|
Diamonds Are Forever
Photographers push against a velvet rope, straining to get closer look at the red carpet stars. Women glide gracefully down the aisle in designer-original gowns, ice cascading from their wrists and ears, accenting the rocks on their hands. Farther down the block a businesswoman in a gray wool suit and black pumps steps out of a cab holding a leather briefcase in her left hand. On her right hand is a rock that rivals those on the red carpet. These women are "bling-blingin'."
The majority of Americans do not know how to "bling, bling," and they're not sure they would even want to if they did. But the implications of "bling blingin" are important and far-reaching. According to the recent submission to the newest Oxford English Dictionary, "bling-blingin" is defined as the showing off and admiration of flashy jewelry, particularly diamonds. The OED also defines the slang synonyms for diamonds: ice, sparkler, rocks. The prevalence of diamonds in popular culture has raised questions about where their true value lie. Diamonds are not merely crystalline carbon, if they were, they would be virtually valueless. It is not their substance or denotation that makes them valuable, but rather their connotation or genus. Diamonds are a cultural symbol, but the symbolism has changed. Society works under the hypothetical syllogism diamonds equal marriage (Corbett and Connors 49). However, popular
culture is finding a new conclusion to this syllogism: diamonds equal independence, particularly financial independence. What bra burning was to the sixties, "bling-blingin'" is to the new millennium.
We see diamonds everywhere, on every celebrity, in every magazine, in every store. But why are diamonds, which have in the past represented the lifelong commitment of marriage, so popular in the secular world? The rhetoric encouraging diamonds permeates our music, advertisements and movies, quite possibly the three most effective means of persuasion for young adults. The embodiment of this new thinking is Hollywood's Cinderella, singer/actress Jennifer Lopez, who is known for her expensive jewelry, particularly her 6.1 carat pink diamond engagement ring. Lopez sings, "Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got, I'm still, I'm still Jenny from the block" (Lyrics Style). She is claiming her newly found affluence. If the former hypothetical syllogism still holds true, then Lopez is cryptically hinting at desire for marriage and commitment in her song. Is she really just looking for a little love? Diamonds are associated with the marriage proposal, and she is
singing about diamonds. But that is not what is at work in America today and that is definitely not why Lopez asked her fellow Bronx residents to ignore the "rocks that she got." Although the old ethos of diamonds being related to marriage is still present in our culture, a new underlying ethos is surfacing.
At first glance, the answer seems simple: a diamond is a sign of affluence. Diamonds have always been the "rock" of choice for the wealthy. They send a statement about how a person wants to be seen in society. "What people would really like to possess is a greater good than what people would merely like to give the impression of possessing" (Corbett and Connors 99). So a real diamond is a greater good than a cubic zirconium. Diamonds are the perfect sign of wealth because of their alleged rarity. What is scarce is of greater than which is plentiful (97). The ethos of the diamond is wealth and the symbolism is passed on to the consumer. It is logical to attribute the popularity of diamonds to popular culture and fashion trends that say, "diamonds mean wealth" instead of "diamonds mean marriage." But this is an oversimplification. The affluence connected to diamonds is not the same "money" as it was in past decades. Diamonds are
no longer the badge of honor for white upper-class "boss men." Now, they are a symbol of success for the woman of the twenty-first century. The new thoughts permeating our culture about diamonds are not wealth, but success, and not marriage, but independence.
In the recently released romantic comedy "How to lose a guy in 10 days," Ben, a young advertising executive, is trying to land the DeLauer diamond account (a takeoff of DeBeers). While his female colleagues try to win the account with romance, "a woman in lust wants chocolate, a woman in love wants diamonds," Ben takes a different approach by updating the connotation of diamonds to a twenty-first century standard ( How to Lose ). His ad, "Who needs men? Ladies, Frost yourself," implies that independent women can buy their own jewels, not depend on a man to "frost" them ( How to Lose ). Ben tries to convince the public that diamonds represent of the affluence of the workingwoman as well as the old "moneyed" family. Instead of the money being handed to her, she works for it herself, transferring the old stigma of diamonds, a rich businessman's wife, to the new, a rich business woman . So while we used to say "diamonds are forever", we now find American culture saying "diamonds
are for everyone" ( How to Lose ). For the single, independent women in the world, this pathos is particularly powerful.
This ideology has been adopted by the diamond industry. Advertising is its own form or rhetoric and the diamond industry has tapped into the pathos of single women. At www.adiamondisforever.com, the homepage ad displays the "right hand ring." An ad for the right hand ring reads, "Your left hand says 'We.' Your right hand says 'Me.' Your left hand rocks the cradle. Your right hand rocks the world. Women of the World, raise your right hand." The byline that follows says, "The diamond Right Hand Ring signifies the strength, success and independence of women of the twenty-first century." This is a definitive statement about independence from marriage and commitment. Women are saying that that they can have the diamonds and all the goodies that come with wealth without a man. It eliminates the idea of past and future fact. Diamonds used to be the antecedent to marriage. If a woman wore a diamond, the natural consequences were marriage
(Corbett and Connors 110). But now, that is not so. Even Lopez says in her song, "Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got" (Lyrics Style). She earned the money and the success and the diamonds on her own. Helzberg diamonds jumped on the advertising bandwagon. It reflects woman's independence with its new slogan, "Confidence comes in a Burgundy Box" ( Helzberg ). They, too, realize that the diamond market is opening beyond nervous young grooms to confident young single women.
DeBeers also bought into the contemporary view of diamonds and appeals to a younger audience with new advertising. The advertisement simply reads, "DeBeers Rocks," both implying that the rocks are of great quality as well as making a pun from the slang term "rock" for diamonds ( DeBeers ). Wearing the diamonds is a beautiful African-American woman in a glamorous evening gown with a sultry, yet empowered countenance. The model's ethos is reminiscent of Jennifer Lopez's or other celebrity women. But because she is not a celebrity, it makes the audience feel like that kind of glamour and empowerment is obtainable. In the past, DeBeers has appealed to the emotions with lovey-dovey Caucasian couples gasping at the beauty of their new ring in the midst of a heart stopping wedding proposal. This represents the old ethos of a diamond customer, and is still at work in our culture today. However, the new ad and ethos shows that DeBeers has a new market: the chic, the rich, the fabulous,
the young. This new ethos is a reaction to the infusion of diamonds into popular culture. If the rich who can afford dimaonds are not wearing them, then the larger majority of people who are less likely to be able to afford diamonds will not wear them either (Corbett and Connors 99). Luckily for the diamond industry, the rich like diamonds and people do not want to emulate the poor. And woman do not want to "have a man" to wear a diamond. That is what the "new diamond" is all about.
Sometimes the academic world can't see the diamond in the rough, so to speak. This new materialism, which used to prove what a husband was worth in dollar amounts, now is a symbol of the self-reliance and self-indulgence of the independent woman. Advertisements, movies, music and celebrities support this new symbol of the independent woman. The "new" woman earns her own wealth and can "frost" herself.
Works Cited
A diamond is forever: What's Hot. 8 October 2003. <http://www.adiamondisforever.com/hot/.
Corbett, Edward P.J., and Robert J. Connors. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 4 th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
DeBeers. 8 October 2003. <http://www.debeers.com>.
Helzberg Diamonds. 8 October 2003. <http://www.helzberg.com>.
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. DVD. Dir. Donald Petrie, Jr. Paramount. Perf. Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey, 2003.
Lyrics Style. 8 October 2003. <www.lyricsstyle.com/j/jenniferlopez/jennyfromtheblock.html>.
#
# #
|
