’s and traversing both European and Greek thinking. What is of central concern to Andrianopoulos is that “ideals” meant to regulate human conduct («διαγωγήν») have come to be extirpated by the «υλοφροσύνην» – «ηδονισμόν» couplet. For him, this is what constitutes “the practical spirit” («το πρακτικόν πνεύμα»), which dominates what was for him “modern” life. Presumably, conduct is reduced to “materialistic” and “hedonistic” modes of life precisely because it is devoid of “ideals”, and hence – very much like Stephanos and especially Karagatsis – is no longer informed by that almost religious faith in “ethicalist essentialism”. Both “matter” and the “flesh” are seen as “practical” matters to be used for “practical” purposes, devoid of whatever authentic “spiritual” values. For Andrianopoulos, the as “practical” consequences of such “practical spirit” come down to what he calls “anarchy”, it being an all-rounded “anarchy” – viz. an anarchy in the field of ethics, politics and society as a whole. Here, the position of Andrianopoulos stands in direct contrast to that of a Bataille: while the latter seeks to destroy the “bourgeois” status quo as a whole (including the alienated “types” of people that are its victims), the former warns of political and social anarchy. While Bataille seeks to establish an “anti-world”, Andrianopoulos wishes, in the last instance, to conserve and protect the social order from imploding into an anarchic disorder. In that, Andrianopoulos was being highly perceptive at least with respect to the Greek case: he could almost see into the 1960’s and the sexual revolution that was to erupt. What he failed to see was that even such a rupture in morals – which we shall discuss further below and relate it to advertizing discourse – would discover its own “regulatory mechanism” and thereby avoid the dissipating effects of social anarchy. It would be the Greek middle class milieu that would discover, for itself, just that “regulatory mechanism”. It had no choice but do so if it was to preserve its sense of security and upward mobility. In an important sense, the “ethical system” that Andrianopoulos wished to see in operation would be replaced by a mechanism of self-survival meant to protect the socio-cultural arena on which the middle class milieu of the post-war period would celebrate its own triumph. As we shall see below, such mechanism had its own self-made codes of conduct and ethics, and especially as regards work and play (sex, the “erotic”). It would be such codes that would be embedded in post-war advertizing discourse.

It would not only be Andrianopoulos who, in the decade of the 1930’s, would be concerned with a possible “ethical anarchy”, and especially in the field of sexual conduct. In an article entitled «Η ανώμαλος και καθυστερημένη παιδική ηλικία» and published inΤο Λαϊκόν Πανεπιστήμιον της Βραδυνής in 1936 (op. cit.), Gerasimos E. Loverdos would express his own concerns about the unpredictably “anarchic” consequences of the erotic passions – this is how he would put it:

 

«Ως γνωστόν,… η ανθρωπότης ρέπει προς
την αφροδίσιον ηδονήν άνευ ουδεμίας
πειθαρχίας, άνευ του ελαχίστου ίχνους
προβλεπτικής περισκέψεως…»
(cf. Το Λαϊκόν Πανεπιστήμιον…, op. cit.,
pp. 224-225, my emph.).

 

The question of a looming “ethical anarchy” in the “modern” world had already been entertained by the brilliant thinking of someone like Friedrich Nietzsche who would, as early as 1886, write of the on-going «δημιουργούμενου Ευρωπαίου» (the manufacturing of the European) and how the “democratization” of society would yield the storms of an «αναδυόμενος αναρχισμός» (an emergent anarchism) (cf. his Πέρα από το καλό και το κακό, Νησίδες, 1999, op. cit., pp. 137-138). One could say that some form of an “ethical anarchy” was to come, though not in the sense predicted either by Nietzsche in the late 19th century or by a lesser mortal such as Loverdos in the 1930’s. As we have suggested – and as we shall attempt to show below – the reshuffling of ethical values would themselves be “organized” by a new order of things both in Europe and in 1960’s Greece. Perhaps the experiences of the two world wars – and especially that of WWII as regards the “Amalia-type” and her peers – would “teach” societies to somewhat constrain what Loverdos calls «την αφροδίσιον ηδονήν» within boundaries that would make it relatively predictable. Put otherwise, that «ελαχίστου ίχνους προβλεπτικής περισκέψεως» would not be overly lost.

For many Greek intellectuals writing in the 1920’s, 1930’s and even through to the 1960’s, there was one common, underlying substructure of thinking informing all of their worldview, this being – as we have suggested – an “ethicalist essentialism”. Such “essentialism” would take a variety of forms, but perhaps its central characteristic would be the delineation of a dichotomy between “matter” (or “materialism”) and the “ethical ideal”. In fact, the whole of Karagatsis’ two-volume novel referred to above (his Ο Κίτρινος Φάκελος) would constitute a treatise on this very dichotomy. The narrative would basically unfold as an “experiment” that would put its various characters to a “test” so as to try to find out which of these two forces – the “materialistic” versus the “ethical” – actually drives their actions. As the events of the novel draw to a conclusive end, Karagatsis writes:

 

«… Λοιπόν, πού καταλήγουμε;… Ότι το πείραμα
απέδειξε το εντελώς αντίθετο από εκείνο που ο
Τασάκος προεξοφλούσε συμπερασματικά. Στην
ομάδα όπου έγινε το πείραμα, δεν ήταν ο παράγοντας
της υλικής, αλλά της ηθικής κυριαρχίας που προεξήρχε.
Και προεξήρχε τόσο εμφαντικά, ώστε η επικίνδυνη
υποκίνηση του υλικού παράγοντα είχε αποτέλεσμα
να διογκωθή ο ηθικός στο έπακρο».
(p. 140).

 

It would be this dichotomy that the 1960’s and on would actually challenge: the “Amalia-type” would herself see “ethics” in “matter” and vice-versa – these “ethics”, however, would further challenge all “essentialisms” and all “ideals” as were espoused by Greek conventional intellectuals of the period (this immediately raises the issue of Greek religiosity, a field beyond our object of research in this section – but cf. our «12η προφορική μαρτυρία: Γιωργία Κρεμμύδα, 65 χρονών, μόνιμη κάτοικος Αλιάρτου, εργάτρια του Μαράκη το 1966-67 ως 1969-70, τώρα εκκλησάρισσα, Κυριακή, 10 Μαΐου 2009»).

The advent of the 1960’s in Greece

Unlike the thinking of a Bataille, who saw an irreconcilable contradiction between the “economic” and the “erotic” fields, and unlike the Greek conventional intellectuals, who almost religiously espoused a metaphysical “ethicality” that had to impregnate both such fields of human activity, the “Amalia-type” of the 1960’s and 1970’s would create a new relationship between these two fields. In that, this “New Type” of person was truly revolutionary, and was much more so than any politicized citizen or even organized Greek “communist” at the time. This new relationship would be a positive assertion of both “work” and “love” – it would forge some kind of balance between these two fields of life and thereby create a new “work ethic” and a new “sexual ethics”, both of which would be united by an invisible continuum of experience. The experiential “moment” joining the two ends of this continuum would be the Greek Family Unit, and in that sense Stephanos’ emphasis on the marriage institution (cf. above) would still apply. But there are a number of provisos that need be made here, and which will be dwelt with as we proceed with our presentation:

1. Despite the continuum we speak of, there still remained deep tensions between the fields of work and “play”: the one field could function in a way that tried to eliminate or constrain the other – yet still, the continuum withstood the pressure.
2. The new “work ethic” – clearly evident in the punctuality and hard work of the vast majority of employees at the Aliartian A&M Mill (Amalia Eleftheriadou included) – was being forged, not because of agreeable work conditions and fair remuneration, but rather despite such conditions and such remuneration. The “work ethic” of the “Amalia-type” is more easily explainable in terms of what Karandonis had called a «καινούργια χαρά» deeply informed by youthful “optimism” (cf. the reference to this in our study of advertizing related to the radio and other sound-producing devices above). This, of course, would not mean that working youths of the “Amalia-type” would happily accept the “bureaucratic despotism” of a boss such as Marakis (cf. our study of the case of Miss Mathioudaki, another “Clerk” at the A&M Headquarters, and which clearly shows the deep tensions and conflicts between employer and employee).
3. The new “sexual ethics” were not only a celebration of the “Amalia-type’s” new-found relationship with her own body. In the real world of the 1960’s and 1970’s, one may also speak of the curses and extremities of such new “sexual ethics”, and which could yield feelings of guilt and internal clashes within the psyche of the “Amalia-type”, as also between her and the older generations (Greek films of the period certainly testify to such a reality).
4. While the Greek Family Unit would operate as a “hub” joining the two ends of the continuum between work and erotic practices, it is important to also consider the changes that such Unit would undergo, and that, despite its resilience as an institution.

 

But notwithstanding all such provisos, the “ethical anarchy” that intellectuals such as Gerasimos Loverdos had been so fearful of would ultimately be “ordered” by the new milieu. This “ordering” would be effected by a variety of social forces, and these would include the interventions of the Greek State, the role of ideology and especially that of advertizing discourse, as also the role of the “Amalia-type” as social agent. It was precisely as a social agent – one that would both work and love and also finally get married – that the “Amalia-type” would simply ignore George Bataille’s understanding of the dream-like “ecstasy of eros”.

But the “Amalia-type” was herself a real “dreamer” of sorts – her particular “dreams” being rooted in as real historical circumstances. Firstly, she nurtured the “dream” of a female who gradually came to represent a new womanhood – such womanhood was to henceforth include the ambitions of a “professional” at the workplace. While the “Amalia-type” was, in fact, a humble “Clerk” at the headquarters of an Aliartian flour-producing Mill, she could not but harbor the dream of moving up the ladder of job status, especially in the field of office-work and working as a typist (we shall examine advertizing discourse promoting precisely just such job opportunities, and fully expressing the plans and ambitions of an “Amalia-type”-as-“Clerk”). Secondly, the “Amalia-type” nurtured the “dream” of a female who also came to represent a new womanhood in yet another important sense – viz. the “dream” of being a “beautiful woman” (or in some way of being sexually attractive – cf. our study above on the issue of female “beauty” in the decade of the 1960’s; and cf. our discussion of advertizing discourse promoting the “LUX” toilet soap). Being “beautiful” or sexually attractive was also part of the personal ambitions of the “Amalia-type”. Both such “dreams” and ambitions – pertaining to work and “eros” – would be psychologically subsumed in and “ordered” through the ritual of marriage and the setting up of her own Family Unit.

For someone writing in the early-21st century, such observations may seem to be all too trivial – but what cannot be overemphasized is that, prior to WWII, such “dreams” could not be taken for granted in Greece. In fact, for the vast majority of the Greek popular masses, this double-dream was virtually non-existent. Specifically as regards the question of work, the “Amalia-type” “dream” of upgrading her “professional” status – as a skilled “Clerk” – may be directly compared to the situation of young women in Britain who had already started to join the ranks of office-workers in the early 20th century. In his The age of empire (op. cit.), Hobsbawm observes the following with reference to female “Clerks” in 1911:

 

«… ο αριθμός των γραμματέων σε εμπορικές
και άλλες επιχειρήσεις αυξήθηκε από 6.000
σε 146.000 – αριθμός που αποτελεί φόρο τιμής
στη γραφομηχανή» (p. 312, my emph.).

 

Of course, Hobsbawm goes on to point out that, at the time in Britain, most females joining the ranks of office-workers still came from the so-called “upper-classes”, and they only did such work so as to supplement their pocket money. One of the sources he quotes reads as follows:

 

«Οι κοπέλες που εργάζονται σε εμπορικά ή
σε γραφεία προέρχονται από ανώτερες ταξικά
οικογένειες και επομένως έχουν πιο συχνά την
οικονομική συνδρομή των γονιών τους… Σε
ορισμένα επαγγέλματα, όπως οι δακτυλογράφοι,
οι υπάλληλοι γραφείου και οι πωλήτριες…
συναντούμε το μοντέρνο φαινόμενο του κοριτσιού
που δουλεύει για το χαρτζιλίκι του» (ibid.).

 

In 1960’s Greece, of course, females working so as to merely supplement their own pocket money constituted an exception to the rule – one such exception at the A&M Mill, perhaps, being the case of Georgia Kremmida (cf. our 12th Interview, 10.5.2009, op. cit.), who had herself worked at the A&M Headquarters as a “Clerk”, as also at the Mill’s Chemical Laboratory, doing her stint more or less in the same period of time as that of Amalia Eleftheriadou. Unlike Kremmida, whose father was a public servant and therefore relatively “privileged”, Eleftheriadou – as we know – had to work out of sheer economic necessity, essentially so that she may supplement the family budget.

On the other hand, and this is the important point to stress here, both Kremmida and Eleftheriadou – whatever be their respective intentions in choosing to work – were introducing themselves to the new “work ethic” and thus to the Greek version of “modernity”. The “New Type” of Greek working woman – gradually “emancipating” herself from the “chains of the kitchen” up to a certain degree – was being launched, preparing the ground for the 1970’s and especially the 1980’s and on.

It is quite impossible to fathom the nuances of the new middle class milieu in Greece – and the concomitant “emancipation” of Greek women – without considering the rise of the woman-as-“Clerk”. Even as early as 1886, Friedrich Nietzsche was to evaluate the implications of such a social phenomenon for Europe as a whole. Sensing the rise of “democratic” governance and the ideology of the “suffragettes”, Nietzsche would scathingly observe:

 

«Όπου έχει θριαμβεύσει το βιομηχανικό
πνεύμα… η γυναίκα πασχίζει σήμερα για
να πετύχει την οικονομική και νομική
ανεξαρτησία ενός υπαλλήλου: “η γυναίκα
ως υπάλληλος” στέκεται μπροστά στην πόρτα
της διαμορφούμενης σύγχρονης κοινωνίας».
(cf. Πέρα από το καλό και το κακό, op. cit.,
p. 132, my emph.).

 

For us, the phenomenon of the Greek woman-as-“Clerk” is itself “beyond good or bad” as such (to paraphrase Nietzsche rather crudely), constituting an objective historical event beyond whatever judgment. What really matters, at least from the point of view of social history, is that such “New Type” of woman was to help create a new ethics – viz. a system of new values that would place work and “eros” side by side in a new hierarchy of things and practices.

Within its own home ground, such new hierarchy would come to doubt the ideology of the old, conventional Greek intellectuals: for the “Amalia-type” of the 1960’s, both work (“materialist values”) and “eros” (“hedonic values”) would constitute her new ethicality. This new ethicality – being ethical unto itself and despite the objections of the older generations – was the “Amalia-type’s” own version of “modernism”-as-“everydayness”. Within such “everydayness”, and as we are suggesting, there would be a persisting tension between work (production: the “economic” field/survival) and “eros” (reproduction: the “aesthetic” field/individuality). This objective tension had to be in some way resolved, and it had to be resolved because subjectively, for the “Amalia-type”, it was never a question of seeing the one terrain as an absolute negation (à la Bataille) of the other. Such resolution could only take place at the level of ideology, and which would be materialized in advertizing discourse addressing itself directly to the “Amalia-type”.

This latter point needs to be explained further. What we are suggesting is that the tension between the reality of work and the reality of “eros” had to find some form of resolution in the «νους» of the “Amalia-type”. For such type of individual – and as is the case for all humans – all “meaning” would be “relational”, it being defined by relations (very roughly, following the approach of a Claude Lévi-Strauss). Thus, the thought of an “Amalia-type” would be characterized by “oppositions”, or what Lévi-Strauss would call “binaries”. It would be such “binaries” that called for a resolution – and the resolution would be effected through “myth-making”. Now, by the 1960’s, the privileged terrain of “myth-making” would of course be none other than advertizing discourse. Within such discourse, the image of the “professional” woman-as-“Clerk” and the image of the “beautiful” or “erotic” woman-as-“Body” would be combined in-one – viz. the image of the woman-as-“Modernity” itself. Such unification of realities constituted the “myth” of both the advertizing discourse and of the individual seeking to resolve its own contradictions (the “Amalia-type” herself). This unification of realities – being precisely that invisible continuum of experience we have talked of above – would not need to be ideologically enacted within one single piece of advertisement (or within each and every single piece of advertisement): it would be the one, united advertizing discourse as-a-Whole that would articulate such unification of realities. In fact, it would be that one central “myth” of the “Beautiful Clerk-cum-Housewife” that would solidify all pieces of advertizing discourse into one ideological discourse. It would be this “myth” that would glue together both advertizing ideology and the very real person answering to the name of Amalia Eleftheriadou.

The “Amalia-type’s” own version of “Modernity” as an “everydayness” combining the realities of work and the potentialities of individual “aesthetics” would constitute a revolution in 1960’s Greece – and yet we know that such revolution, albeit unique and novel in the social history of the country, was itself a social phenomenon echoing events around the whole of the Western world. The so-called feminist movement of the 1960’s – with slogans such as “EQUALITY – THE TIME IS NOW!” and suchlike – was basically aiming at expanding the whole notion of “femininity” in a manner that would include work and career as well. For the more mainstream currents of the feminist movement, “femininity” was acceptable but only to the extent that it was complemented by something more than just that, and that ‘something’ would have to be women’s participation in the “economic” sphere of life – viz. work. Whether that would, in the long run, be to the detriment of women or not, has remained a controversial question: for the likes of a Bataille, that would mean being “chained to the structures of work”; for feminists at the time it would mean being “unchained from the structures of the kitchen”, and thereby achieving an “equality” with men. But weighing up the pros and cons of the matter is to miss the point – what really matters is that an expansion of the identity of women to encompass both “economic” and “extra-economic” activities was in fact materialized in post-war socio-economic history, and the “Amalia-type” was participating in just such history.

Perhaps one of the most important representatives of such developments in the 1960’s – and which would reflect the case of the “Amalia-type” to some degree – would be the then famous feminist writer, Betty Friedan. Her rather popular book published in 1963, The Feminine Mystique (W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York), is said to have had a significant influence on women of that period, but in any case was certainly expressing demands that were already being materialized in the real world, and which meant that the definition of “womanhood” would henceforth be broader than what had been taken for granted in the past. Once upon a time, Friedan would write –

 

“[women] could desire no greater destiny
than to glory in their own femininity…”
(p. 15).

 

We need not go into Friedan’s own understanding of “femininity”, and which in any case had the specifically American experience in mind. But what she would go on to propound would certainly reflect developments right across the Western world, and even including the more underdeveloped countries such as Greece (though here the thinking of a Friedan could only be seen materializing in a weak, embryonic form in the 1960’s). She would write:

 

“We can no longer ignore that voice within
women that says: ‘I want something more
than my husband and my children and my
home’…” (p. 32).

 

It would be the “economic” sphere – entering the world of the labour market – that would complete womanhood. But this would not at all mean that women should lose their own individuality as expressed by their “femininity”, or, as the title of Friedan’s book suggests, that “feminine mystique”. It has been said that Friedan would above all want women –

 

“… to seek… their own personal and
professional identities…”
(cf. Alonzo Hamby, Outline of U.S.
history, Nova Publishers, 2007,
pp. 201-202).

 

In 1960’s Greece, the “personal” realm could only have been defined by the “Amalia-type” herself, and such definition was to be determined (or constrained) by the specifically Greek sexual revolution. As for the “professional” dimension, that too was to be constrained by material conditions which would mean that the “Amalia-type” had little choice but work for a company such as the A&M Mill. Yet still, both the “personal” and the “professional” were realms that were just beginning to unfold and which promised near-limitless “dreams” and possibilities. It was this combination of a new “personal identity” and a new “professional identity” that would forge the continuum whereby “eros” (“personal”) and work (“professional”) would meet. The meeting of these two worlds would be effected, as we have suggested, via the “myth-making” of advertizing discourse. While there would definitely be major differences in the worldviews of an American middle-class writer such as Friedan and that of a Greek “Clerk” as was Amalia Eleftheriadou, both could agree with the idea – expressed by Friedan herself – that what really mattered was that females finally begin to enjoy being a woman. On the other hand, the “Amalia-type” was no conscious “feminist” at all – in fact, some of the extremities of the feminist movement would have been completely foreign to her. She was, in the last instance, the embodiment or even the celebration of “everydayness”, itself reflected in advertizing discourse.

To say that the “Amalia-type” constituted some form of a celebration of the “everydayness” of work and “play” (but keeping in mind the provisos referred to above) is a historical fact. Philosophers and social theoreticians could see this reality unfolding in Europe and many of them would look down on it with much disdain. In fact, as we have seen, Bataille’s own position would be a reaction to such “everydayness” and to the banality of its practices. Horkheimer, doyen of European “Marxism” and directly or indirectly exerting a great influence on the Greek “Left” itself, would fully belittle whatever sense of “beauty” was being espoused by working females such as the “Amalia-type”. And he would pour scorn on such sense of “beauty” precisely because he would relate it – and such a relationship was itself a historical fact – to advertizing discourse. In his Διαλεκτική του διαφωτισμού (op. cit.), he would clearly state:

 

«Η ηρωοποίηση των ανθρώπων του
μέσου όρου είναι συστατικό της λατρείας
του φθηνού. Οι πιο ακριβοπληρωμένοι
σταρ μοιάζουν με διαφημιστικές εικόνες μη
κατονομαζόμενων επώνυμων προϊόντων.
Δεν είναι τυχαίο ότι συχνά διαλέγονται από
το πλήθος των εμπορικών φωτομοντέλων.
Το κυρίαρχο γούστο δανείζεται το ιδανικό
του από τη διαφήμιση, τη χρηστική ωραιότητα.
Έτσι πραγματώνεται τελικά κατά ειρωνικό
τρόπο η σωκρατική ρήση ότι ωραίο είναι το
χρήσιμο» (p. 259, my emph.).

 

Thus, starting from the 1930’s and throughout much of the 20th century, Horkheimer and an endless string of “critical” intellectuals would rage against “averageness”, which they would see as the worshipping of “the cheap”, and which would be a reflection of advertizing discourse, all of which would reduce “beauty” to a «χρηστική ωραιότητα» (à la Andrianopoulos’ «πρακτικόν πνεύμα»).

Horkheimer’s critique of “averageness”, of course, was not at all original. It had been none other than Nietzsche himself who, in 1886, would prophecy (so to speak) that the looming “modern” world would yield such “averageness” – in his Πέρα από το καλό και το κακό (op. cit.), he would write:

 

«Οι… καινούριες συνθήκες… θα δημιουργήσουν
κατά μέσον όρο μια ισοπέδωση και μετριοποίηση
του ανθρώπου…» (p. 137).

 

And by 1887, in his Γενεαλογία της ηθικής (Πανοπτικόν, 2010), Nietzsche would very sincerely present his evaluation of the new “European” as follows:

 

«… το σκουλήκι “άνθρωπος” έχει βγει
στο προσκήνιο και πληθαίνει… ότι ο
“εξημερωμένος” άνθρωπος, ο αθεράπευτα
μέτριος και ανούσιος άνθρωπος, έχει
μάθει να αισθάνεται τον εαυτό του σαν
σκοπό και αποκορύφωμα, σαν νόημα της
ιστορίας, σαν “ανώτερο άνθρωπο”… ναι,
ότι έχει κάποιο δικαίωμα να αισθάνεται έτσι,
εφόσον νιώθει ότι βρίσκεται σε απόσταση
από το πλήθος των αποτυχημένων, των
αρρωστιάρηδων, των κουρασμένων, των
εξαντλημένων, από τους οποίους αρχίζει να
βρομά η σημερινή Ευρώπη, ως κάτι τουλάχιστον
σχετικά καλοσυγκροτημένο/επιτυχημένο,
τουλάχιστον ικανό ακόμη για ζωή, τουλάχιστον
καταφατικό προς τη ζωή…» (p. 67).

 

There is much food for thought in what Nietzsche is saying here, and one might even agree with bits and pieces of his observations – but, on hindsight, one thing is certain: there is nothing and no one under the sun that could possibly deny the historical subject – as was the “Amalia-type” of the 1960’s – the right to “feel” itself as the purpose and the meaning of history. And this is not so because we should “recognize the rights” of persons – very simply, when or if the “Amalia-type” feels it is placing itself in the forefront of history as its purpose and meaning, that is history itself, such “type” having had the power to actually usurp the right to “make” history. Human history might have turned out otherwise – fulfilling the utopian dreams of either a Horkheimer or a Nietzsche – but it did not. The social historian can only but record this; the historical sociologist can only but attempt to understand it – both know that history is beyond whatever “ethical” evaluation, unless they were to see themselves as the high priests of history.

The sexual revolution in Greece

The issue of “modernity” and how this was yielding a “banal” sexual behaviour symptomatic of “averageness” was being discussed by Greek intellectuals since the decade of the 1920’s – such discussions were usually based on observations of events in Europe, and there was a premonition of things to come regarding Greece as well. In 1928, a student publication published in Athens and entitled Φοιτητικόν ημερολόγιον would carry a letter from someone who was presumably a young Greek and writing from Venice’s Lido beach. The writer’s observations went as follows:

 

«Στο Lido η μούρλα της μοντέρνας πολυτέλειας
φθάνει πια στο ζενίθ. Το θράσος πούχουν οι
βαθύπλουτες γρηές Εγγλέζες που γυρνάν γεμάτες
μαργαριτάρια και ρυτίδες, μισόγυμνες στην
αμμουδιά σε κάνει… μπολσεβίκο!»
(cf. Φοιτητικόν ημερολόγιον,
Αθήναι, έτος δεύτερον, 1928, p. 46).

 

And the writer sums up his observations by referring to the “banality” of his times – he signs off his letter like this:

 

«… στη καταχνιά της πεζής σημερνής ζωής…
“DIMI”, Βενετία, 10 – IX – 27».
(ibid., my emph.).

 

We know that by the 1960’s, and even much later, such derision of “modernity”, “nudity” and the popular “average” would continue unabated from various quarters, and yet – and right at the same time – we have said that all such phenomena would come to triumph as “virtues”-in-themselves. It would be the advent of the new Greek middle class milieu that would elevate «την εποχήν… της σαρκός» or the practices of «ηδονισμόν» to virtues of self-affirmation, and it would do so by redefining sexuality in a manner that would constitute a socio-cultural revolution, it being a point of no return for Greek society.

We have tried to deal with the Greek “sexual revolution” in some detail elsewhere (cf., inter alia, our paper entitled “The Socio-Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s Youth as a Sexual Revolution”, etc.). The matter is so complex that only professional historiography could do justice to it – here, we shall merely present a few pointers that may prepare the ground for an examination of the advertizing discourse that would accompany such a revolution.

Even since the late-1940’s, the struggle between the popular ideology of soft “romance”, on the one hand, and the more experimental, unbridled “erotic passions” on the other, would make its embryonic appearance. In 1948, the newspaper Πελοπόννησος would carry advertisements which would be representative of the tension between the soft taste for the “romantic” disposition and that of the more demonic-fatalistic erotic passion. First, consider the following advertisement inviting people to enjoy themselves at a local taverna somewhere in the Peloponnese region – it reads as follows:

 

«Στη Ταβέρνα
ΡΟΜΑΝΤΖΑ
Διασκεδάζετε κάθε βράδυ.
Μοναδική μετά την ΑΘΗΝΑ».
(cf. Πελοπόννησος, 11.7.1948,
p. 2).

 

We find it interesting that a local, traditional taverna – usually somewhat impervious to external, foreign influences – would go by the name of «ΡΟΜΑΝΤΖΑ» (“ROMANCES”): the joint’s name would be addressing itself to what still remained the prevailing popular taste for the more “sentimental love” (itself, however, being a strain of European culture especially evident in the earliest narrative films of the West). The advertisement would highlight the name of the shop, and thus relate entertainment to “romantic love”, and it would – as so often happened – compare the place to cultural practices in the “cultural metropolis” of Athens (advertisements in the Greek “periphery” would often wish to compare things with what was happening in Athens, the “centre” – but perhaps we should point out here that in the particular advertisement being discussed the word «ΑΘΗΝΑ» could possibly refer, inter alia, to some other taverna in the Peloponnese region).

In some contrast, and right over the next page of the newspaper, it would present readers with an advertisement promoting the film shows of a local cinema called «ΖΕΝΙΟΣ». The film that was to be projected the following day was, judging by its title, rather more symptomatic of a new understanding of “eros” that was to ultimately prevail as the post-war years wore on: here, “eros” is more aggressive, more experimentally extreme, more of a demonic-fatalistic passion, as we have said above. The newspaper advertisement read as follows:

 

«Σινέ ΖΕΝΙΟΣ…
ΑΥΡΙΟΝ…
ΑΓΑΠΗ ΠΟΥ ΣΚΟΤΩΝΕΙ…»
(ibid., p. 3).

 

It seems quite obvious that Greek cinemas of the 1940’s were venues of popular entertainment that were more prone to disseminating the latest in foreign taste than would be the Greek traditional taverna. A number of points may be made here concerning the film to be projected at the «ΖΕΝΙΟΣ» cinema in the year 1948. First, the film was in fact a 1941 20th Century Fox production directed by H. Bruce Humberstone. It was to be shown with Greek subtitles and the original name of the movie – “Wake Up Screaming” – had been rephrased in a manner that would grab the attention of a Greek audience thirsty for whatever had to do with the “erotic passions” and “death” (the Greek film title may be translated as “Love that Kills”). Such discourse “adjustment” (to be further discussed elsewhere) is indicative of the need for the local Greek advertizing industry to create discourse reflective of the gradually mutating tastes of the popular masses as regards the issue of “eros”. There were many other cases in the 1940’s where foreign film titles had been manipulatively rephrased so as to accommodate local taste – we simply mention two further samples: a) the 1946 movie, “The Strange Love of Martha Ivers”, directed by Lewis Milestone, had mutated into: «Αμαρτωλές Γυναίκες» (or: “Sinful Women”); b) the rather lame title, “The Big Sleep”, a film directed by Howard Hawks also in 1946, would be presented to Greek audiences as: «Πάθος και Αίμα» (or: “Passion and Blood”).

Yet still, and which seems to justify the more erotically dramatic Greek title of the “Wake Up Screaming” movie, the plot and theme of the film itself actually did focus on the intrigues of love and murder. Further, it portrayed sexy young ladies in their swimming costumes, thus exposing much of their flesh: one may assume that, for the average Greek at the time, such images were tantamount to some degree of pornography.

Now, whatever contrast one were to make between “romantic love” and the “erotic passions” in 1940’s Greece should still be taken with a pinch of salt: we here speak of only a slight nuance in such contrast between the two tastes. These were the very first symptoms of the looming tension between the “romantic” and the “erotic”, and such tension would only explode by the 1960’s. Thus, the slightly contrasting advertisements in the 1948 Πελοπόννησος paper were only just beginning to show the way as to what was to ensue.

By December 1965, the newspaper Ακρόπολις would be declaring:

 

«Ο ΕΡΩΤΙΣΜΟΣ… βρίσκεται στην εποχή μας
παντού: Στα περίπτερα και στους τοίχους
όλων των δρόμων».
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 29.12.1965, p. 3).

 

This article would be referring to the whole of Europe, and would of course be including the case of Greece (notice, for instance, the reference to «περίπτερα» – pointing to the traditional Greek kiosk). What was gradually turning out to be a rampant, ubiquitous “eroticism” was to have an effect on the social understanding of “womanhood”, on the social status of women, and on the ethical practices of the Greek Family Unit as such. The new ethics around sexuality – sexual practice per se – would be the overdetermining factor in the “extra-economic” terrain (and would even percolate into the “economic” terrain of production within the shop-floor – without, however, at all diminishing the “work ethic” itself, as we shall see). Such overdetermining effectivity would be well captured by yet another article published in theΑκρόπολις by early 1966 – part of the article would read as follows:

 

«Αλλάζει η μορφή του γάμου και η ανισότης των
δύο φύλων… Αυτή η “ντε φάκτο” εξίσωσις των
δύο φύλων αποτελεί μια πραγματική κοινωνική
επανάστασι ο αντίκτυπος της οποίας είναι ακόμη
δύσκολον να προεξοφληθή. Γεγονός πάντως
είναι ότι ο θεσμός της οικογενείας διέρχεται σήμερα
από μια κρίσι αναπροσαρμογής που θα καταλήξη
ασφαλώς σε πλήρη αναδιάρθρωσι της ψυχολογικής
του βάσεως και μια γενική αναθεώρησι της σεξουαλικής
ηθικής».
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 14.1.1966, p. 5).

 

A couple of clarifications need to be made here regarding the basic ideas expressed in this early 1966 text: First, the “de facto” equality of the sexes it speaks of would certainly not be the case in 1960’s Greece (for instance, the sexual division of labour, yielding a female ultra-cheap labour force, would fully apply at the time throughout Greece, this constituting a structural practice applying to both Blue-Collar and White-Collar workers – the latter being the “Amalia-type” – cf. our series of papers addressing the issue). Sexual equality would only be institutionalized by the late-1970’s, and the psychology of Greek male chauvinism would only be partly neutralized much later on – and yet the foundations for this equality were being laid by the still youthful middle class milieu of the 1960’s. In some way, the article seems to admit that the process of rendering the two sexes equal had yet to be completed when it suggests that «ο αντίκτυπος… είναι ακόμη δύσκολον να προεξοφληθή». Finally, we should say that although the Greek Family Unit was to undergo important adjustments – as the article itself suggests – it would nonetheless persist as a central social structure in Greek society (we have already said that such Family Unit would be the juncture positively linking together the two ends of a continuum defined by work and “play”). Perhaps the central most important change that the Greek Family Unit would undergo as a result of the sexual revolution would be in the new psychology that would inform its members, and here the article hits the nail on the head when it speaks of a «πλήρη αναδιάρθρωσι της ψυχολογικής… βάσεως» of such Family Unit.

The depth of change in the psychology of the “Amalia-type” can be measured in a variety of ways. One such way is to consider the manner in which she would now wish to appear in the eyes of the world, and especially as regards the eyes of her male counterparts. Her “new look” (a term dating back to 1947 and with reference to Dior fashion products) would be reflected in advertizing discourse – much of what would initially be taken to be the “extremities” of the latter would soon turn out to be the everyday “norm” for young females. In an article which appeared in the daily newspaper Απογευματινή in 1966 – and which was in fact a form of indirect advertizing promoting the products of two fashion houses at the time (Pierre Cardin and Dior) – the writer would point to the new “extremities” of fashion:

 

«ΕΞΩΦΡΕΝΙΣΜΟΙ ΤΩΝ ΜΕΓΑΛΩΝ ΜΑΙΤΡ ΤΗΣ ΜΟΔΑΣ»
(cf. Απογευματινή, 29.1.1966, p. 1).

 

The so-called “outrageous” in the new styles of dress for females would in fact be the advent of the “mini skirt” – the article would clarify further:

 

«ΤΟ ΜΗΚΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΦΟΥΣΤΑΣ 7,5 ΕΚΑΤ.
ΠΑΝΩ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΓΟΝΑΤΟ…»
(ibid.).

 

Not all young females belonging to the “Amalia-type” would necessarily take to wearing the “mini skirt” in the 1960’s. And yet, the garment would soon – right within the period of the Military Dictatorship – come to function as a symbol of “rebellious” youth culture amongst quite a sizeable proportion of females. But this was no “political rebellion” at all, at least for the vast majority of Greek youth. Rather, it constituted an affirmation of one’s sexuality in the face of an “ethicalist essentialism” espoused both by the older generations – viz. the at times morally domineering sections of Greek civil society – as also by most Greek intellectuals of both the “Left” and the “Right”.

Again, and as has been said throughout this project, both past and present Greek “academic tradition” has completely failed to understand the whole phenomenon of the sexual revolution in Greece and, together with its crude “Left-wing” shortsightedness regarding this phenomenon, has also failed to understand the responses of Greek society to the advent of the “mini skirt” itself. Simply by way of an example, we may here mention the research work of a certain Angeliki Bitou, who has tried to deal with the question of “dominant ideology” vis-à-vis Greek women in the 1967-1974 period, and has done so in a most abysmal manner (cf. Αγγελική Μπίτου, Η ιδεολογική αντιμετώπιση των γυναικών, κατά την περίοδο 1967-1974, μέσα από τον τύπο της Καβάλας, Διπλωματική Εργασία, Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/125875/files/GRI-2011-6282.pdf). In an extremely infantile and self-contradicting “thesis” written in 2010, she comes up with a series of pearls of wisdom all at the same time:

1. she places the advent of the “mini skirt” in the context of “male chauvinism”, and goes on to see such “chauvinism” as the fruit of a bad capitalist system (thus fails to understand both the “mini skirt”, and the phenomenon of Greek “male chauvinism”, as also the so-called “capitalist system” itself);
2. at the same time, she presents the rejection of the “mini skirt” on the part of the Greek mass media as part of the ideological workings of “conservatism”, which she again sees as the fruit of the Greek “capitalist system” and/or the “Junta” itself;
3. she then herself somewhat rejects the phenomenon of the “mini skirt”, seeing it as a reinforcement of “sexism”, to the extent that it is supposed to reduce women to being merely “provocative” creatures.

 

One could go on, though our intention here is to merely point to the sheer poverty of socio-historical research in Greece, and especially as regards the sexual revolution of the 1960’s decade. But perhaps the single most important quote in Bitou’s work – unwittingly capturing as it does the new psychology of the “Amalia-type” – is the following:

 

«Σκοπός της μόδας να κάνει την γυναίκα
επιθυμητή και προκλητική».
(cf. Bitou, ibid., p. 54; as quoted from Πρωινή,
1.1.1968, p.2).

 

The fact is that the “mini skirt” turned out to be one of the era’s most enduring “icons” – while wearing such a short skirt would not render the “Amalia-type” necessarily “bitchy”, it could nonetheless suggest a new, “flirty” code of sexual ethics. But above all, the “mini skirt” was simply a symbol of youth. More specifically, it was a symbol of a self-conscious, body-conscious and sex-conscious youth.

The new psychology of the “Amalia-type” was of course not only evident in the manner in which she wished to appear in the eyes of the male world. She also wished to smell in a manner that affirmed her self-consciousness in her relationship with others. It would be in the decade of the 1960’s that the “Amalia-type” would enter the world of mass perfumery – such a world having been symptomatic of “modernity” even since the late 19th century in the more advanced countries of the West. While we know that the use of perfume on the part of females dates back to ancient times (meant to please both men and gods), “modern” perfumery was a specific historical phenomenon closely related to the sexual revolution and its new norms of “beauty”. By the 1960’s and 1970’s, it was a “generalized” phenomenon in that it would come to include both sexes, and would also encompass the Family Unit, that hub of life meant to reconcile the contradictions and clashes in the outside world of work and “play”. The world of “modern” perfumery was also more “customized”, in that it tried to satisfy the tastes of various groups of individuals.

The relative catholicity and greater customization of perfumery habits were both clearly evident in 1960’s advertizing discourse – consider the following advertisement which circulated in 1965 in daily newspapers, and which reflected such characteristics:

 

«ΚΟΛΩΝΙΕΣ
RAVEL
ΟΜΟΡΦΙΑ • ΥΓΕΙΑ • ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ
● ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ, ΤΟΝ ΑΝΔΡΑ, ΤΗΝ ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΑ
● Παρασκευάζονται αποκλειστικά από γαλλικές εσσάνς.
● Κυκλοφορούν σε εννέα τύπους και σε 2 μεγέθη.
● Προσφέρονται σε τιμή προσιτή σε όλους.
ΑΝΤΙΠΡΟΣΩΠΙΑ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ: GIMET Ε.Π.Ε.».
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 5.12.1965, p. 11).

The discourse of this advertisement – promoting French perfumes of the Ravel Perfume Corp. (established in Nice, France in the 1940’s and with a branch in New York City) – would be “gently” delineating, on behalf of the “Amalia-type” and her male counterparts, some of the vital attributes of the new socio-cultural milieu – we note the following points:

1. The underlying necessity of the sexual revolution for physical “beauty” would be stressed, and which was itself presented as the definition of “health” («ΟΜΟΡΦΙΑ», «ΥΓΕΙΑ»). Here, we should point out that this particularly “gentle” and/or “adjustive” discourse steered clear of the more dramatic “extremities” of the sexual revolution, and thereby made no reference at all to the relationship between perfumery habits and the issue of “sexual seduction”. While discourse of the latter type would also be in circulation (cf. our discussion of the “BIC” advertisement and its use of terms such as «ΑΝΑΒΕΙ»), the vast majority of advertisements belonging to the “adjustive” category in the 1960’s would rarely try to stimulate overly sexual instincts. And yet, as we shall further see in this brief note on the sexual revolution, the new sexual habits of some of Greek youth could at times take rather “extreme” forms – in that sense, one may argue that grassroots behaviour could be ahead of advertizing discourse as regards sexual provocation and licentiousness.
2. “Beauty” and “health” were presented – without any “provocative” insinuations as to the real state of affairs in 1960’s Greece – as being expressions of “modernity”, in the specific sense of (Western) “civilization” («ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ»). The reference to “civilization” would have spoken directly to a youthful milieu that was preparing the ground for the espousal of specifically middle class values of Western-style individualism.
3. Smelling “beautifully” was itself a vital attribute of the sexual revolution that had to necessarily encompass both the “Amalia-type” and her male partner, and would even have to apply to the Greek Family Unit («ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ, ΤΟΝ ΑΝΔΡΑ, ΤΗΝ ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΑ»). Thus, advertizing discourse belonging to the “adjustive”, “non-provocative” category would clearly acknowledge the functionality of the Greek Family in a context where the values of “physical beauty” – and concomitant practices relating to the body – would soon be taking Greek society by storm.
4. The post-war era would, as we have suggested, allow for a greater customization of “beauty products” – in the field of perfumery, this would take the form of what was sometimes called “character fragrances”. Practically, this would mean that companies such as Ravel would widen their range of perfumes, in the sense that individual perfumes would be produced in different olfactory groups with a variety of aromatic notes and nuances meant to be expressive of the individual consumer’s “character” («Κυκλοφορούν σε εννέα τύπους…»).
5. Finally, by the 1960’s, such “character fragrances” would be available to the mass market. Even a badly-paid “Clerk” working in the Headquarters of a flour mill plant – as would the “Amalia-type” – could at some point come to afford such a Ravel product. The advertisement states: «Προσφέρονται σε τιμή προσιτή σε όλους». The real person, Amalia Eleftheriadou, would have felt the urge to buy and wear perfume, given the new body awareness amongst youth – on the other hand, her particular remuneration would most probably have restricted her to buying some particular bottle of perfume and sticking to it over a longish period of time. But that would only have been the case for the decade of the 1960’s – by the 1970’s, the “Amalia-type” would have almost fully claimed her individuality as a woman and would come to proudly wear a “lifestyle” scent, and she would do so even as she would break her nails on a typewriter. Both work and “play” would not extinguish the “myth-making” and the “dream” pertaining to both spheres of life – as Kiki Dimoula would write in 1994: «Φυσικά και ονειρεύομαι… Ζει κανείς μόνο μ’ ένα ξερό μισθό;…» (cf. Κική Δημουλά, Ποιήματα, Ίκαρος, 2007, p. 420).

 

Both the “mini skirt” and the use of perfume, although deeply symptomatic of the new sexual culture in the “extra-economic” sphere, would also enter the realm of the “economic terrain”, and this would definitely apply to a “Clerk” such as the “Amalia-type” in general. In an important sense, working in the offices of a factory’s Headquarters would almost demand that the female employee be dressed somewhat “attractively”. On the other hand, it would be highly unlikely that a female “Clerk” such as the particular Amalia Eleftheriadou would be sporting a “mini skirt” in the Marakis Headquarters of a flour mill based in a semi-rural area as was Aliartos. But one can certainly imagine Amalia Eleftheriadou wearing makeup even at work, a practice which was gradually becoming a generalized popular phenomenon among young women in 1960’s Greece. Of course, the practice would be a reverberation of incessant cultural explosions taking place in Europe, and especially so in London by the mid-1960’s.

At first – and with respect to Europe – the 1950’s “look” pertaining to makeup continued into the early 1960’s, being characterized by pale pink hues for “elegant eyes” and loads of powder, as it is said. But the “Swinging Sixties” in Europe would move away from such pale hues and rouges. London was to lead the way with the “mod look” (“modernist”) starting with the late-1950’s. The “mod look” would peak between early 1964 and mid 1967. In the course of this period, youth-oriented television shows, magazines and films are said to have “united” young people all over the world, cutting across class lines and local cultures (there is much truth in this, but we know that whatever sweeping generalizations cannot suffice to make sense of what was in fact happening in less developed countries such as Greece). At least as regards London and the more developed countries of Europe, one may note that the new “London Look” would constitute a veritable cultural explosion. Specifically as regards makeup, it would be the Mary Quant Cosmetics that would take European youth practices by storm. Quant’s makeup, it is said, was specifically designed for their young “mini skirt” wearing customers, taking them away from the cosmetic products worn by the older generations (cf., inter alia, glamourdaze.com/history-of-makeup/ 1960’s; also: hair-and-makeup-artist.com… 1960’s).

What of 1960’s Greece in particular? The growing use of makeup on the part of Greek women at the time was a phenomenon that one can easily gauge simply by examining advertizing discourse at the time – viz. the sheer regularity of advertisements in various popular periodicals promoting makeup. But the spread of such practice was such as to become an object of discussion even amongst Greek intellectuals themselves, and especially those who wished to protect Greek females either from what Horkheimer had called «χρηστική ωραιότητα» (the “Left”) or what Andrianopoulos had called the “hedonics” of the «πρακτικόν πνεύμα» (coming from the “Right”). Even before the advent of the “Swinging Sixties” in Europe itself, the intellectual Theofilaktos Papakonstandinou would write an article on January 15, 1960 which would deal precisely with the issue of makeup, and which he would entitle, «Η φιλοσοφία του μακιγιάζ».

Papakonstandinou tries to come to grips with the new phenomenon rather propitiously, and he does this in two ways: first, he enumerates the various manners used by females to “beautify” themselves and, secondly, he tries to somehow justify the phenomenon of wearing makeup by presenting it within a historical perspective. He writes:

 

«Τρείς κατηγορίαι απαρτίζουν (πέραν των
ενδυμάτων και των κοσμημάτων) τα μέσα
καλλωπισμού που χρησιμοποιούν αι γυναίκες.
Πρώτη είναι αι βαφαί: του προσώπου (χείλη,
μάγουλα, μάτια), των μαλλιών και των νυχιών.
Δευτέρα, οι διάφορες κρέμες κλπ. του προσώπου,
του λαιμού και των χεριών. Και τρίτη, τα αρώματα.
Δεν θα ήτο υπερβολικός κανείς, αν ισχυρίζετο
ότι όλα αυτά τα μέσα (με διάφορον, βέβαια,
εκάστοτε σύνθεσιν) χρησιμοποιούνται από
χιλιετηρίδων υπό του ωραίου φύλου, που θέλει
να γίνεται ωραιότερον».
(cf. Θ.Φ. Παπακωνσταντίνου, «Η φιλοσοφία του μακιγιάζ»,
in his Προβλήματα της εποχής μας,
Εκδόσεις Γαλαξία, 1969, p. 105 –
articles published in this collection first appeared
in the periodical Εικόνες, 1957-1960).

 

Turning to the contemporary female of the early 1960’s, he very discreetly relates the use of makeup to the need for sexual attraction, and thus points to the looming sexual revolution – elsewhere in the same article, he writes:

 

«Ο κύριος… λόγος δια τον οποίον βάφονται
αι γυναίκες είναι ότι θέλουν να γίνουν
ελκυστικώτεραι – δια τους άνδρας».
(ibid., p. 107).

 

Rather perceptively, and even as early as 1960, Papakonstandinou will note the rising catholicity in the use of makeup:

 

«Δια τούτο… σήμερα… το βάψιμον έχει
καθολικευθή…» (ibid.).

 

And he explains the popular usage of makeup as follows:

 

«Παλαιότερον, όταν τα καλλυντικά γενικώς
ήσαν ακριβά (ασυγκρίτως ακριβότερα από
σήμερα), το βάψιμον δεν είχεν “εκλαϊκευθή”
και εχρησίμευε συνεπώς, εκτός των άλλων,
και ως μέσον κοινωνικής διακρίσεως, διότι
απετέλει αντικειμενικήν απόδειξιν οικονομικής
ανέσεως. Τώρα, που έχει γενικευθή, και που
έφθασε να γίνεται και δημόσια, εξυπηρετεί
ένα άλλον σκοπόν, συμβολίζει την χειραφέτησιν
και την ανεξαρτησίαν της γυναίκας…»
(ibid., p. 108).

 

Such a clear understanding of women’s cultural practices relating to the sexual revolution of the 1960’s comes from a Greek intellectual whose own life and thinking had traversed a rather complex and contradictory course starting from the 1920’s. Papakonstandinou would begin his intellectual career as a Marxist in the 1920’s, would later work for the Ακρόπολις newspaper between 1972 and 1985, and would even accept the post of Minister of Education in the period of the Military Dictatorship (from 1967 to 1969, when he would resign). But it was precisely this willingness to experiment with different ideological paradigms that would allow him to grasp the reality of the 1960’s in ways that did not adhere to the rigid dogmas of the time. But while politically undogmatic, his understanding of the sexual revolution itself would remain quite subjective, and would echo rudiments of the “ethicalist essentialism” we have spoken of above. Thus, on writing of women’s makeup in the 1960’s, he would choose to assess such practice in terms of an “ethicalist” critique of sexual “hedonics”. He would – albeit at times somewhat prudently – relate the use of makeup to what he would call «τας βασικάς ερωτικάς ζώνας», or to young women’s «αφροδισιακόν πλεονέκτημα», and suchlike. That would not of course necessarily render his position judgmental, though he would go on to speak of «τα πλέον πονηράς μορφάς του συγχρόνου γυναικείου επιδεικτισμού» (cf., ibid., p. 108).

Papakonstandinou would very subtly assert his “ethicalist essentialism” by going on to argue that, in the last instance, the practice of using makeup would amount to a psychological tool used by females to deal with their “inferiority” complex – he writes:

 

«… μια γυναίκα άβαφη και αμακιγιάριστη
κατέχεται από παροδικόν αίσθημα κατωτερότητος
και ανακτά το ηθικόν της μόλις εφοδιασθή με
τα όπλα των χρωμάτων. Το βάψιμον κατήντησε
μέσον τονώσεως του αυτοσυναισθήματος των
γυναικών και δια τούτο χρησιμοποιείται εις τα
ιδρύματα όπου νοσηλεύονται πάσχουσαι από ελαφράς
ψυχικάς ανωμαλίας». (ibid., p. 107).

 

Sensing that a tidal wave of “beautification” practices accompanying the sexual revolution was about to hit Greece, Papakonstandinou resorts to admonitions based on what he presents as “medical” evidence – he warns:

 

«Κινδυνεύει, λοιπόν, η υγεία των γυναικών
από το “ρουζ” των χειλέων, από τας διαφόρους
τριχοβαφάς και από τα άλλα παντοειδή καλλυντικά
που χρησιμοποιούν; Το ερώτημα, που μένει
αναπάντητον ακόμη, ετέθη προ μηνός περίπου,
όταν μια νεαρά γυναίκα απέθανε με συμπτώματα
δηλητηριάσεως, λίγες ώρες μετά την “περμανάντ”
που της έκαναν. Το περιστατικόν αυτό έγινεν
αφορμή ενός γενικωτέρου ελέγχου των καλλυντικών
και κυρίως των διαφόρων βαφών, δια τας οποίας
υπάρχει η υπόνοια ότι κατασκευάζονται με βάσιν
καρκινογόνους ουσίας». (ibid., p. 105).

 

We know, as we look back in time, that no such admonitions would stem the tide of what was to mark the history of the 1960’s and on. But what needs to be stressed here is that such tide could not be blocked because the decade of the 1960’s was such as to question whatever forms of “essentialism” (but which was not to apply to the case of the seriously “politicized” collectivities). And the fact is that both the thinking of someone such as Bataille as also that of a Papakonstandinou was defined precisely by such “essentialism”. Both Bataille and Papakonstandinou espoused some “ideal nature” deeply structuring the psyche of humans. For Bataille, such “ideal” had been distorted by capitalism, and had thereby yielded “profane” forms of the “erotic”. For the likes of a Papakonstandinou, it was not capitalism as such that had distorted the “ethical ideal” – for him, as for so many others (both “Left”, “Right” and “Center”), it was above all the mass media – and therefore also the advertizing industry – that was to blame for the vulgarities of the sexual revolution in 1960’s Greece.

We shall need to examine here how, firstly, a thinker such as Papakonstandinou would view both the global and the local sexual revolution and, secondly, how he would wish to explain this phenomenon. To begin with, Papakonstandinou summarizes his understanding of events in an article published as early as April, 1958, and which he entitles: «Ο ελεύθερος έρως» – this is what he writes:

 

«Ούτε δύο δεκαετηρίδες μας χωρίζουν από την
προπολεμικήν εποχήν. Κατά το σχετικώς βραχύ,
όμως, αυτό διάστημα έχουν συντελεσθή και εις
ολόκληρον τον κόσμον και εις την χώραν μας
σημαντικώταται μεταβολαί ψυχολογίας και
συμπεριφοράς των ατόμων. Αι μεταβολαί αυταί
είναι έκδηλοι παντού, ιδιαιτέρως δε εις τον τομέα
των σχέσεων μεταξύ των δύο φύλων, όπου έχουν
προσλάβη τοιαύτην μορφήν, ώστε πολλοί να
ομιλούν περί ανησυχητικής εκλύσεως των ηθών.
Ανεξαρτήτως του αν ο χαρακτηρισμός αυτός
αποδίδη την πραγματικότητα, γεγονός είναι ότι
εις την εποχήν μας επικρατεί μεγάλη ερωτική
ελευθερία, ότι η προσυζυγική γενετήσιος εμπειρία
των κοριτσιών τείνει να φθάση το επίπεδον των
αγοριών, ότι η πυκνότης των συλλήψεων, των
αμβλώσεων και των γεννήσεων νόθων αυξάνει
σταθερώς και ότι οι νέοι με ελάχιστον δέος και με
πολλήν ελαφρότητα προσεγγίζουν την υψηλοτέραν
λειτουργίαν της ζωής». (cf. Θ.Φ. Παπακωνσταντίνου,

«Ο ελεύθερος έρως», in Προβλήματα…, p. 53).

In yet another article appearing in the same volume (first published on February 12, 1960) and very tellingly entitled «Ο χυδαίος έρωτας», he tries to give an explanation for the phenomena described above – he writes:

 

«Ο σημερινός άνθρωπος έχει πολύ μεγαλυτέραν
ελευθερίαν και ευχέρειαν ικανοποιήσεώς του, από
τον άνθρωπον οιασδήποτε άλλης εποχής. Και ζη μέσα
εις ένα περιβάλλον συνεχούς μαστιγώσεως των
αισθήσεών του. Η μόδα ενδύει και κτενίζει την γυναίκα
κατά τρόπον, που να δίδη την εντύπωσιν ότι μόλις
εξήλθεν από την κρεβατοκάμαράν της και αυτό επιδρά
όχι μόνον επί του ανδρός, αλλά και επ’ αυτής. Ο
κινηματογράφος, με το πρόσχημα της “τέχνης”, την
γδύνει εις όλας τας στάσεις. Η “λογοτεχνία” ολονέν
περισσότερον καταργεί τα αποσιωπητικά και
ενδιατρίβει εις λεπτομερείας, που άλλοτε ανήκαν
εις την δικαιοδοσίαν της φιλολογίας του “ροδίνου
κόσμου”. Ο καθημερινός τύπος – το μεγαλύτερον
μέρος του – έχει καταληφθή από σεξουαλικήν μανίαν.
Τα περιοδικά της λαϊκής κυκλοφορίας επίσης. Και
τα κέντρα που διεγείρουν και εκμεταλλεύονται τον
ερωτισμόν πληθύνονται». (cf. «Ο χυδαίος έρωτας»,
in Προβλήματα…, p. 75).

 

What Papakonstandinou has to say of the role of the mass media vis-à-vis the sexual revolution of the 1960’s is actually rather accurate. We know that the mass media – and, naturally, advertizing discourse as such – could both “reflect” or further exacerbate the sexual instincts of Greek youth. In cases of a merely “reflective” functionality, the mass media would be “adjusting” to the real world. And we know that when they would be exacerbating the symptoms of such reality, they would take on a “provocative” functionality (or, more accurately, a dysfunctionality). Either way, the Greek working youth of the 1960’s – such as the “Amalia-type” – would be characterized by a sexual consciousness which could overdetermine their psychological state (in the sense that the qualities of such state would be relatively constant, though the state itself could be dynamic, depending on circumstances). Thus, sexuality would willy-nilly enter the realm of the “economic sphere”, and we would often find male employees sexually interacting with female employees right on the shop floor (both the Marakis Archives and the Douridas Archives testify to such a reality, and which would lead at least some of these working people to finally getting married).

The point here is that whatever divisive line between work and “eros” would get blurred. And further, while young working people would find themselves “chained” to the “structures of work” – as Bataille would put it –, they could at the same time also find themselves as tightly “chained” to the “structures of eros”. This particular form of “enchainment” would be celebrated in a myriad of ways in popular literature – the basic discourse that would encapsulate such a psychological condition would be the role of “fate” in erotic relationships. Here, “fateful love” would be as much a predetermining agency in one’s life as would one’s class position and the concomitant need to sell one’s labour power. We may consider here just one very representative sample of such “eros”↔“fate” relationship – in 1966, the newspaper Ακρόπολις would present a number of advertisements promoting a «φωτορομάντσο» that was to be published in the popular periodical, Πρώτο, and the title of such romance story would go as follows:

 

«Η ΜΟΙΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΑΓΑΠΗΣ»
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 8.1.1966,
p. 4).

 

There would of course be a near endless number of such «φωτορομάντσα» running in both the popular periodicals and even the daily newspapers – the purpose of such pictorial story-telling was to maintain some kind of balance between “romantic discourse” and the vagaries of “aggressive love” referred to above. In both cases, “fate” could be seen to be playing an overdetermining role in the life of young people. In the case of “aggressive eros”, and as already mentioned, “fate” would take the form of what we have called a “demonic-fatalistic passion”. Here, “enchainment” to the “structures of love” would certainly approximate what Papakonstandinou had referred to as «σεξουαλικήν μανίαν», and in this case the “provocative-interventionist” discourse of the mass media would definitely play an important role in influencing the behaviour of Greek youngsters. Thus, “enchainment” to the “demonic-fatalistic” form of “eros” would mean a dependency that could at times threaten to go out of control, and which could take a variety of forms of “sexual perversion”. This could also constitute an ideological terrain wherein Horkheimer’s “worshipping of the cheap” would certainly raise its head, though such “cheapness” remains a moot point.

Forms of “sexual perversion” and “cheap love” were one dimension of the sexual revolution in 1960’s Greece. Both could “enchain” youngsters, and at times more so than would the workplace itself. It would only be with the passage of time that the middle class milieu would be able to establish its own “ethical order” and try to absorb the extremities of the Greek sexual revolution and harness proclivities towards “perversion”. Such absorption or harnessing could take a variety of forms, ranging from either a rejection of certain types of behaviour or a transformation of these into new “norms”. Much of this would also apply to forms of so-called “cheap love”. Examining such processes of incorporation would take us into the late 1980’s and 1990’s, which would be well beyond the scope of this research project – but whatever direction such an analysis would take, it need steer clear of whatever subjectively “ethicalist” assessment of the events that unfolded in the aftermath of the 1960’s-1970’s sexual revolution.

One implication of what we are suggesting above is that even terms such as “cheap love” would ultimately have to be rejected as an ethically biased and judgmental approach, and therefore irrelevant to the work of a sociological history. Keeping this in mind, we may now consider this one dimension of the sexual revolution that could perhaps “chain” Greek youngsters to some of its extremities.

One interesting case is the entry of the well-known Playboy magazine into the world of the Greek market at least by the mid 1960’s, and the later spread of its readership amongst the popular masses. First appearing in Chicago in 1953, this magazine would reach its peak circulation in the 1970’s, and the Greek case would follow suit. Its well-known centerfolds of nude and semi-nude models would mean that it would play an important part in the sexual revolution of the period. Consider the following advertisement promoting the magazine in 1966 – pointing to its famous rabbit logo, the discourse went as follows:

 

«ΑΥΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΓΝΩΣΤΟΤΕΡΟΥ
ΠΕΡΙΟΔΙΚΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ…
PLAYBOY
ΤΟ ΠΙΟ ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΟ, ΔΡΟΣΕΡΟ, ΣΥΓΧΡΟΝΟ
ΠΕΡΙΟΔΙΚΟ
ΣΥΝΔΡΟΜΑΙ:
ΔΡΧ. 400 ΕΤΗΣΙΟΣ
(ΕΙΣ ΤΑ ΠΕΡΙΠΤΕΡΑ ΠΩΛΕΙΤΑΙ ΔΡΧ. 60 ΤΟ ΤΕΥΧΟΣ).
(cf. Μεσημβρινή, 29.1.1966, p. 2).

 

We may first of all note that the discourse of the advertisement itself was extremely cautious and – as is apparent – cryptic as to the real content of Playboy, and thus belonged to the “gentle adjustive” type of advertisement. And yet the magazine’s mildly pornographic pictures would definitely attract the attention of youngsters who could afford buying it. For the “Amalia-type”, such a publication would remain inaccessible for at least three reasons: first, its price would amount to a full day’s work; second, one would never see the likes of it being sold in the few kiosks of Aliartos; and thirdly, it would mainly be young males that would dare buy the magazine. And yet, by the 1970’s, many Boeotian villagers who had some contact with Athens would become avid readers of it. For instance, and as has been mentioned elsewhere, a carpenter from the village of Domvraina who would finally settle in the Athens suburb of Aegaleo would, together with his young wife, spend endless hours enjoying its full-colour pictures of nude ladies. Similarly, a teenager from the Theban village of Xironomi – and who was a “Leftwing” political activist often visiting the capital – would share the Playboy magazine with his comrades.

The advent of magazines such as Playboy was something radically new to Greeks, and it was above all the young who would dare share in its rather provocative sexual aesthetics. At least for the Greek case – with its strong traditions of sexual conservatism – the “use” of magazines such as Playboy in further expanding one’s understanding of sexuality would mean that the “erotic spirit” could now be expressed in its more “perverted forms”, or so would the dominant ideology of “ethicalist essentialism” see the new taste in sexual behaviour.

But it was not simply the role of the mass media which would be promoting the proclivity for “perversion” in the 1960’s. Yet another major cause in the change of sexual taste and behaviour would be the advent of mass tourism that would literally besiege the whole of Greece by the mid-1960’s (Aliartos and/or Levadia included, both visited by tourists on their way to Delphi, which is approximately 147km away from these regions). Theofilaktos Papakonstandinou, writing in the daily newspaper Μεσημβρινή – and right at the same time as that selfsame newspaper would carry advertisements promoting Playboy – would examine the new waves of tourist influx, the “quality” of such tourists, and the impact on sexual attitudes amongst local Greeks. Entitled «Μέγας κίνδυνος: ο αλητοτουρισμός!», this 1966 article would, inter alia, make the following points:

 

«ΥΠΕΡΕΒΗΣΑΝ το εκατομμύριον οι τουρίσται,
που επεσκέφθησαν την χώρα μας κατά το
παρελθόν έτος [1965]. Ο αριθμός είναι
εντυπωσιακός (δια την Ελλάδα), αν ληφθή
υπ’ όψιν ότι προ οκταετίας αι αφίξεις ανήρχοντο
εις 260.000 μόνον… Η Ελλάς από διετίας κυρίως
προσελκύει το ιδιαίτερον ενδιαφέρον ενός
συνεχώς ογκουμένου αριθμού “αλητοτουριστών”…
Διότι συμπεριφέρονται… με επιδεικτικόν κυνισμόν,
ο οποίος αμβλύνει μοιραίως και των ολιγοφρενεστέρων
εντοπίων τα ηθικά ανασταλτικά. Διότι μεταδίδουν
έξεις ανωμάλους… αι οποίαι βρωμίζουν την
ιερωτέραν λειτουργίαν του ανθρωπίνου όντος».
(cf. Μεσημβρινή, 29.1.1966, p. 8, my emph.).

 

There were therefore dimensions of the Greek sexual revolution which had to be rejected as manifestations of the “abnormal instincts”, and which were rubbing off on locals following the influx of tourists in the mid-1960’s.

But despite the negative protestations coming usually from “ethicalist essentialists” and the older generations, Greek youth would insist on experimenting, widening its knowledge around matters of sexuality. Its sources of information would be near endless, and could – paradoxically – even come from the more conservative press, such as the newspaper Ακρόπολις. In 1965, the latter would run an advertisement for months on end which went as follows:

 

«ΣΕΞΟΛΟΓΙΑ
Τα βιβλία θρύλος.
…
Σεξουαλική ορμή, ανικανότης, αναφροδισία
και σεξουαλικαί διαστροφαί (ΔΡΧ. 80).
Σεξουαλική ζωή, αποχή, εγκράτεια, ακολασία
και η εξασθένησις της ορμής (ΔΡΧ. 70).
Σεξολογία, η επιστήμη της ζωής. Φλερτ και
ερωτική ζηλοτυπία (ΔΡΧ. 70).
Έρως, εκλογή συζύγου, γάμος (ΔΡΧ. 50).
Αυνανισμός (ΔΡΧ. 40)…»
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 29.12.1965, p. 6).

 

What we have referred to as the possible “enchainment” to the “structures of eros” – and especially when the ensuing erotic behaviour would be erratic or promiscuous – would naturally yield its more negative consequences for youngsters bent on experimentation. Changes in sexual attitudes and practices in the 1960’s and on would inevitably see the rise of sexually transmitted diseases, a trend which would only begin to recede by the 1980’s (and for reasons that are beyond the limits of this study). In response to the ensuing health problems – especially marked amongst males who would also regularly visit brothels – the press would constantly publish small ads addressed to victims of syphilis, gonorrhea and other bacterial infections. We simply present the following sample running continually in the mid 1960’s:

 

«ΑΦΡΟΔΙΣΙΑ ΝΟΣΗΜΑΤΑ
Α. ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΑΔΗΣ
ΙΑΤΡΟΣ ΑΦΡΟΔΙΣΙΟΛΟΓΟΣ…»
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 8.1.1966, p. 4).

 

Together with the surge of sexually transmitted diseases, the sexual revolution would – at least indirectly – generate a series of social problems that were frequently being discussed by intellectuals and who would be evaluating such phenomena in terms of their own ideological perspectives. One major phenomenon was a serious upswing in the number of sexually-related crimes, something which was said to have plagued the whole of the Western world. In 1966, the newspaperΑπογευματινή would report:

 

«Μάστιξ δι’ όλας τας χώρας τα
σεξουαλικά εγκλήματα».
(cf. Απογευματινή, 5.1.1966, p. 5).

 

Both “Leftwing” and “Rightwing” intellectuals would voice their concern over the rise of such a phenomenon in 1960’s Greece: as usual, while the latter would try to explain it in terms of the corrupting values of “The West”, the former would directly relate it to the inherent evils of capitalism.

Now, as regards the issue of “cheap love”, we shall here briefly point to just one aspect of it, but which is perhaps the most representative – viz. the well-known 1960’s phenomenon of the so-called “James Bond Girls”. While this was of course a global phenomenon, it was also part of popular Greek culture especially amongst the youth of the 1960’s and 1970’s. The extent and depth of popularity of James Bond (and whatever else related to such cinema legend) has yet to be seriously researched for the Greek case, and the exact relationship between this phenomenon and the sexual revolution remains to be analyzed.

Female stars acting in James Bond movies are said to have set certain “standards of beauty”, being ubiquitous symbols of sexuality. For the more feminist-inclined, of course, the typical “James Bond Girl” is simply a “sexual object of the male look” (cf., for instance, R.G. Weiner, B.L. Whitfield, J. Becker (eds.), James Bond in world and popular culture: the films are not enough, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010).

Interestingly, it was the Playboy magazine – referred to above – which was the first to use the label “James Bond’s Girls”, doing so in November, 1965. Naturally, it would be the highly eroticized visual images of nude or semi-nude female stars of Bond films that the magazine would focus on. This would fire the imagination of males around the world, and would definitely do the same amongst Greeks. On the other hand, it would also set standards of “beauty” amongst young females (but cf. our discussion around the issue of “global” vis-à-vis “local” norms of “beauty”, especially with respect to the “LUX” soap brand and related advertizing discourse).

Perhaps the most popular “James Bond Girl’ in 1960’s Greece would be Ursula Andress, who would star as Honey Rider in “Dr. No” (1962). Other so-called sex-symbols dominating the James Bond world, and that would penetrate the popular sex culture of Greek youth, would include the following: a) Honor Blackman, who played Pussy Galore in “Goldfinger” (1959); b) Claudine Auger, who played Domino in “Thunderball” (1961); and c) Mie Hama, who played Kissy Suzuki in “You Only Live Twice” (1964). Greek popular periodicals and daily newspapers would all be promoting the “James Bond cultural brand” on an extremely regular basis, and would be emphasizing the specifically sexual dimension of such global cultural brand depicted in movies. It would be of some interest to note at this point that the Greek actress, Xenia Kalogeropoulou, would be one of the candidates short-listed to play beside Sean Connery in “From Russia With Love” in 1963 (she would lose to the Italian Daniela Bianchi, who was considered to be more of a “sex bomb” – cf. Xenia Kalogeropoulou, Γράμμα Στον Κωστή, pp. 264-266, op. cit.).

The “James Bond Girl” phenomenon – and the effect this would have on the sex attitudes of Greek youth in the 1960’s – would not only be limited to film-viewing, and that is precisely why R.G. Weiner et al would suggest that “the films are not enough” (op. cit.). As elsewhere, so too in Greece, the “James Bond cultural brand” would also be spread through reading material in periodicals and newspapers, as also through the circulation of translations of Ian Fleming’s novels.

In 1965, one of the newspapers publishing James Bond stories would be the Ακρόπολις – with a circulation throughout Greece coming to 220.000 copies on Sundays, it would certainly play an important role in supplementing cinema-viewing. Its James Bond serials would be regular and, whenever the newspaper had to interrupt their publication for some reason or other, it would prepare its readers accordingly –

 

«ΤΟ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΜΑ ΜΑΣ
ΤΖΑΙΗΜΣ ΜΠΟΝΤ
ΑΝΑΒΑΛΛΕΤΑΙ
ΔΙ ΑΥΡΙΟΝ»

(cf. Ακρόπολις, 30.11.1965, p. 6).

 

The popular periodical Ρομάντσο would as regularly publish Bond-related articles and pictures of “Bond Girls” – its weekly circulation would come to 320.000 copies. Other publications in the mid 1960’s which would either advertize Bond-related stories or publish them in series would include Η Βραδυνή, Η Ημέρα and the youth periodical Καρδιοχτύπι. In 1965, for instance, the paper Η Ημέρα would run advertisements promoting the publication of James Bond stories to be published inΒραδυνήitself, and such advertisements would be sprawled right across the pages of the former paper. The form of these advertisements would be straight and simple, suggesting that “James Bond” was in no need for any introduction to the Greek public – the discourse of such advertisements went as follows:

 

«JAMES BOND ● ΒΡΑΔΥΝΗ ● JAMES BOND ● ΒΡΑΔΥΝΗ»
(cf. Η Ημέρα, 17.10.1965, p. 7).

 

The Greek popular masses would also be initiated to the “James Bond cultural brand” through an endless series of translated versions of the Ian Fleming novels, often in the form of pocket book editions. There would also be comic books and comic strips of James Bond stories, usually presenting “Bond Girls” in a highly provocative manner (emphasis on plump breasts, near-naked curvaceous body, succulent buttocks, etc.). The well-known comic book series, Classics Illustrated (Κλασσικά Εικονογραφημένα), which would be introduced to Greeks in 1951 and would continue their circulation for approximately two decades, would also include James Bond stories – for instance: Δόκτωρ Νο – Γιαν Φλέμινγκ, issue no. 1117, Εκδόσεις Πεχλιβανίδη. The Ζαγκόρ comic book, a weekly publication issued by Stelios Anemodouras, would also be including James Bond adventures between 1970 and 1975. Sometime in the early-1970’s, advertisements promoting the Ζαγκόρ James Bond series would be circulating in various Greek newspapers and periodicals – consider the following:

 

«ΣΤΟΝ ΖΑΓΚΟΡ
την επόμενη εβδομάδα αρχίζουν
οι καταπληκτικές περιπέτειες του
ΤΖΕΗΜΣ ΜΠΟΝΤ
του θρυλικού
πράκτορος 007
ΘΑ ΣΑΣ ΓΟΗΤΕΥΣΟΥΝ!»
(cf., inter alia, https://ctspecial.wordpress.com).

 

It is important to note here that both the Κλασσικά Εικονογραφημένα series and those of Ζαγκόρ would be initiating the Greek popular masses to James Bond and to his “Bond Girls” through a major medium of cultural communication (bar the cinema) which one may speak of as the Greek popular culture of the kiosk (cf., for instance, N. Vatopoulos, «Η ποπ κουλτούρα του περιπτέρου», Η Καθημερινή, 16.1.2016).

As for pocket book translations of Ian Fleming novels, the source cited above (https://ctspecial.wordpress.com), has this to say:

 

«Η ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΕΣ ΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ ΒΙΒΛΙΩΝ ΤΣΕΠΗΣ –
Το θέμα των ταινιών του Τζέημς Μποντ,
αποτέλεσε υλικό για πολλές εκδόσεις βιβλίων
τσέπης, στην χώρα μας. Τόσο ο Πάπυρος (Βίπερ),
όσο και το Λυχνάρι, αλλά και άλλες εταιρίες,
κυκλοφόρησαν τις αρχικές νουβέλες του
Φλέμινγκ. Οι φωτογραφίες που παραθέτω,
είναι από τις εκδόσεις του κ. Χάνου και το 1967…».

 

At least as regards the 1960’s, we present here a list of popular Ian Fleming novels translated into Greek and which circulated as pocket books mainly amongst youngsters – these include: a) Casino Royale – Μονομαχία Στο Καζίνο (Εκδόσεις Σκίουρος, 1965); b) Live And Let Die – Θάνατος Στους Κατασκόπους (Εκδόσεις Σκίουρος, 1966); c) Moonraker – Θάνατος Από Ψηλά (Εκδόσεις Ευρώπη, 1968); d) Diamonds Are Forever – Τα Διαμάντια Είναι Αιώνια (Εκδόσεις Ευρώπη, 1968); e) Goldfinger – Ο Χρυσοδάκτυλος (Εκδόσεις Γαλαξία, 1969); f) For Your Eyes Only – Μάτια Που Κρύβουν Θάνατο & Ναρκωτικά Στην Βενετία (Εκδόσεις Σκίουρος, 1966, 1967); g) On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – Άκρως Απόρρητον (Εκδόσεις Λυχνάρι, 1964); h) You Only Live Twice – Ζούμε Δύο Φορές Μονάχα (Εκδόσεις Λυχνάρι, 1965); and i)The Man With The Golden Gun – Ο Άνθρωπος Με Το Χρυσό Πιστόλι (Εκδόσεις Λυχνάρι, 1965).

The impact of such popular literature on Greek youth would be multifarious: it would help arouse their new-found sexual promiscuity and could also promote notions of what Horkheimer had dubbed “cheap love”. On the other hand, it would contribute to a worldview which gave “eros” a ubiquity that permeated both the “economic” and the “extra-economic” spheres of everyday life. With respect to the question of the so-called “cheapness” in male-female relations – what Horkheimer would also call «διαφημιστικές εικόνες» (op. cit.) – we may here simply quote an extract from an Ian Fleming novel to verify the relative truth of such a reality (though, again, without wishing to adopt Horkheimer’s own utopian “essentialism”). The extract is taken from the Greek version of Fleming’s Dr. No (one novel which, from what we know, would only be translated in the 1980’s) – the “Bond Girl” therein is at some point described with her back turned to James Bond:

 

«… Ήταν ένα γυμνό κορίτσι, με την πλάτη
προς το μέρος του. Δεν ήταν εντελώς γυμνή.
Φορούσε μια φαρδειά δερμάτινη ζώνη γύρω
από την μέση της… Η ζώνη έκανε την γύμνια της
αφάνταστα ερωτική… Στεκόταν στην κλασσική
χαλαρωμένη πόζα των γυμνών μοντέλων… Ήταν
μια όμορφη πλάτη. Το δέρμα είχε ένα ομοιόμορφο,
πολύ ελαφρό χρώμα Café au lait με την λάμψη
στιλπνού σατέν… Ναι, ήταν η Αφροδίτη του
Μποτιτσέλλι, ειδωμένη από πίσω…»
(cf. Ιαν Φλέμινγκ, Δόκτωρ Νο – Τζαίημς Μποντ –
007, Βιβλιοθήκη Αστυνομικής Φιλολογίας,
199, Λυχνάρι, 1988, pp. 75-76).

 

We shall end this sub-section on the sexual revolution by pointing to the real changes that would be brought to the Greek Family Unit while at the same time emphasizing that such social institution would persist as central mediator between the “economic” and the “extra-economic”.

We know that back in the 1920’s – and right through to the early post-war years – the “hedonic passions” would be a cause for “shame” on the part of the perpetrators, and it would only be the ultimate marriage of the couple that would allow them to earn the respect of the community (marriage here fulfilling its homeostatic function in Greek society). This state of affairs is perhaps best captured by verse lines composed in 1925, and which went as follows:

 

«Η ΦΙΛΗΜΕΝΗ

Μη με μαλώνης, μάννα μου, καϋμένη,
και μην ακούς τον κόσμον τι θα πή.
Κι’ αν είμαι από τον Γιάννη φιλημένη,
τα στέφανα θα σβύσουν την ντροπή».
(cf. Κυκλάδικον Ημερολόγιον,
op. cit., p. 27).

 

At least by the 1970’s, the socio-cultural context regarding sexual behaviour would of course be dramatically different – in 1976, the newspaper Η Βραδυνή would undertake a survey of female opinion on the issue of “virginity”. We present here a mere sample of what women had to say at the time:

 

«Γκάλλοπ –
Θεωρείται απαραίτητο να φθάνη μια
γυναίκα αγνή στον γάμο της;
● Ρ.Χ., 17 ετών, μαθήτρια:
“Δεν το θεωρώ καθόλου απαραίτητο. Κατά
την γνώμη μου, η γυναίκα πρέπει να κάνη
έρωτα την ώρα που αυτή κρίνει κατάλληλη,
με αυτόν που πραγματικά θέλει, χωρίς
επιφύλαξι για το αύριο, και την ηλικία της.
Η αγνότητα δεν παίζει κανένα ρόλο στον γάμο”.
● Μ.Κ., 55 ετών, ιδιωτική υπάλληλος:
“Μέχρι προ 10ετίας ναι. Στην σημερινή
εποχή, όταν ο άνδρας απαιτή αγνότητα
από την γυναίκα, είναι εκτός τόπου και
χρόνου”…».
(cf. Η Βραδυνή, 31.5.1976, p. 6).

 

Despite such attitudinal changes, the Greek Family Unit would persist – and we would see such persistence reflected in advertizing discourse pertaining to either work or “eros”, or both (remember, for instance, the “RAVEL” advertisement discussed above, with its references to the family as a whole). The Greek family’s persistence may be put down to deeply rooted historical reasons of an objective nature which we cannot analyze here. On the other hand, there was also no serious subjective political or cultural force that would seriously wish to doubt the legitimacy of the Greek Family. As regards the issue of objective socio-economic reasons, we may here quote Stathis Damianakos, whose studies of the Greek countryside in the 1990’s would lead him to draw the following conclusion:

 

«… παρά το γεγονός ότι ενισχύεται ο άμεσος
έλεγχος του κεφαλαίου στην γεωργία και ότι
η βελτίωση συγκοινωνιών και επικοινωνιών
μεταβάλλει την κλίμακα της επιτόπιας κοινωνίας,
κανένα σημάδι δεν εμφανίζεται στον ορίζοντα
 που να αναγγέλλει την “αποδιάρθρωση” της
οικογένειας… Η πολυαπασχόληση όχι μόνο δεν
οδηγεί στην διάσπαση του νοικοκυριού, αλλά,
αντίθετα, έχει μάλλον την τάση να ενδυναμώνει
τους οικογενειακούς δεσμούς, αφού το σύνολο
των εισοδημάτων, γεωργικών και εξωγεωργικών,
συγχωνεύεται στο εσωτερικό ενός ενιαίου και
κοινού προϋπολογισμού».
(cf. Στάθης Δαμιανάκος, «Το δυσεύρετο μοντέλο
της ελληνικής γεωργίας», in Χ. Κασίμης – Λ. Λουλούδης,
Ύπαιθρος χώρα – η ελληνική αγροτική κοινωνία
στο τέλος του εικοστού αιώνα, Πλέθρον/ΕΚΚΕ,
1999, p. 80, my emph.).

 

Thus, even by the late 20th century, objective factors would not allow the Greek Family Unit to undergo any radical destructuration leading to its demise, although – as we have seen – the sexual psychology informing its members would definitely undergo major changes and which would lead to internal clashes between young and old. Of course, Damianakos’ observations are especially relevant to the case of the “Amalia-type” – the real person Amalia Eleftheriadou would reside in an area similar to what Damianakos is referring to, Aliartos being a semi-rural area (and also consider our paper on the Meletiou family which, as discussed therein, would combine agricultural work with the selling of its labour power to the A&M Flour Mill, and would thereby engage in multiple economic occupations).

Further, and as we have suggested, there would also be no subjective political will or cultural force within Greek society – a force worthy of any consideration – to seriously doubt the existence of the Greek Family Unit as such. In fact, even the so-called “revolutionary Left” of the 1960’s – and despite the turbulence and political radicalization of the period – would certainly not wish to present some other “model” of family relations. One is actually struck by the “conservatism” of the “Left” regarding matters around the Greek family – consider, for instance, how the pro-communist ΕΔΑ would try to defend the activities of a woman’s organization affiliated to it (the «Πανελλαδική Ένωσις Γυναικών») in an article published in its organ Αυγή and republished by its political rival, Ακρόπολις, in 1965:

 

«Το καταστατικό της Πανελλαδικής και η
μέχρι σήμερον δράσις της έχουν καθαρώς
εξωκομματικόν χαρακτήρα… Εις επιθέσεις
παραπλανητικάς, η συνέχισις των προσπαθειών
της Πανελλαδικής δια την μορφωτικήν
ανύψωσιν της γυναίκας και δια την συνειδητοποίησιν
των καθηκόντων της προς την πατρίδα, την
οικογένειαν και την κοινωνίαν, είναι η μόνη
απάντησις».
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 10.12.1965, p. 3, quoting from
Αυγή, my emph.).

Work ↔ “Eros” in the 1960’s: uneasy tension and comfortable coalescence

 

 The survival of the Greek Family Unit and its gradual evolution – which would allow it to adapt to the new circumstances – would mean that this social structure had to function in a manner that would try to absorb and find some balance between two new “ethics”: the “work ethic” and the “eros ethic”. It would of course be the industrial revolution of the 1960’s that would yield the new “work ethic”, while it would be the sexual revolution that would yield the new “eros ethic”. Both “ethics” had to co-exist, especially as regards the young “Amalia-type” and her male counterparts – and yet such co-existence could mean both an uneasy tension between them and a compromising, comfortable coalescence. As already discussed, it would be the “myth-making” function of advertizing discourse that would attempt to cover up whatever conflictual relationship between work and “eros”, but it would be the familial institution that would mediate practically between the realities of work and those other realities of “eros”.

Before we embark on a more detailed analysis of advertizing discourse related to the issues of work and “eros”, it seems absolutely essential to briefly discuss the forms that this tension and/or coalescence relationship would take in the minds of the popular «νους» (or “nous”, as has been used elsewhere, in the sense of popular/collective consciousness, but which may itself be internally diversified). And the matter is of importance if only because it would be precisely such «νους» that advertizing discourse would address itself to, and it would be just that «νους» that the familial institution would have to tackle.

There are very many ways in which one could try to somewhat penetrate the workings of the popular «νους» (perhaps the work of Eugene Genovese, in trying to grasp the culture and political economy of the Slave South, remains the best of its type). Above all, one should definitely avoid the imposition of whatever theoretical paradigm onto such «νους», assuming that the latter need reflect the theoretical abstractions of such paradigm, and which usually leads to the subjective “grading” of the quality of that «νους». Here, we shall allow the popular «νους» to speak for itself, but which could only yield a segmented picture of it, given that we will have to restrict our focus to the issues of work and “eros” (but we know that it is the complex synthesis of whichever «νους» that would allow us to make some sense of its component parts). To facilitate such ‘speaking’, we shall here – quite experimentally – adopt a method which we may dub the “sociology of the horoscope”, it being a presentation of the content of horoscope discourse, and which assumes that such discourse can be reflective of the popular “norms”, fears and wishes of various categories of society. It goes without saying that, for us, social “prejudice”, “superstition”, etc., are all symptoms of a real ideological practice encapsulating a material content through which the subject acts in the world. Our approach to horoscope content analysis, of course, would also ask – rather ambitiously – for a history of astrological history, investigating the social “norms” and “ideological prejudices” embedded in such history of emotions (cf., as well, Friedrich Nietzsche, Πέρααπότοκαλόκαιτοκακό, op. cit, p. 82, where it is suggested that «και οι ηθικές είναι μόνο μια σημειακήγλώσσατωναισθημάτων», his emph.). All this, naturally, would have to reject the well-known position adopted by Adorno in 1975, whereby astrology is defined as a “secondhand superstition” and at the same time reduced to a so-called “ideological instrument” directly linked to the “status quo” (the dogmatic simplicity of such an approach need not bother us any further).

To begin with, the tension between work and “eros” is clearly evident in a piece of horoscope discourse published in the newspaper Απογευματινή in 1966 – it went as follows:

 

«Η προσοχή σας να συγκεντρωθή σ’ επικερδείς
δραστηριότητες. Αφήστε κατά μέρος τα
αισθήματα και τις φαντασιώσεις»
(cf. Απογευματινή, 4.1.1966, p. 6, my emph.).

 

Horoscope discourse would advise people to restrict all activities involving “play” to a minimum and rather concentrate on the “work ethic”. It would only be the latter that would enable one to attain “independence” and “recognition”. To the extent that “eros” could be taken to be a vital dimension of the “extra-economic” sphere and the “games playing” that this involved, it would also be implied that “erotic playing” should be sacrificed on the altar of work. Consider the following piece:

 

«Η ΤΥΧΗ ΣΑΣ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ –
Εργασθήτε περισσότερο και γλεντήστε πιο
λίγο. Σας περιμένει έτσι οικονομική
ανεξαρτησία και προβολή μεγαλύτερη»
(cf. Απογευματινή, 29.1.1966, p. 8, my emph.).

 

The conflict between the “economic” sphere and that of “eros” could be so intense that the former could actually “threaten” the latter:

 

«Οικονομικά προβλήματα θ’ απειλήσουν ή
θα διακόψουν τον ρομαντικό σας δεσμό»
(cf. Απογευματινή, 29.1.1966, ibid., my emph.).

 

Horoscope discourse, to the extent that it was a popular discourse determined by what young ladies of the 1960’s wanted or expected to hear, could at the same time offer advice that reflected the “optimism” of the period (discussed above). Such “optimism” would dictate that life should be seen as an opportunity-grabbing enterprise – such enterprise, symptomatically, need yield a combined success in the spheres of both work and “eros”, and which would thereby overcome the uneasy tensions between these spheres. Thus, in contrast to the horoscope samples we have presented above, we would also come across advice which ran as follows:

 

«Κάποιο φαινομενικό δυστύχημα να το
μετατρέψετε σε ευκαιρία εξορμήσεως
και να κερδίσετε αισθηματικά και
επαγγελματικά»
(cf. Απογευματινή, 4.1.1966, p. 6, my emph.).

 

Here, the continuum between work and “eros” is re-established, and such re-establishment is predicated on a new-found “will” whereby each “misfortune” («δυστύχημα») is allowed to mutate into an “opportunity” («ευκαιρία εξορμήσεως»), and such “opportunity” can now only be a state of affairs combining the “economic” with the “extra-economic”, it being symptomatic of the period (the industrial revolution – «επαγγελματικά»; the sexual revolution – «αισθηματικά»). The emphasis here is on the imperative «νατομετατρέψετε», which characterized the post-war period of youthful virulence and creativity in both the spheres of work and “eros”. As Karandonis had pointed out (op. cit.), the decade of the 1960’s was «μια εποχή μεθυσμένη» (an intoxicated epoch), re-discovering its «καινούργια χαρά» (new joy). The new “will” of the new “Type” was a “creative will” and – being the new “will” of the middle class milieu – was gradually creating this continuum between the “work ethic” and the “erotic ethic”. Put together, such new ethicality was essentially a work + sex ethics in-one.

That there remained a contradiction between this horoscope discourse and that other discourse focusing on uneasy tensions is actually quite easy to explain – as so often emphasized, we should not forget the transitionality of the period (again, we shall come back to this). As the years would roll on, the work + sex ethics would become an almost subconscious habit or attitude, ultimately leading to some form of saturation in the post-1980’s period. In the mid 1960’s, however, this will-to-creation («να το μετατρέψετε») would still be something fresh and exhilarating – yet still, the blessings and curses of both work and “eros” could not be swept under the carpet (at least as regards the discourse of horoscopes at the time). Consider the following piece which clearly sees the new continuum between work and “eros”, while also alluding to the possible curses of the latter:

 

«Επαγγελματική επιτυχία που θα ανεβάση
την εκτίμησι των ανωτέρων σας και θα σας
δώση οφέλη. Στον έρωτα: ζηλοτυπία. Το
βράδυ: πρόσκλησις. Νέες σημαντικές γνωριμίες»
(cf. Μεσημβρινή, 11.1.1966, p. 5).

 

But whatever the blessings or curses of either work or “eros”, the “Amalia-type” and her male counterparts would engage in the new wave of experimentation – they would not “join” such a wave: they would in fact be it. Such a wave would be propelled by a new post-war “will” – «να το μετατρέψετε σε ευκαιρία εξορμήσεως» – which would itself function as a force that would conjoin the two ends of a continuum that was in any case riddled with tensions and contradictions. The experimentation, therefore, could also mean that the new “Type” would indulge in an investigation of itself – it would need to test its limits as to how much it could “succeed” in the fields of work and “eros”.

The practice of experimental self-investigation could take a variety of forms – perhaps one of the more interesting cases involving such practice revolved around the writings of the highly popular “psychologist”, Antonios Pissanos. One of his many books, entitled Μπορείς(Πρότυπον Εκδοτικόν Γραφείον, Η Πρόοδος, 1977, 7th ed.), would circulate amongst the popular masses of the 1960’s and 1970’s, and would be avidly read and discussed by them. Copies of this book had also reached the Greek immigrants residing in South Africa – for instance, the Aliartian barber (op. cit.) and his many social circles would frequently discuss the contents of the book and its basic “psychological” tenets. The basic “philosophy” of Μπορείς was a celebration of one’s self-confidence in all spheres of life – viz. both material and “erotic” success – and would thereby confirm the new continuum between the “economic” and the “extra-economic” spheres, such confirmation being predicated on the “will” of the individual. In 1966, the newspaper Ακρόπολις would carry an advertisement promoting the particular book – it read as follows:

 

«Δια να αποκτήσετε θέλησιν, αυτοπεποίθησιν,
θάρρος, τόλμην, ενεργητικότητα και όλες τις
ψυχικές δυνάμεις που εξασφαλίζουν την επιτυχίαν
και τον θρίαμβον εις την ζωήν, μελετήσατε την
7ην έκδοσην του καταπληκτικού βιβλίου «ΜΠΟΡΕΙΣ».
Θα βρήτε ακόμη στις σελίδες του τας περιφήμους
μεθόδους αυθυποβολής δι’ αυτοθεραπείαν και
απόκτησιν ικανοτήτων. Ζητήσατέ το από το Εκδοτικόν
Γραφείον «ΠΡΟΟΔΟΣ», Ζαΐμη 50, Αθήναι, οπόθεν
αποστέλλεται αντί δραχμών 35»
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 28.1.1966, p. 7, my emph.).

 

It should be noted that Pissanos’ book would be promoted in very many newspapers and magazines at the time. While written in 1933, it would only be by the 1960’s that it would attain a wide circulation, and it would be published and re-published right through the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s, and would still be available in the early 21st century. Pissanos, who was a highly prolific writer, would also peddle his “psychology” by writing numerous articles for newspapers and magazines – some of these would include: ΗμερήσιοςΚήρυκας, Ελληνική, ΕλληνικόΜέλλον, Πολιτεία, ΗΠρώτη, Εβδομάδα and, of course, Ρομάντσο. It would really be no exaggeration to say that, in some way or other, Pissanos’Μπορείς would almost be valued as a sort of “bible” by its numerous readers (and who were also in the habit of sharing both the ideas of the book or the book itself within their social circles). For some, such popular parapsychology – with its references to self-hypnosis, etc. – could go hand-in-hand with an abidance by the beliefs of the Greek Orthodox Church. As in the case of the Aliartian barber, who was himself an “Old Calendarist”, the obvious “blasphemy” of engaging in parapsychological experiments with his friends would be comfortably ignored – what really mattered was to succeed in both work and “play”, and especially with an eye to attracting the opposite sex. Generally, people would study and discuss the contents of Μπορείς in an attempt to boost their individual “will”, precisely so as to conquer a new world opening up to them.

At this point, and by way of a recapitulation, we should perhaps dwell on the basic point we are trying to make, and possibly go one step further: it was not merely the Greek Family Unit and advertizing discourse as a whole that would try to contain the uneasy tension between work and “eros” and thereby “order” its possibly “anarchic” consequences – the new-found “will” of the popular masses would itself try to do just that as well.

On the other hand, attempts at boosting one’s “will” via techniques described in texts such as Μπορείς could also be said to have secreted a certain inherent “weakness” characteristic of any “transitional Type”. While texts of “practical psychology” may have been expressive of a spontaneous popular “will” which was itself reflective of the new epoch in its “positive” dimension, one may also hold that resorting to just such types of thinking was at the same time reflective of that selfsame new epoch but in its more “negative” dimension. By this we mean that such new epoch, being transitional, could have turned out to be rather traumatic for many – in that sense, using books such as Μπορείς may be seen as a popular psychological practice meant to cover up the traumas of the “new” through some form of “mass hypnosis” effected on a body and mind plagued by the symptoms of a new orrery of psychosomatic pains (perhaps galvanized by feelings of “guilt” or “shame”, especially related to the new sexual ethics). In a sense, the “myth-making” of advertizing discourse itself could be viewed as a form of “hypnosis” as well (but which would have absolutely nothing to do with either “false consciousness” or “manipulation” imposed from “above”: the subjects themselves “willed” such necessary “hypnosis”). Here, the Nietzschean approach to the question of popular feelings of “guilt”, “shame”, etc., and how such feelings had to be “hypnotized” through popular discourses articulated by organic intellectuals, would be especially useful. In Greece, such organic intellectuals would include anyone from Greek Orthodox priests to “scientists” such as Pissanos. As Nietzsche would say, such organic intellectuals could function in the way that they did because they “understood” the psychology of the popular masses (cf. his Γενεαλογίατηςηθικής, Πανοπτικόν, 2010, pp. 186-188).

But saying all this is not meant to undermine the paramount fact that popular literature – such as was Μπορείς – actually did reflect that popular need to experiment with and cultivate one’s will in the struggle to achieve “success” in both the professional and erotic fields. In fact, books such as Μπορείς expressed a generalized trend across the Western world for that type of literature which was supposed to “help” people achieve “success” and “happiness” in their personal lives. We cannot but mention in this context Dale Carnegie’s How to win friends and influence people, quite properly considered one of the best-selling “self-help” books ever published. First appearing in 1936, it is said to have sold over 30 million copies world-wide in the course of the 20th century – at least by 1970, we would have its Greek translation circulated by the «Πάπυρος» publishing house (there were most probably earlier translations, but this has been difficult to verify). Its basic aim was to introduce the individual to various “techniques” which would help him to “fish for people”, as it put it (the intentions behind such “fishing” would be left for the individual to decide).

Now, while the Carnegie book was a down-to-earth, pragmatic enterprise meant to help people achieve things in the “modern” world, Pissanos’ writings would – and as was the case with so many other Greek books or articles concerned with similar themes – tilt towards the “parapsychological” and would even adopt techniques of “self-help” related to spiritualism, the apocryphal, and so on. Again, one could perhaps best try to explain such a less secular approach by keeping in mind the “transitionality” of the 1960’s and the real traumas that would beset the new “Type” as it was trying to come to grips with the new ethics of work and sexuality which it was itself creating (and in a context wherein the specific “spiritualism” of the Greek Orthodox Church would itself be affecting popular consciousness in a myriad of ways). One should not forget that the more advanced capitalist countries of the Western world had themselves undergone similar pains of transitionality in the early 20th century – perhaps it is Hermann Hesse who has best captured such human condition in the 1920’s. In his Der Steppenwolf, written in 1927, he would note:

 

«Η ανθρώπινη ζωή πορεύεται στον πραγματικό
πόνο και στην κόλαση, μόνο όταν δυό εποχές,
δυό πολιτισμοί και δυό θρησκείες διασταυρώνονται
μεταξύ τους… Υπάρχουν εποχές, όπου μια
ολόκληρη γενιά πέφτει ανάμεσα σε δυό τρόπους
ζωής… έτσι κάθε αυτονόητος τρόπος ζωής της,
κάθε έθιμο, κάθε μυστικότητα και κάθε αθωότητα
οδηγούνται στην καταστροφή»
(cf. Hermann Hesse, DerSteppenwolf, op. cit.,
p. 26).

 

Advertizing discourse related to issues of work and “play” would, as we have suggested, forge that “myth” which would try to resolve the contradictory relationship between these two spheres of life – at the same time, it would attempt to bridge the gap between the “old” and the “new”, and thereby help overcome the pains of transitionality. At least as regards the “adjustive” type of advertizing discourse which we are here examining, we may say that such advertisements would play a major role in “ordering” the possible “anarchy” that Antonios Andrianopoulos (op. cit.) had been so much afraid of, and in that way they would constitute the language of the Greek middle class milieu. It is to such advertizing discourse that we shall now turn.

Advertizing discourse related to work and/or the “work ethic”

 

 By the mid 1980’s, the “Amalia-type” would have mutated into a fully-fledged “New Type” of woman – she would have absorbed the new “work ethic” to the point of seeing herself as a “professional woman” or “careerist”. While in the 1960’s the vast majority of females working as “White-Collar” employees would have been mere “Clerks”, by the 1980’s the jobs they would do would have diversified to such an extent as to encompass various professions based on university training (and which of course relates to the gradual explosion in the numbers of females entering university). The sense of a new “work ethic” would be evident in the young Amalia Eleftheriadou of the 1960’s – as one examines her work records at the A&M Headquarters, one can see her punctuality and diligence. But such punctuality and work discipline was also being imposed on her by economic necessity, in combination with the almost military style bureaucratic despotism of her employer. Economic necessity, employer despotism and even the sexual division of labour allowing for the exploitation of female labour would not necessarily have been eradicated by the 1980’s – and yet, by then and even at the same time, the now matured “Amalia-type” would have attained a self-respecting urge to succeed in the competitive world of the labour market. There would be a definite “celebration” of herself as a “career woman” or “scientist”. In some sense, this new self-consciousness would also have been encouraged by events taking place in the rest of the world, and especially Europe. Advertizing discourse related to work and “careerism” would have complemented this new milieu, and would start doing so even since the 1960’s, thereby preparing the ground for what was to follow. Before examining specific advertizing discourse related to such issues for the period that concerns us, we may here commence by quoting an extract from a letter written by a British female “professional” in the mid 1980’s and addressed to a young Greek female who would come to belong to an “Amalia-type-qua-scientist”. Written by a Margaret V. Jones, a resident of Sussex, England, and addressed to a young Greek lady by the name of Miss B. Th., who was just beginning to work as an ophthalmologist in the 1980’s, part of the letter reads as follows:

 

“Needless for me to tell you Greece has always
half of my heart – … I send always loving & hopeful
thoughts to you – because I believe they help you –
so master your indecision and become fully competent
in all your efforts… you are fully equipped with a good
education and experience in dealing with the most vital
part of the human frame – “EYES”. The windows of the
soul… Your skill is a great gift – and you must be eternally
grateful that you have been given this skill, knowledge
& time to serve in this great world of wonders… so your
gift… is of great value to this life and you must realize
the value you are to the human being… because of your
knowledge… Some have to marry, have children – but
people like us have to be career people – Specialists –
don’t spoil this beauty of service…”
(Private letter, written by Margaret V. Jones, Sussex, England,
to Miss B.Th., Athens, 24.9.1985, her emph.; Private Collection).

 

The observations one could make here with respect to this letter are near obvious, but they should be noted as they do express much of what was happening to the now more mature “Amalia-type” by the 1980’s. We may focus on the following points:

1. The letter is indicative of a growing trend within Greek society in the 1970’s and 1980’s which would have important repercussions on the “culture of work” – viz. the fact that Greek professionals, females definitely included, would be exposed to a greater intercourse between themselves and those in various European countries (but also in the USA, something which would apply to the case of the ophthalmologist, Miss B. Th., as well). Such intercourse would allow the more mature “Amalia-type” to gradually forge – for herself – a more crystallized understanding of what it meant to pursue a “career”.
2. Keeping in mind the point made above, we need notice the manner in which the British resident advises a fledgling female scientist in Greece as to her career plans. B. Th. seems – judging by what Jones writes – to be uncertain or indecisive as regards her future career as a scientist – and Jones insists that her female friend should “master” her “indecision”. Such indecisiveness, of course, could be put down to the fact that young Greek females entering the “world of science” had yet to be fully initiated to the blessings – and demands – of such a competitive world. On the other hand, one could simply explain away the indecisiveness of a B. Th. in terms of her own circumstances and idiosyncrasy (and here we should not forget the contrasting case of Ekaterini Douka, the “Chemist” at the A&M Mill back in the early 1960’s, who was certainly no docile, indecisive young lady when it came to her career interests – cf. our relevant paper on this A&M company employee).
3. Jones acknowledges that B. Th. is “fully equipped with a good education”, something which we know would come to apply to an ever-growing number of Greek females. Yet still, the British friend and colleague urges B. Th. not to place a ceiling over her ambitions – she was in fact initiating her Greek friend to what was happening elsewhere in the more developed capitalist world, where women would not simply be entering the labour market so as to earn money. Their intentions were not just of a purely “economic” nature – they were also bent on “celebrating” their newly attained skills purely for the sake of it, this being the phenomenon of the up-and-coming “career woman”. And this is why Jones urges B. Th. to “become fully competent in all your efforts”.
4. Very importantly, Jones’ letter presents a woman’s career as a “calling”, a “value-in-itself”, and goes so far as to relate it to the “soul” (an ophthalmologist caters for “The windows of the soul”). For Jones, there is a spirituality in scientific work as such, this being one specific form in which the new “work ethic” would take – notice how Jones puts it: “… your gift… is of great value to this life and you must realize the value you are to the human being… because of your knowledge…”
5. The implications of the above point are of major importance for anyone who wishes to understand the issue of “work” and especially (though not exclusively) the new Greek “work ethic” for the period under discussion – such implications would help us to comprehend at least one dimension of the content of the “work ethic” as an ideology – viz. the “religious” dimension which could co-exist with the more secular “careerism”. We should here note that women such as Jones, B. Th. and Douka the “Chemist” would combine the “scientific spirit” with the “religious spirit” (cf., especially, our paper on Douka, which focuses specifically on such an apparently contradictory combination). Interestingly, B. Th. the ophthalmologist would also endorse elements of parapsychology in her everyday life (spiritualism, the apocryphal) – viz. precisely the type of thinking one finds in texts such as Μπορείς (op. cit. – a copy of which she kept in her collection of books). We would thus have here a very specific form of the new “work ethic” as that would emerge amongst certain segments of the working population (mostly female, though not exclusively so). We should also note here, in passing, that many young females who left the villages of Boeotia in the 1970’s and 1980’s to enter university would, not only maintain their rural-based religiosity, but would in fact also enrich such religious sentiment by joining student religious organizations such as «Ω ΣΩΤΗΡ». They would nonetheless go on to diligently pursue a career in the labour market as scientists (fields would include civil engineering, medicine, psychiatry, law, teaching). We should further note here that the relation between “careerism”-“religiosity” and the sexual revolution has yet to be researched (and which raises a variety of unexplored issues, such as the functionality of the ritual of “confession” as a safety-valve in a society being rocked by the new sexual ethics). Finally, we know that neither the “provocative” nor the “adjustive” type of advertizing discourse would ever dare touch on the issue of religiosity (bar Christmas- and Easter-time).
6. The Jones letter, of course, coming from an advanced capitalist country as was Britain, posits the “career”-family interface rather starkly – Jones bluntly puts the matter to B. Th. as follows: “Some have to marry, have children – but people like us have to be career people…” We have already dealt with the persistence of the Greek Family Unit above, and should therefore keep in mind the possible reservations that the “Amalia-type” (whether as “scientist” or professional “White-Collar”) would have in response to such absolute negation of family life. On the other hand, one could see a gradual loosening of the traditional ties between the Greek “careerist” mother and her offspring – B. Th. herself, while “religious”, would give birth to a child out of wedlock and would ultimately spend more time attending ophthalmology conferences than taking care of her child (the onus would fall on her mother to cater to that).
7. Above all, then, what we would see by the 1970’s and 1980’s would be the rise of the “Amalia-type-as-Specialist” (the term “Specialists” being used by Jones herself). Such “specialization” had a “value” well beyond the merely “economic” sphere – as Jones writes to B. Th.: “don’t spoil this beauty of service…” (my emph.).
8. The central most important point here is that it was the period of the 1960’s that was to prepare the ground for all this – such preparation was to be reflected in the myriad variety of advertisements related to work, to which we may now turn.

 

***

 

Advertisements related to the issue of work, and especially as regards the job of a typist, obviously precede the decade of the 1960’s. Also, and as with the case of the sewing machine (op. cit.), one comes across a variety of advertisements relating to typewriters well back in the 1940’s. Without at all wishing to present a history of such advertizing, we may simply consider at this point a “gentle” advertisement which appeared in the newspaper Πελοπόννησος in 1948 – it read as follows:

 

«Πωλείται γραφομηχανή ξενόγλωσσος
εν αρίστη καταστάσει. Πληροφορίαι
παρ’ ημίν»
(cf. Πελοπόννησος, 11.7.1948, p. 2).

 

What strikes one here is that the machine on sale is a foreign language typewriter – in discussing advertizing discourse relating to “Clerks” in the 1960’s and through to the 1980’s, we shall note the extremely important role that the learning of foreign languages would play in the development of the “Amalia-type” from that of a mere “White-Collar” employee to that of a real “career woman”.

Still on the question of typists and typewriters, we may generally note that advertizing related to this field would continue unabated from the 1940’s and through to the 1960’s and on, paying “homage” to the typewriter (as Hobsbawm, op. cit., has put it). Such advertisements would be usually addressed to the young female population. The reason for this is explainable: if, by 1972, there would be 11.300 males in the 20-24 age category working as “Clerks”, we would have 22.540 females in the same age category doing “Clerical” and other related work at the time (cf. our papers on female “Clerks”). On the other hand, while such advertizing was meant to be read by young females, its discourse would not necessarily make this explicit.

In 1965, the newspaper Ακρόπολις would carry the following advertisement promoting the “Olympia” typewriter:

 

«το πρακτικωτερο δωρο [sic]
ΜΙΑ ΓΡΑΦΟΜΗΧΑΝΗ
Olympia
ΓΕΝΙΚΗ ΑΝΤΙΠΡΟΣΩΠΕΙΑ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ
“Κ. ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ” Ο.Ε.
…
ΤΙΜΕΣ ΕΟΡΤΩΝ
μοντέλλα
SPLENDID     2.500
DE LUXE        2.750
MONICA       3.200»
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 18.12.1965, p. 5).

 

One can see here that this advertisement was not addressed to the business world as such – the typewriter is presented as a «δωρο» (it being Christmas time), and therefore meant for the private “Amalia-type” who wished to experiment with the keyboard, very often for self-training purposes (notice the emphasis on the practicality of its usage – «το πρακτικωτερο»). Further, we notice that there is no need for the advertisement to make use of whatever hard sell messages – as in the case of the sewing machine, here too, the product being promoted was in great demand amongst youngsters wishing to familiarize themselves with the machine. On the other hand, we notice that the price of this West German brand in the mid 1960’s was such as to make it a “real investment”, in the sense that a sizeable sum of money would have to be set aside for the purchasing of a tangible, potentially “productive” asset.

For the sake of interest, we note that the Olympia typewriter was first manufactured in the 1920’s at an Erfurt plant in Germany, under the direction of AEG. It appeared at a time when there was a rising popularity and demand for typewriters (as has been recorded by Hobsbawm, op. cit). In 1930, the Olympia brand name had been secured, and its manufacture would continue up until 1992 (production stopped with the advent of the computer).

The high cost of typewriters could be circumvented by young ladies such as the “Amalia-type” – as in the case of sewing machines, here too, second-hand typewriters would be bought and sold in the market place, and advertizing would play an important role as mediator. Consider the following 1965 advertisement announcing the sale of a Remington rand deluxe model 5 typewriter, it being offered at a bargain price:

«ΕΥΚΑΙΡΙΑ
Πωλείται Γραφομηχανή
εις τιμήν ευκαιρίας
τύπου (μάρκας) Ρέμικτον
Remimctom Ramd [sic] Deluxe Model 5
Πληροφορίαι…»
(cf. Η Καλλιθέα, 29.12.1965, p. 2).

 

We simply note that the US-based Remington Typewriter Company (later Remington Rand) had roots that went back to the 1870’s and was a competitor of the German-based AEG. The Remington rand deluxe model had been manufactured in the mid 1940’s.

Hand-in-hand with the increasing circulation of typewriters, we would naturally also see the emergence of private institutions and/or private teachers offering young people typewriting lessons, and which could have been a first step towards the improvement of their job status in “Clerical” work – in 1965, the newspaper Ακρόπολις would publish the following small ad:

 

«ΓΡΑΦΟΜΗΧΑΝΗΣ μαθήματα.
Όχι απλώς κτύπημα των πλήκτρων, αλλά
διδασκαλία υπό καθηγητρίας εκπαιδευθείσης
ειδικώς εις ΑΜΕΡΙΚΗΝ δια να επιτυγχάνεται
η ταχύτητα και ορθότητα εκμαθήσεως.
Επίσης στενογραφία GREG. MARY’S SYSTEM…»
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 7.12.1965, p. 9).

 

We note that this small ad further mentioned that courses in foreign languages were also being offered. Training in pen stenography was provided as well, something which would have certainly interested the likes of an Amalia Eleftheriadou (there is no evidence of the use of shorthand in the missives and letters of the A&M Company): this ad is most probably referring to the Gregg shorthand system, which was the most popular form of stenography in the USA at the time.

In January, 1966, the newspaper Απογευματινή would publish an advertisement addressed to young people of both sexes and which focused on that most burning of issues – the question of work and job training. It read as follows:

 

«6 ΜΗΝΕΣ ΑΡΚΟΥΝ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΓΙΝΕΤΕ ΛΟΓΙΣΤΗΣ –
αποκτώντας έτσι ένα καλοπληρωμένο και
ευχάριστο επάγγελμα, με μεγάλες προοπτικές
εξελίξεως…
Νέοι και Νέες ανειδίκευτοι, αποκαλούμενοι
ιδιωτικοί υπάλληλοι, αποκτήσατε ένα επάγγελμα,
αυτομάτως θα καλυτερέψετε την θέσι σας. Αι
Σχολαί CATÉNALE αναλαμβάνουν υπευθύνως να
σας βρουν καλοπληρωμένη εργασία μετά την
αποφοίτησι… Σχολή Λογιστικής με αλληλογραφία
CATÉNALE…»
(cf. Απογευματινή, 4.1.1966, p. 6).

 

At first sight, this advertisement seems to be promoting a fly-by-night “school” wishing to exploit the career dreams of young Greeks that had never made it to university – what strikes one as especially suspicious is the suggestion that one could be trained as an accountant in just six months, or that such institution would itself find job posts for its graduates. We shall need to come back to such “exaggerations”, but we in any case may note that the CATÉNALE establishment was in fact a serious-minded institution which would play an important role in training, via mail, very many young accountants and other business professionals. The data available on CATÉNALE are in fact meager, but we may fairly safely state that the institution was linked to a French-based training institute focusing on, inter alia, the field of business administration. Training youngsters by correspondence, CATÉNALE in Greece would enable many to hold diplomas in accounting (there is rampant evidence of this, especially for the years 1968-1969). By 1971, the institution would name itself the CATÉNALE ACCOUNTING COLLEGE. Its activities would also include training by correspondence in the field of electronics, more or less as secondary-level private education (starting from the mid 1970’s and on to the early 1980’s). In the course of the 1980’s, one sees the operation of the «Γαλλικό Κολλέγιο – CATÉNALE – Τμήμα Λογιστικής». Generally speaking, one observes that many of its students, of both sexes, would later go on to further their studies and ultimately enter the Greek business world (cf. inter alia, https://au.linkedin.com/in/theodore-lianos-22052873). As such, and despite the limited data available (all of which need to be further verified), we may say that the “exaggerations” evident in the advertizing discourse above were not a mere gimmick designed to deceive readers.

The advertizing discourse of CATÉNALE, promoting distance learning in the field of accounting, was addressed to “unskilled” youngsters, both male and female. Referring to young working people who belonged to that category of “Clerks” employed in the private sector, one may add here that the advertisement also addressed itself to people with a job description similar to that of Amalia Eleftheriadou’s (she had, however, almost finished high school, and she could definitely operate a typewriter – she was not, therefore, “unskilled”).

As such, the “Amalia-type” as a generic category would naturally have dwelt on the CATÉNALE advertisement – its content must have offered her much food for thought. Quite simply, it promised the concrete Amalia Eleftheriadou the possibility of moving from the position of mere “Clerk” to becoming a mighty “Accountant”. And she well knew what that could mean – her experience at the A&M Headquarters had allowed her to see the real power that an “Accountant” such as Stephanakis could wield; she also knew that “Assistant Accountants” were themselves of a relatively high job status but with a formal training not much superior to that of her own (cf. our papers dealing with such job categories within the A&M Headquarters).

For all young people of the 1960’s who had never made it to university, the CATÉNALE advertisement offered them a discourse encouraging their inherent ambition and their dreams for professional development. The advertisement carried a discourse clearly pointing to the ladder of social success and the upward movement in job status – one could move from being “unskilled” to becoming a “White-Collar” employee, such as a “Clerk” in the private sector; and one could further move from being a “Clerk” to becoming a trained “Accountant” (albeit as practical accountancy training vis-à-vis tertiary education). And one could further move to an apparently endless potentiality for professional development («με μεγάλες προοπτικές εξελίξεως»).

The CATÉNALE advertisement, therefore, was basically expressing the mass psychological milieu of the period, it being ambition and professional development, and which would bring one higher earnings and job satisfaction («ένα καλοπληρωμένο και ευχάριστο επάγγελμα»). Of course, such aspirations could only have applied to youngsters able to avoid “Blue-Collar” work – but this is not to suggest that young “Blue-Collars” could not dislodge themselves from such type of work at some point in time; it is also not meant to suggest that all “White-Collars” necessarily came from more well-off parents (Amalia Eleftheriadou being a good example of someone who came from a moderately poor working class family).

The central point we are therefore making here is that the advertizing discourse of an advertisement such as CATÉNALE would “adjust” to and accurately reflect the psychological «νους» of the “Amalia-type”: embedded in such discourse would be the concept of “careerism”, and it would be made available even to those who – like Amalia Eleftheriadou – would never have the chance to enter university. Here, a brief point should be made with respect to the question of “career opportunities” for youngsters without tertiary education, and with special reference to the 1970’s-1980’s period. We know that, starting from the 1970’s, thousands upon thousands of young people who would never have the chance to be university graduates would nonetheless be able to launch their own “careers” by undertaking special training courses in various private educational institutions, of which CATÉNALE was just one (we would see an incredible explosion of such institutions in the 1970’s – cf., for instance, Λευτέρης Τσίλογλου, ΤαφροντιστήριαστηνΕλλάδα: ηιστορίακαιοιάνθρωποι, Κέδρος, 2005). We would thus see the emergence of many privately-trained journalists, accountants, technicians, teachers and so on. Many of these would land fairly well-paid jobs in private companies, their diplomas and certificates being recognized by the State – their earnings would depend almost exclusively on their personal capacities and some would even be able to join the ranks of the upper middle classes. Consider, for instance, a particular youngster (Georgos A.) who, in the 1960’s, would roll his fruit cart around the streets of Amfiali, Piraeus, so as to make ends meet. He would at the same time attend a private English language institution and acquire a Certificate of Proficiency in English. Soon, Georgos A. would launch his own Amfiali-based “frontistirion” by the late 1960’s, and the establishment would slowly expand throughout the period of the Military Dictatorship and through to the 1980’s and on – by the early 21st century, his two sons would be in charge of “The Scholars Group”, a network of educational institutions around the suburbs of Piraeus (the original Amfiali house-cum-“frontistirion” would now be a 6-storey building). The case of Georgos A. is certainly no rags-to-riches exception. Interestingly, one should also note in this context that, in the early 1980’s, the syndicalist organization representing foreign language teachers, «Ο ΒΥΡΩΝ», would have no choice but continue expelling some of its more active, “Left-wing”, members, and would have to do so when these would give up teaching as employees of “frontistiria” and set up their own lucrative enterprises. Here, one would see a clear convergence between the middle class milieu as a style of life (or as an “ambition”) and the middle class milieu as an objective class position.

The CATÉNALE advertisement can only be understood in such a context, at least in the sense that it was preparing the groundwork for such a socio-economic conjuncture. And, therefore, its discourse would have been absolutely realistic in the eyes of the “Amalia-type”. We need to remember that Eleftheriadou’s own job-mobility – a movement from that of “Clerk” to that of a practically trained “Accountant” – could actually be quite feasible, and it was so for reasons which did not only depend on a furthering of her education via institutions such as CATÉNALE. We should keep in mind that the division of mental labour within companies such as A&M was very much “blurred”: formal tasks meant for an “Accountant” could easily be undertaken by an “Assistant Accountant” (who usually only had practical, on-the-job training), and the formal tasks of an “Assistant Accountant” could as easily be passed on to a “Clerk” (cf. the case of Mathioudaki, op. cit., who would operate within the A&M Headquarters as a versatile “Clerk” with diverse responsibilities and powers at times overshadowing all other “White-Collar” professionals).

And yet, as we have already suggested, one could very well make the observation that the CATÉNALE advertisement would be guilty of “exaggeration”, and in that sense would be “intervening” in the field of work by distorting and covering up the miserable realities of such field in the 1960’s: to promise that an “unskilled” youngster could turn into an accountant within six months is an overstatement; to promise that such youngster would have a job waiting for him is yet another overstatement; to promise that such job-post would even be well-paid would be adding insult to injury. But such objections would be missing the basic point, it being that whatever “exaggeration” actually expressed the mass psychology of the 1960’s-1970’s milieu. Put together, the elements of “exaggeration”, “ambition”, “imagination” and “experimentation” would compose the psychological combinatory of the “Amalia-type”, and the CATÉNALE advertizing discourse would be “adjusting” to and reflecting precisely such elements. If there be whatever “exaggeration” in such discourse, it would be the “exaggeration” of an age that was intoxicated with itself – «μιαεποχήμεθυσμένη», as Karandonis had so perceptively put it (op. cit.). As regards the question of “ambition”, it would perhaps be of some interest to quote here Stamos Zoulas, who has this to say of youngsters growing up in the 1950’s and 1960’s – he writes:

 

«Είχαν γαλουχηθεί στη σκληρότητα. Ήταν
έτοιμοι όχι μόνο για μια δύσκολη μάχη
επιβίωσης, αλλά και να αγωνιστούν σκληρά
για διάκριση, πρόοδο, κοινωνική καταξίωση»
(cf. Στάμος Ζούλας, Όσα δεν έγραψα,
Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη, 2003, pp. 73-74).

 

Of course, in time, such “intoxicated exaggerations” and such “ambitions” would actually come to be fulfilled dreams for the mean aggregate of youth by the 1980’s (this would not mean that such matured “New Types” would come to be either “happier” or “sadder” – such terms are of course meaningless for any historical sociology, and that, despite utilitarian thinking such as that of Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill).

We shall end our discussion of the CATÉNALE advertisement by pointing to the possible implications of its “deeper structure”. Part of the movement of its discourse may be summarized as follows:

 

●“careerism” = high earnings + job satisfaction →
● prospects for further development →
● automatically yielding a new social status –
(«αυτομάτως θα καλυτερέψετε την θέση σας»)

 

What would it mean, practically speaking, that a young working person could soon (even “automatically”) find himself occupying a new social status? To the extent that «θέση» (position) encompasses both the “economic” and the “extra-economic” fields, and to the extent that the “extra-economic” field involves games-playing in the field of the “erotic”, one may conclude that this advertisement – albeit exclusively focused on work or “career” – nonetheless leaves a “space” for the “erotic”. In any case, the continuum between work and “eros” would be almost automatic in the mass psyche of Greek youngsters, at least in the sense that a successful “career” could only but go hand-in-hand with an as successful “erotic” life.

For the social historian who wishes to investigate the rise of private educational institutions in post-war Greece, it would be imperative to record the case of the «ΣΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» “frontistiria”. This nationwide network of franchise establishments would play an important role in providing the “Amalia-type” and her male counterparts with the necessary training to improve their job status as “White-Collar” employees and to further their ambitions as “careerists”. The «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» network had always focused on the teaching of foreign languages – in the period under discussion, however, it also provided technical education with a special emphasis on accounting (like CATÉNALE, though here of course it was not a case of distance learning). In 1965, the newspaper Ακρόπολις would carry the following advertisement:

 

«ΕΠΑΓΓΕΛΜΑΤΙΚΑΙ – ΣΧΟΛΑΙ –
ΞΕΝΩΝ ΓΛΩΣΣΩΝ – ΛΟΓΙΣΤΙΚΩΝ
Ν. ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗ
250
ΣΧΟΛΑΙ
700
ΚΑΘΗΓΗΤΑΙ»
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 30.11.1965, p. 9).

 

We note that the «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» educational institutions were first established in 1951. Towards the end of the 20th century, there were 3.800 teachers working for the network, with the number of enrolled students per annum amounting to 35.000. One may speak of over 500.000 graduates – mainly foreign language diploma holders – in all of the network’s years of operation. The discourse of the above advertisement simply dwells on the sheer magnitude of the company’s educational activities: there were only a few other private educational institutions in the 1960’s with as many schools and employing as many teachers (we shall be examining the case of «ΟΜΗΡΟΣ» below).

The «ΣΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» case is of special interest from three different angles:

1. This truly great educational network, with 250 private establishments around Greece in the 1960’s, would play an important role in spreading a knowledge of foreign languages, be these English, French, German or Italian. The «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» enterprise was of course part and parcel of that mushrooming of “frontistiria” which we have referred to above. There is an important sense in which the “New Type” of the middle class milieu was an ambitious careerist who was a foreign language speaker. Youngsters attending private language institutions such as that of «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» came from all social classes right across the board, including of course the working classes. Their introduction to foreign languages would not only raise their overall educational level – it would also initiate them to at least the rudiments of foreign cultures and thus help “globalize” what remained an essentially “localist” consciousness. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that the institution of the “frontistiria” was yet another sphere of life which brought young males and females together, allowing for the “erotic” dimension to flower (the formal schooling system in Greece at the time still remaining deeply “puritan” – with respect to strict disciplinary codes centered around puritanical “ethics” in the 1950’s and 1960’s, cf., inter alia, www.slideshare.net/ReaTsakoulidi/ss).
2. Being a franchise network, the «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» establishment offered young men and women the opportunity of setting up their own educational institutions, thus launching them as relatively independent entrepreneurs. Many such youngsters would later go on to sever their relationship with «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» and establish their own independent “frontistiria” (it has been estimated that, by 1984, 64% of senior high school pupils, taken as a sample, would be attending such “frontistiria” – cf. www.eriande.elemedu.upatras.gr; other sources, less reliable, suggest that while there were approximately 550 “frontistiria” in 1977, these would increase to 1.000 by 1982). But whatever the real numbers, we know that «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» would enable a sizeable number of young people, with or without tertiary education, to run their own educational establishments. They would find themselves in a class position ranging from the middle-middle class to the upper-middle class. Their social status would be further enhanced by attending various teacher-training seminars (organized by bodies such as TESOL, the British Council, etc.).
3. As importantly, the «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» establishment would offer hundreds of young people – 700 in the mid 1960’s – the opportunity to work as teachers (again with or without a university degree). As mentioned, the number of teaching posts would increase to nearly 4.000 by the late 20th century. One such youngster would be a Mr. N.M., who had gained some teaching experience while in the USA in the 1960’s and, on returning to Greece, would land a job with «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» at the time. He was known for his military-style disciplinarian teaching methods, most probably imbibed from his US experience (he would later establish his own “frontistirion” – cf. matos.gr/η-ιδρυση-του-σχολείου-μας). Yet another case is that of a Ms. M.V., who would start working for «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» in the early 1980’s. Born in 1960, she would enter the University of Thessaloniki in 1978 to study Italian. Typical of the “New Type” of young female, Ms. M.V. would also acquire her Certificat de Langue Français in 1974, her Certificate of Proficiency in English in 1982, and her Grundstufe in 1983. Also typical of a segment of that “New Type”, she would continue her studies at the University of Thessaloniki studying theology between 1983 and 1987 (cf. our discussion of the “religious spirit” above). It would be in this five-year period that Ms. M.V. would work as an English language teacher for «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» (cf. users.auth.gr/mitro/biograf.htm).

 

We have said that the “New Type” was a foreign language speaker (or, at the very least, a foreign language learner). It is true that in the decade of the 1960’s, much of clerical work, practical accountancy, and other jobs in the “White-Collar” category might not necessarily have required any real competency in foreign languages. And yet, the more ambitious youth of the late 1960’s and 1970’s would systematically pursue foreign language learning and would do so precisely because they were ambitious and forward-looking. On the other hand, Greek companies belonging to the endogenous non-monopoly capital variety were increasingly expanding and deepening their transactions with foreign companies. A perfect example of such a case is that of the Thiva-based Douridas company (op. cit): company archives include files containing correspondence with various UK, Australian, French and other foreign firms. At least as regards correspondence in the English language, one notices that staff at the Douridas Headquarters had a rather problematic language competence. Yet still, they could communicate – consider the following formal letter to a UK company written – on a typewriter – in 1965:

 

“Athens 24th December 1965

Messrs
William Yates & Sons
75 Whitworth Street
MANCHESTER…

Dear Sirs,

We have to apologie for our delay in answering to your
letter of December 16th. We were very sorry seing that up to
that day you had not received our letter of December 1st. We
believe that it was bacause of the big correspodence during this
month and that you will have already received it. Anyway and
for the inprobable occasion that the letter has been lost and
never recived by you, we inform you again about the results of
the discussion for the known subject in the Greek Ministry of
Commerce on November 30th.

As we had already told you in our letter of November 27th
we were absdutely sure that we would undertake the order
from our Goverment to supply it 5000 shirts for Greek Air Forces.
But unfortunately the last day before the discussion, “Piraїki-
Patraїki” one of the greatest Greek mills of Cotton Yarms and
clothing was interested in the suppling and sent a letter declaring
that it could undertake the order offering cheaper price. After
that everything was lost, because of the will our Goverment
to protect Greek industry and products. –

Of course we were protested hardly but we failed. However we
believe that next year we will try again and we will be luckier. In the
meantime we want to thank you very-very much for everything you
have done and we believe that in the near future we will
colaborate.

Finishing we wish you Merry Christmas and a Happy and prospetory
New Year. –

Yours Faithfully
DOURIDAS BROS Co
Peter ter Douridas”
(cf. Douridas Company Archives, File No. 91: «Αλληλογραφία
εξωτερικού – εισερχόμενων/εξερχόμενων», 1965).

 

This letter, as all the many others in File No. 91, contains a couple of typing errors which the typist had corrected by pen (it is interesting to note that typewritten letters produced at the A&M Headquarters themselves contained numerous typing errors that had to be corrected by pen – it is difficult to say whether this was due to bad training in typing skills or may simply be put down to the sheer pressure of work). The important point to make here is that, in the case of the Douridas letter, the vast majority of errors are clearly a result of language incompetency. What we have here is the use of EFL in its transitional form – the “New Type”, at least as foreign language speaker/learner, being himself transitional. It would take quite some time before the young typists and translators working for Greek firms would be able to string words together in a manner that would not embarrass someone like Douridas to his British friends (a “prospetory New Year”). Now, it was just such language incompetency that advertizing discourse related to EFL had to address, and we thus had numerous advertisements promoting different courses of language learning.

One such language learning course was the over-advertized “Linguaphone system”. Daily newspapers and magazines in the course of the 1960’s and on would systematically carry advertisements promoting such self-study courses making use of tape recorders and other paraphernalia (one could mention the periodical Ρομάντσο in this context, but that would not do justice to the reality – nearly all publications would carry “Linguaphone” advertisements at some time or other). We have been able to track a “Linguaphone” advertisement back in 1950 – the well-known, US-backed Ανασυγκρότησις periodical would carry such an advertisement, part of which read as follows:

«Ξένες Γλώσσες
Πριν περάσουν Εκατό Ώρες
Θα ΜΙΛΗΣΕΤΕ…
ΑΓΓΛΙΚΑ
ΓΑΛΛΙΚΑ ● ΙΣΠΑΝΙΚΑ ● ΙΤΑΛΙΚΑ ● ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΚΑ
(κυκλοφορούν 21 γλώσσες)
Με το Σύστημα LINGUAPHONE που αρχίζει αμέσως με ομιλία.
Στο σπίτι σας, στο Γραφείο σας, μπορείτε σήμερα
να μάθετε με τη μεγαλύτερη ευκολία ΑΓΓΛΙΚΑ,
Γαλλικά, Γερμανικά, Ισπανικά, Ιταλικά, ή όποια άλλη
γλώσσα προτιμάτε, με τρόπο τέλειο, διόλου δαπανηρό
και μέσα σε εξαιρετικά μικρό διάστημα.

Το πρωτότυπο “Σύστημα Linguaphone” με τους δίσκους του
οποίου κατασκευάζονται σύμφωνα με τις τελευταίες, τις
πιο συγχρονισμένες μεθόδους ηλεκτρικής καταγραφής του
ήχου, σας φέρνει την ίδια τη φωνή διάσημων ξένων καθηγητών
που σας μιλούν ο καθένας στη δική του γλώσσα. Μελετάτε
όσο θέλετε, στις ώρες που θέλετε, επαναλαμβάνετε τα
μαθήματα όσες φορές χρειασθή. Με τον τρόπο αυτό της σπουδής
με δίσκους, ο δάσκαλός σας είναι πάντα στο πλάι σας για να
σας διδάξη, τα βιβλία σας πάντα κοντά σας για να σας βοηθήσουν.

Για τα ταξίδια σας, για τις υποθέσεις σας, αμέσως τώρα σας
χρειάζεται το Linguaphone και όχι αργότερα. Δημιουργήστε
από τώρα ένα μέλλον γεμάτο δράσι και επιτυχίες. Ευκαιρίες
λαμπρές παρουσιάζονται κάθε τόσο σ’ εκείνον που μιλάει ξένες
γλώσσες. Μη μεταθέτετε την απόφασί σας στο αύριο – μια μέρα
αναβολής – είναι μέρα χαμένη…

ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟΝ LINGUAPHONE, Τσώρτσιλ 30, Αθήναι…»
(cf. Ανασυγκρότησις – Δεκαπενθήμερος Επιθεώρησις,
Αρ. Φύλλου 25, Αθήναι, 1 – 15.3.1950, p. 33, their emph.).

 

As in the case of so much of advertizing discourse having to do with work and work-related skills for the period under discussion, this 1950 “Linguaphone” advertisement would unabashedly celebrate «ένα μέλλον γεμάτο δράση και επιτυχίες» and «ευκαιρίες λαμπρές». At least in the immediate post-war period, such discourse may have sounded provocatively out of place given the persisting poverty. And yet, such period was neither economically nor psychologically stagnant (at least for those who did not have to emigrate). As discussed elsewhere, this was a time when, and as Francois Duchêne has also pointed out, the output of manufacturing investment in Greece was twice that of the mean average of the EEC and triple that of the mean average of Britain (cf. Francois Duchêne, «Οι απόψεις της Κοινότητας», in K. Baїtsos & D. Seers (ed.), ΗΕΟΚτωνδύοταχυτήτων, Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, 1986, p. 60). It was such investment between 1955 and 1975 (ibid.) that would allow many youngsters to prepare themselves for jobs or careers demanding, inter alia, EFL skills.

Like CATÉNALE and “frontistiria” such as «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ», the London-based “Linguaphone” establishment was certainly no fly-by-night enterprise. It was (and is) a global language training provider dating back to 1901. Its in-house training methods were meant to especially serve the needs of companies and working people – “Linguaphone” therefore supplemented the nationwide network of private language institutions spreading in the 1960’s.

Training the “New Type” in foreign languages was primarily the work of private institutions such as the ones we have mentioned above (it is only by the late 1980’s that the Greek Ministry of Education would introduce the teaching of English as a compulsory subject at primary school level). But it should be noted that the Greek State would also try to contribute to the endeavour in the 1950’s. A copy of the weekly Ραδιοπρόγραμμα – ΈκδοσιςτουΕθνικούΙδρύματοςΡαδιοφωνίας, published in 1954, tells us that both it as a periodical and the Greek State-controlled radio networks provided Greeks with systematic lessons in the English language. Lessons that were to be broadcast on the radio would also be published in advance in this periodical (sold at 2 drachmas per copy). In the particular issue of December 12-18, 1954, we have four English lessons published exhaustively, each of which would be introduced as follows:

 

«Ακούτε και μιλάτε
ΤΑ ΑΓΓΛΙΚΑ
ΔΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΡΑΔΙΟΦΩΝΟΥ
ΜΑΘΗΜΑ 115ον
ΘΑ ΜΕΤΑΔΟΘΗ
ΤΗΝ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΑ 13.12.54
Και ώραν 15.15 – 15.30»
(cf. Ραδιοπρόγραμμα – Έκδοσις του Εθνικού
Ιδρύματος Ραδιοφωνίας, 12-18.12.1954,
Τεύχος 237, pp. 5, 6, 10, 11, 18-20).

 

The Athens-based «Ε.Ι.Ρ.» would broadcast the lessons four times a week – Mondays and Thursdays would be for beginners; Tuesdays and Fridays for the more advanced learners. Similar lessons would also be broadcast by the Salonika radio station (the «Ραδιοφωνικός Σταθμός Θεσσαλονίκης»). Both radio networks used a method somewhat similar to that of “Linguaphone”, whereby the listener would hear an English language native speaker and could repeat after him. But the radio lessons went a bit further in that the presenter – someone by the name of Polemis – would also try to explain the grammatical phenomena of the foreign language in Greek.

 

***                                                               

 

In the decade of the 1960’s, the “Amalia-type” would be beset by material constraints that would seriously delimit her ambitions and personal potentialities – the gradual development of the “New Type” was uneven. We know that Amalia Eleftheriadou would be earning a daily remuneration amounting to 65 drachmas (or 1.625 drachmas per month) towards the end of 1966. We may contrast Amalia’s case to that of other “Clerks” or typists of more or less the same period – consider the following small ad published in the Ακρόπολις in December 1965:

 

«ΖΗΤΕΙΤΑΙ επειγόντως
λίαν πεπειραμένη δακτυλογράφος
δια δικηγορικόν Γραφείον.
Μισθός δρχ. 1.800 μηνιαίως…»
(cf. Ακρόπολις, 1.12.1965, p. 6).

 

The typist earning those 1.800 drachmas per month would have to be highly experienced and would be working for a lawyer’s office somewhere in Athens. In contrast, Amalia Eleftheriadou, who was a definitely inexperienced “Clerk”-typist, would be working in a semi-urban area for a flour-producing factory. And yet, despite such contrasting variables, one does not really see any major discrepancy in remuneration – the difference would amount to an extra 7 drachmas per day for the lady working at the lawyer’s office. It seems that in the case of both female employees we can clearly see the material constraints of the 1960’s.

And yet, the material constraints of the period must not be seen as static – they would be reflective of personal qualifications and educational background, thereby testifying to the unevenness of circumstances pertaining to the “New Type”. Consider here the following small ad which appeared in Μεσημβρινή in January 1966:

 

«ΔΕΣΠΟΙΝΙΣ
ομιλούσα και γράφουσα άριστα
την Αγγλικήν, με πείρα γραφείου,
ζητείται ως γραμματεύς.
Μισθός δρχ. 3.000.
Πληροφορίαι…»
(cf. Μεσημβρινή, 29.1.1966, p. 8).

 

Here, the remuneration is almost double that of an Amalia Eleftheriadou’s – apart from the office experience that this post required, we notice what it was that truly made the difference: the ability to speak and write the English language fluently. Judging by the 1965 Douridas letter we have presented above, one may conclude that “fluency” in English was a qualification that still remained rare and much sought-after. This naturally explains the 3.000 drachma remuneration on offer – and it explains the explosion of private language institutions we have been referring to. If the “Amalia-type” was only just beginning to introduce herself to the English language through the types of programs broadcast by «Ε.Ι.Ρ.», her offspring would spend endless after-school hours at a “frontistirion” desk preparing for a job that would in some way or other demand foreign language competency (both in the private and public sector). A new reality was being hatched.

As one may guess, for the “Amalia-type” of the 1960’s to be able to surpass the barriers to her promotion and evolve into a “career woman”, she would have to acquire a new set of skills – these would include:

 

1. Foreign language competency, preferably in more than one foreign language;
2. Skills in business letter writing;
3. Stenography;
4. Speed typing skills;
5. At least some knowledge of practical accounting;
6. An ever-increasing formalization of all such practical skills (requiring certificates, diplomas, and even university degrees); and, finally –
7. The appropriate age, with an emphasis on – or a preference for – youth.

 

Again in 1966, Μεσημβρινή would carry the following job advertisement:

 

«ΖΗΤΕΙΤΑΙ παρά σοβαράς επιχειρήσεως ως
ιδιαιτέρα γραμματεύς, δεσποινίς ή κυρία,
γνωρίζουσα απταίστως γαλλικήν και αγγλικήν
εμπορικήν αλληλογραφίαν, στενογραφίαν
και γραφομηχανήν, ηλικίας μέχρι 35 ετών.
Μισθός ικανοποιητικός»
(cf. Μεσημβρινή, 11.1.1966, p. 7).

 

The relationship between age and the possibility of moving up the ladder of job status is perhaps clearer in the following 1966 job advertisement:

 

«ΠΑΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΕΤΑΙΡΙΑΣ ΚΑΤΑΣΤΗΜΑΤΩΝ
ΑΥΤΟΕΞΗΠΗΡΕΤΗΣΕΩΣ
PRISUNIC – ΜΑΡΙΝΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ
ΖΗΤΟΥΝΤΑΙ
… Βοηθοί Λογιστών ηλικίας μέχρι 30 ετών.
… Δακτυλογράφοι ελληνικής…
Παρακαλούνται οι αιτούντες όπως απευθύνουν
εις Ταχυδρομικήν Θυρίδα 739, ιδιόχειρον βιογραφικόν
σημείωμα λεπτομερές, αναφέροντες απαραιτήτως
ηλικίαν και συνοδευόμενον δια προσφάτου
φωτογραφίας. Προφορικαί επαφαί δεν γίνονται
δεκταί, αλλά μόνον κατόπιν εξετάσεως των αιτήσεων»
(cf. Μεσημβρινή, 11.1.1966, p. 2, my emph.).

 

The advertizing discourse of the 1960’s would generally be announcing the advent of the “New Type” in the field of work. Often enough, such discourse would be alluding to the continuum between work and “personal life”. Perhaps the best sample of all such 1960’s advertizing discourse that we have come across appeared in the Ρομάντσο periodical of September, 1964. Part of it read as follows:

 

«ΕΛΛΗΝΟΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΟΝ ΕΠΙΜΟΡΦΩΤΙΚΟΝ
ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟΝ… ΣΧΟΛΗ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΩΝ
… Η κατάρτισίς σας ως ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΩΣ έχει
σημασία για ΣΑΣ…
ΟΣΕΣ ΑΠΟΦΟΙΤΗΣΑΤΕ από Γυμνάσια και άλλα
Σχολεία Μ. Εκπαιδεύσεως, ΠΡΟΣΟΧΗ!...
Σαν πτυχιούχος της ΣΧΟΛΗΣ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΩΝ
… θα γίνετε ο ΝΕΟΣ τύπος της ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΩΣ, που
έχει καταρτισθή για ν’ ανταποκριθή στις αξιώσεις
που έχουν οι ΣΥΓΧΡΟΝΕΣ Επιχειρήσεις…
Θα σας αμείψουν καλύτερα, γιατί… θα έχετε μάθει
πρακτικούς τρόπους ΣΥΜΠΕΡΙΦΩΡΑΣ, τόσο αναγκαίας
σήμερα. Η ΑΥΤΟΠΕΠΟΙΘΗΣΙ σας, εξ άλλου, που προκύπτει
απ’ αυτή την κατάρτισι, θα σας ΞΕΧΩΡΙΣΗ από τις
“συνηθισμένες” γραμματείς και θα σας οδηγήση στην
επιτυχία, τόσο μέσα στο επάγγελμα, όσο και στην
προσωπική σας ζωή…
ΔΙΔΑΣΚΟΜΕΝΑ ΜΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ: Στενογραφία, Αλληλογραφία,
Λογιστικά, Οικονομικά, Εργατική Νομοθεσία, Πρακτική
Ψυχολογία (Ανθρώπινες σχέσεις) κλπ.
… ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟ ΠΤΥΧΙΟ: Χορηγείται από το Κράτος μετά
επιτυχείς εξετάσεις…»
(cf. Ρομάντσο, Αρ. Τεύχ. 1125, 29.9.1964, my emph.).

 

Need we say that the “Amalia-type” of the 1960’s, and Amalia Eleftheriadou herself as a concrete person, was just that sort of «συνηθισμένες γραμματείς» without any real possibilities of promotion within a company such as that of A&M. Still, as a fairly well-educated young lady, Amalia would have “dreamt” of going beyond her position as an “unqualified Clerk” (cf. our papers on women employees in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and especially with reference to “Clerks” and the devaluation of “White-Collar” skills). Realizing such “dreams” would have meant a higher remuneration, an entry into the as yet unheard of world of “careerism” and a higher “social status” generally. Such “dreams” were a need felt by working youth who had attended, if not finished, high school. The advertizing discourse of the «ΕΛΛΗΝΟΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΟΝ ΕΠΙΜΟΡΦΩΤΙΚΟΝ ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟΝ» is invaluable for the social historian as it actually narrates the history that hatches the “New Type” which had been nursed by youngsters such as Amalia Eleftheriadou: it points to all of the contradictory elements that would ultimately fuse and yield a new reality by the 1980’s. Let us consider the basic realities it so accurately points to:

 

1. The very name of this “private” educational establishment encapsulates what was happening in the “public” sphere – viz. the close politico-economic ties that were being established between the USA and Greece following the Civil War. The “Amalia-type” could not possibly have escaped that «ΕΛΛΗΝΟΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΟΝ» (Hellenic-American) mesh of relationships sprouting in various spheres of life. How both the “Amalia-type” and her successors would deal with the so-called American “cultural imperialism” has been discussed above (especially in examining the Sinatra “cultural brand”, op. cit.). On the other hand, one would need to consider anew the relationship between the “New Type” as foreign language speaker/learner and the impact of US “cultural imperialism” (this issue had better be left to social linguists, amongst others).
2. The discourse points to the rise of “individualism”, it being symptomatic of the looming middle class milieu: «έχει σημασία για ΣΑΣ». We should here point out that such “individualism” of the “New Type” was not at all a continuation of some kind of “egoism” inherent in the Greek “psyche” – it was a phenomenon specific to the socio-cultural circumstances of Greece at the time (industrialization in the absence of an organized, mass worker movement; a continual social mobility; the dominance of a residual-rustic consciousness even amongst working people, etc.), and which went hand-in-hand with the sexual revolution (itself constituting a focus on the individual’s “self”). Thus, it will not do to simply assert – as does an at times rather simplistic presentation by Evanggelos Korovinis – that «Η ελληνική ατομικότητα είναι ο αμιγέστερος ατομικός τύπος ανθρώπου που εμφανίστηκε στην ιστορία», etc. (cf. Ευάγγελος Κοροβίνης, Ηνεοελληνικήφαυλοκρατία, Εκδόσεις Αρμός, 2008, pp. 28-29).
3. The advertisement is directly and exclusively addressed to the “Amalia-type” – the type, we have said, that had almost completed her high school studies but had no intention of continuing with tertiary education – it is thus a discourse pointing to career opportunities for youngsters without a university degree, and which is indicative of the coming explosion of job/career opportunities for people who had never made it to university but had nonetheless “educated” or “trained” themselves through the networks of mainly private educational institutions that were sprouting almost everywhere (cf. above). As importantly, the advertisement is exclusively addressed to females, thus prophetically prefiguring the almost dominant role of women in “Clerical” posts in the ensuing decades (both public and private sectors).
4. We cannot fail to notice its reference to that «ΝΕΟΣ τύπος» – the discourse is openly and directly announcing the “New Type” of which we have been writing about. It is perceptive enough to go ahead and actually name that very “Type” (we have often seen how advertizing copywriters may turn out to be so much more competent in understanding social reality than sociologists themselves, especially in Greece).
5. It relates such “New Type” to the “modern” companies that were emerging and which, as we have said, would be continually trying to restructure their operations in ways which adjusted to foreign companies, thereby deepening their transactions with them. For endogenous non-monopoly capital (be it commercial or manufacturing), this would automatically lead to a demand for new skills and foreign language competency amongst females employed in “White-Collar” clerical posts. By the late 1970’s, even a medium-sized company such as the A&M Flour Mill had no choice but to investigate ways in which it could automate the production and packaging of its flour – and it would thus have to come into contact with companies involved in flour milling technology based in countries such as England, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Japan and even Sri Lanka. Often enough, there were no Greek-based go-betweens to facilitate such transactions, and the A&M company would be left to its own paltry resources. The point here is that, at the time, a “Clerk” such as the concrete Amalia Eleftheriadou at the A&M Headquarters simply did not possess the expertise to at least assist in such transactions. It was at just this point that institutions such as the «ΕΛΛΗΝΟΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΟΝ» would come in to fill the gap in skills (the “Amalia-type” would of course ultimately come to acquire such new skills – on the other hand, and as we know, many companies such as A&M in the food manufacturing sector would ultimately be decimated in the early 1980’s, soon after Greece had acceded to EOK, and thus these would ultimately not be there to tap the newly-acquired skills of the “New Type” of employee).
6. The advertizing discourse points to a definition of the socio-psychological content of such “New Type”: such content would essentially be yielding a new code of behaviour – «θα έχετε μάθει πρακτικούς τρόπους ΣΥΜΠΕΡΙΦΩΡΑΣ».
7. The “New Type” that is being announced would be characterized by a new attitude, that of «ΑΥΤΟΠΕΠΟΙΘΗΣΙ», which would be the fruit of “training” («που προκύπτει απ’ αυτή την κατάρτισι»). We know that variations self-confidence (either pertaining to career, or to social life, or in the erotic field, or all put together) would manifest themselves as a grassroots sentiment amongst the youth of the late 1960’s and especially in the 1970’s. And yet, such spontaneous impulse would nonetheless require to be “trained” (or “domesticated”, as Nietzsche would put it – he in fact reconsiders the whole ritual of “training” in European “modern” civilization, cf. his Γενεαλογίατηςηθικής, op. cit., p. 201 et al) – and that, especially as regards young females such as the “Amalia-type” operating in a highly formal office environment.
8. The end-product would be to overcome the limitations of – and thereby surpass – the “Amalia-type” of the 1960’s. There would have to be a cultural rupture between, on the one hand, an “Amalia-type” still carrying the recent past (as also the more distant past via her grandparents – the “jumping of generations” phenomenon) and, on the other, a “New Type” of the “Amalia-type” with a different attitude to both work and “play”. Thus, the advertizing discourse states matters as accurately as it should: «θα σας ΞΕΧΩΡΙΣΗ από τις “συνηθισμένες” γραμματείς». This would constitute both a provocation and a challenge for the concrete Amalia Eleftheriadou – to the extent that, as a youth in the 1960’s, she possessed the will to mutate into the “New Type” by pursuing further formal training, this advertisement would have been a real personal challenge for her. On the other hand, if either material circumstances or psychological state of mind would lead her to inertia – which would mean that she would see the status quo within the A&M Headquarters as either “natural” or with a fatalistic pessimism – then, of course, such discourse could have provoked her in a negative manner. There is an important sense in which the middle class milieu would herald an age of “economic Darwinism” (the survival of the fittest even at grassroots level, something which would be exacerbated by the realities of EOK – with which the Greek economy had already been aligned with since 1962 – but which would explode in the 1980’s – cf. K. Baїtsos, Γενικήεισαγωγήστηνελληνικήέκδοση, in K. Baїtsos & D. Seers (op. cit.), p. XXI; and also E. Korovinis (op. cit.), pp. 125-126).
9. The new individualism, informed by a new code of behaviour and attitude, would allow for a cultural rupture that would enable the “New Amalia-type” to taste the fruits of “success” – such “success”, however, would manifest itself in both the “economic” and the “extra-economic” fields of life. The discourse is crystal clear on that: «θα σας οδηγήση στην επιτυχία, τόσο μέσα στο επάγγελμα, όσο και στην προσωπική σας ζωή». In such way, the terrain of work would be tied to the terrain of “personal life”, and thus a continuum would be established between work and “eros”. Since both terrains would henceforth be of equal value, we would have a re-evaluation of all the “ethicalist essentialist” values of the past as presented above.
10. The advertizing discourse, finally, presents its young female candidates with an enumeration of the new skills – both theoretical and practical – which would be necessary in the creation of such “New Type” of office employee. Apart from meeting the practical requirements of the new type of company that was emerging, such training would also, and inevitably so, be playing a major role in raising the overall educational and “cultural” level of the young Greek female – one may especially consider the educational and “cultural” impact of introducing the “Amalia-type” to fields such as economics, labour law, elements of psychology and human relations. This would mean that the newly-educated “Amalia-type” would play an important role in informing the “culture” of the middle class milieu – and this would have a direct effect on her own “social status” within such milieu (and despite the persisting male chauvinism). As regards education and training, the “New Type” would often – though not always – enjoy the encouragement of the older generations. Writing of the early 1960’s, Korovinis (op. cit., p. 122) observes: «Για πρώτη φορά… το βιομηχανικής προέλευσης ΑΕΠ ξεπέρασε το αγροτικό. Μια νέα γενιά πρόσφατων μεταναστών στις μεγάλες πόλεις και κυρίως στην Αθήνα συγκροτεί μια πολυπληθή μεσαία τάξη επιτηδευμάτων και ελεύθερων επαγγελματιών (από εργολάβους οικοδομών, βιοτέχνες και μικροβιομήχανους, δοσάδες και εμπόρους), που δεν διαθέτουν ισχυρές προσβάσεις στα πελατειακά δίκτυα του μονοκομματικού κράτους, αισθάνονται σχετικά αποκλεισμένοι από την αυξανόμενοι ευημερία της χώρας [και] θέλουν μεγαλύτερες εκπαιδευτικές ευκολίες για τα παιδιά τους…» (my emph.). Of course, Korovinis’ observations would not only apply to people objectively placed within the class strata of the middle classes – the wish to have one’s children educated would apply to all and sundry, whatever one’s class position and economic capacity. Now, this raising of the educational level amongst young Greek females would itself have its impact on male-female relations, thereby informing the gradually evolving new practices of the sexual revolution. The more educated young female would be increasingly asserting her own “equality” vis-à-vis her male counterparts and would be more “demanding” in her choice of partner (studies in the field of social psychology, it is said, have found that socio-cultural factors such as education usually have a stronger effect on female sexuality than they do on males – cf. Roy F. Baumeister (ed.), Social psychology and human sexuality: essential readings, Psychology Press, 2001, p. 113, p. 126, et al).

 

The «ΕΛΛΗΝΟΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΟΝ ΕΠΙΜΟΡΦΩΤΙΚΟΝ ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟΝ» was established as early as 1946. By 1968, it would come to be known as «ΟΜΗΡΟΣ» and, as in the case of «ΣΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ», would itself play a major role in preparing youngsters to enter “White-Collar” employment. Like «ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΑΚΗΣ» as well, it would come to mainly focus its educational activities in the field of EFL (as «Κέντρων Ξένων Γλωσσών ΟΜΗΡΟΣ»). Since its establishment and by the end of the 20th century, it is said that its graduates would amount to more than 1.500.000 youngsters. People behind its establishment would include a variety of academics, journalists and writers (one such being the well-known Greek writer, Stratis Myrivilis – cf. www.omiros.edu.gr).

 

***                                                                      

 

By the 1970’s, there would be an explosion of advertisements related to work and addressed to youngsters. There would also be an explosion in the field of small job ads. Before we end this sub-section on advertizing discourse related to work and/or the “work ethic”, we shall merely present a number of samples specifically representative of this decade, and we shall make a very rough attempt to place such samples in their context.

In 1973, the daily newspaper, ΤοΒήμα, would carry a series of small ads which shows that the training in typing skills was a practice that would continue unabated throughout the 1970’s – consider the following sample:

 

«ΣΕ 15 ΩΡΕΣ
μαθαίνετε τέλεια
Γραφομηχανή.
Τυφλό σύστημα.
Επαναστατική μέθοδος.
ΡΟΥΛΙΑΣ»
(cf. ΤοΒήμα, 13.7.1973, p. 6).

 

And yet, we know that the decade of the 1970’s would be characterized by a deep economic crisis which would mark a turn in the post-war history of Western capitalist societies. Much has been written about this and we do not intend to supplement the endless bibliography. We may simply note just one general explanation of this phenomenon as presented by Korovinis (op. cit.), who explains the situation as follows:

 

«Η αυξανόμενη διεθνοποίηση είχε ως συνέπεια η
ανάπτυξη της οικονομίας να στηρίζεται, ολοένα και
περισσότερο, στην διεύρυνση της παγκόσμιας αγοράς,
κυρίως, παρά στη διεύρυνση των εγχώριων αγορών.
Σε συνθήκες εντεινόμενης διεθνοποίησης η ανάπτυξη
στηρίζεται στη ανταγωνιστικότητα των επιχειρήσεων,
στην ικανότητα τους να αποτρέπουν τη διείσδυση
εισαγωγών στις εγχώριες αγορές και επίσης στις
εξαγωγικές τους επιδόσεις» (p. 149).

 

This expansion of the global market and the need for a competitive industry would have specific repercussions as regards local capital-labour relations – Korovinis explains:

 

«Αλλά η ανταγωνιστικότητα των επιχειρήσεων συνδέεται
με τη σειρά της με το κόστος παραγωγής (κόστος εργασίας
και πρώτων υλών, φόροι και ασφαλιστικές εισφορές).
Απ’ αυτή την άποψη, η συναίνεση μεταξύ κράτους-εργοδοτών-
εργαζομένων, στο πλαίσιο του μεταπολεμικού κρατισμού,
πάνω στη βάση της εξασφάλισης υψηλών επιπέδων απασχόλησης
και ικανοποιητικών κοινωνικών παροχών… άρχισε από ένα σημείο
και πέρα να λειτουργεί σαν “στενός κορσές” στο ανταγωνιστικό
πλαίσιο που είχε διαμορφώσει η διεθνοποίηση» (pp. 149-150).

 

The general, global context would have a specific impact on the Greek case:

 

«Η Ελλάδα, ως ένας από τους “αδύνατους κρίκους” του
μεταπολεμικού κρατισμού, θα γνωρίσει με ιδιαίτερη ένταση
τις συνέπειες της εξάντλησης των ορίων του… Οι φόβοι για
υπερθέρμανση της ελληνικής οικονομίας που υπήρχαν το 1971
και συνδέονταν με τον έντονα επεκτατικό χαρακτήρα της
οικονομικής πολιτικής της Χούντας θα επιβεβαιωθούν πλήρως
από το φθινόπωρο του 1972. Ενώ ο τιμάριθμος αυξανόταν κατά
3% ως το 1972, το 1972 θα αυξηθεί κατά 4,3%, το 1973 κατά 15,5%
και το 1974 κατά 26,9%. Τα περιοριστικά μέτρα που θα ληφθούν
θα θίξουν “τη χρυσή αγελάδα” της μεταπολεμικής ανάπτυξης,
την οικονομική δραστηριότητα. Ο όγκος της θα αυξηθεί το 1973
κατά 3,6% έναντι 20,6% το 1972, με αποτέλεσμα να
συμπαρασυρθεί σε στασιμότητα και η μεταποίηση το 1974. Την
περίοδο αυτή εγκαινιάζονται 25 ολόκληρα χρόνια
μακροοικονομικής ανισορροπίας και στασιμότητας» (p. 150).

 

And yet, despite the macroeconomic imbalances that would come to characterize the Greek socio-economic formation, the Greek “style of life” – the tastes and consumption behaviour of the middle class milieu – would itself more or less continue unabated, albeit in an environment which we have identified as “economic Darwinism”, something which mainly operated in the private sector. The Greek «μικρό οικονομικό θαύμα» (= the “small economic miracle”, Korovinis, p. 121) – which had commenced in the 1950’s – would, at least at the level of the “real economy”, continue to make its presence felt. Macroeconomic imbalances only come to be reflected in the microeconomic “real economy” over a long term period: the microeconomic structures can maintain their relative autonomy of the macroeconomic structures given specific conditions, and especially so when the State and Government can take special measures – such as the use of loans – to ward off any immediate effects of a long-term stagnation (on the question of the 1973-1974 crisis and how this did not much affect consumption in European countries, cf. Key W. Kim, «Οι ασιατικές νεοεκβιομηχανισμένες χώρες», in Κ. Baїtsos & D. Seers, ΗΕΟΚ…, op. cit., p. 333; on the question of the Greek post-war “economic miracle” as the shortest “industrial revolution” in world history, cf. Achilleas Mitsos, Ηελληνικήβιομηχανίαστηδιεθνήαγορά, Θεμέλιο, 1989, p. 17).

We may otherwise put the matter as follows, and which definitely applies to the Greek case (it being empirically verifiable): Despite the crisis that Korovinis refers to, the “miracle” of the previous period would continue to reverberate throughout the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s, and would continue so if only because the Governments of the period would have no choice but give in to the demands and expectations of a powerful middle class milieu (they would, above all, not wish to pay the “political cost” – cf. Stavros Lygeros, ΠΑΣΟΚ – τοσύνδρομοτουμεγάλουασθενούς, Στοχαστής, 1990, p. 187). The “miracle” would reverberate in the specific sense that, within a context of what we have identified as “economic Darwinism”, youngsters who had insisted on attaining qualifications reflective of the labour market (qualifications not necessarily accruing from tertiary education) would finally be able to land jobs that allowed them to realize the dream of the middle class milieu in a manner that the “Amalia-type” could really only have dreamt of. Advertizing discourse of the 1970’s related to work reflected just such circumstances. We may here consider the following 1974 advertisement which appeared in the weekly, “Left-leaning” periodical, Επίκαιρα – it read as follows:

 

«Β.Π. ΠΑΠΑΣΠΥΡΟΥ
ΜΕΣΑΙ ΙΔΙΩΤΙΚΑΙ ΑΝΕΓΝΩΡΙΣΜΕΝΑΙ ΥΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ

ΣΧΟΛΑΙ

● ΛΟΓΙΣΤΟΝ
● ΕΛΛΗΝΟΜΑΘΩΝ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΩΝ
● ΑΓΓΓΛΟΜΑΘΩΝ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΩΝ…

Σύγχρονα μηχανογραφικά μέσα
120 καινουργείς [sic] γραφομηχαναί – TELEX

ΑΙ ΣΧΟΛΑΙ ΠΑΠΑΣΠΥΡΟΥ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ 1955
ΕΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΗΣΑΝ ΛΑΜΠΡΑΝ ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΙΝ
ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΑΓΓΕΛΜΑΤΙΚΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΙΝ…»
(cf. Επίκαιρα, τεύχ. 322, 3-9.10.1974, p. 8).

 

We briefly note the following points: a) the advertisement suggests the possibility of job opportunities for “White-Collar” employees with only a secondary level education; b) the qualifications that would be attained would be recognized by the State; c) trainees would be initiated to the new technologies; d) the discourse points to the already established “tradition” of such educational activities in the training of “professionals”, and thereby builds onto and continues the educational practices that had emerged in the 1950’s.

Indicative of the explosion of advertisements related to work is the fact that the selfsame issue of Επίκαιρα would carry at least 16 different job-related advertisements (not small ads) all of which promoted some private educational/training institution or other, the above advertisement being just one sample. Yet another such advertisement is the following:

 

«ιδ. Γραμματεύς
σε 3 μήνες
ΕΛΛΗΝΟΜΑΘΗΣ και ΑΓΓΛΟΜΑΘΗΣ

Μία έως δύο ώρες την ημέρα αρκούν στις
πρόθυμες και ικανές νέες να αποκτήσουν
το ιδεώδες και μοντέρνο αυτό επάγγελμα.
Η εκλογή της ύλης, ο πρωτότυπος για την Ελλάδα
προγραμματισμός των μαθημάτων, σύμφωνα με τα
συστήματα της SIGHT AND SOUND EDUCATION
LONDON, επιτρέπουν στην DIDACTA να εγγυάται
στους σπουδαστάς της, την επίτευξι των πλέον
υψηλών επιδόσεων.

ΛΟΓΙΣΤΑΙ σε 3 μήνες – Ελλ. & Αγγλ. ΓΡΑΦΟΜΗΧΑΝΗ
σε 18 ώρες – ΣΤΕΝΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ σε 53 ώρες – ΔΙΑΤΡΗΤΡΙΑΙ
38 ώρες και Ξ. Γλώσσες στο ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΟ ΓΛΩΣΣΩΝ

● Τμήματα αρχίζουν καθημερινώς
● Διαλέγετε μόνοι σας την ώρα
● Το Κέντρο λειτουργεί από 8 πμ. μέχρι 9 μμ

Επισκεφθήτε μας ή τηλεφωνήσατε για πληροφορίες
και εγγραφές ή για να παρευρεθήτε σε μία από τις
επιδείξεις του συστήματός μας…

didacta…»
(ibid., p. 10).

 

This advertisement is highly indicative of what, by the 1970’s, would happen to the job of a “Clerk”: from what was a “humble” post occupied by the likes of an “Amalia-type” with limited skills and vulnerable to the primitivism of employers in small and medium-sized companies, we would now have the emergence of a profession tantamounting to a “career” that was “ideal” («ιδεώδες») and “modern” («μοντέρνο»). The “social status” of such a job, both within the office and in society in general, would be very significantly upgraded. Further, the terms «ιδεώδες» and «μοντέρνο» clearly suggest that “careerism” has now attained a value in itself, it being part of the new re-evaluation of values. The advertisement also reveals the socio-economic “Darwinism” that would come to dominate the decade of the 1970’s and which would be characteristic of the Greek middle class milieu – notice how the discourse addresses itself exclusively to young females who are “willing” and “capable” of launching into such a “White-Collar” career («πρόθυμες και ικανές νέες»). Finally, the discourse respects the responsibility and self-organization of the “New Type” – it acknowledges the right (or the practical need) of such “New Type” to pick and choose its own educational time-table: «Διαλέγετε μόνοι σας την ώρα».

A third sample taken from the Επίκαιρα periodical went as follows:

 

«καινουργια επαγγελματα
για δυναμικα νειατα…

σχολη
στελεχων
επιχειρησεων

ΔΙΕΤΟΥΣ ΦΟΙΤΗΣΕΩΣ
ΜΟΝΟΝ ΔΙ ΑΠΟΦΟΙΤΟΥΣ
ΓΥΜΝΑΣΙΟΥ

ΔΙΔΑΣΚΟΜΕΝΑ ΜΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ

Α’ Ετος
● Πολιτικη Οικονομια
● Τεχνικη των συναλλαγων
● Γενικη Λογιστικη
● Αστικο και Εμπορικο Δικαιο
● Οικονομικη Γεωγραφια
● Οικονομικα Μαθηματικα
● Ελλην. Εμπορικη Αλληλογραφια
● Αγγλικα

Β’ Ετος
● Οικονομικη των Επιχειρησεων
● Διοικητικη των Επιχειρησεων
● Μαρκετιγκ διαφημισις
● Δημοσιες Σχεσεις
● Εφηρμοσμενη Λογιστικη
● Φορολογικον Δικαιον
● Στατικη των Επιχειρησεων
● Αγγλικη Εμπορικη Αλληλογραφια
● Αγγλικα

Πυθαγορας

● Σχολαι λογιστων – Γραμματεων

μονοετους Φοιτησεως
εγγραφονται από
την Ε’ Γυμνασιου…»
(ibid., p. 61).

 

We notice that both the «σχολη στελεχων επιχειρησεων» and the «Σχολαι λογιστων – Γραμματεων» were meant for high school pupils who did not plan to enter university. And yet, and especially with respect to the former «Πυθαγορας» department meant for “executives”, one can see that the range of the curriculum approximates that of tertiary education. Yet again, therefore, we see a private secondary-level educational institution functioning as a substitute for university. Arguably, such private institutions could prepare youngsters for the labour market in more effective ways than would the university proper, these being less “theoretical” and more closely tied to the practical needs of the real world. This advertisement is highly representative of the epoch in yet another way: it announces – and does so despite the economic crisis of the 1970’s mentioned above – the emergence of new jobs or new job categories quite unheard of on the part of an Amalia Eleftheriadou. Finally, and perhaps above all, it is addressed to the new “subject” that would determine the new course of socio-economic and cultural history in Greece – viz. what it calls the «δυναμικα νειατα».

To end, we mention that this October 1974 issue of the Επίκαιρα periodical publishes a two-page article-cum-advertisement (in the form of an «Ανακοίνωση», pp. 52-53) which accurately summarizes the basic point of this sub-section on work and the “work ethic” – the title of this text reads as follows:

 

«ΧΘΕΣΙΝΟΙ ΣΠΟΥΔΑΣΤΑΙ, ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΙΚΑΝΑ
ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΜΑΤΙΚΑ ΣΤΕΛΕΧΗ –
ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΗ ΕΠΑΓΓΕΛΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΚΑΤΑΡΤΗΣΗ!».