Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

‘Freedom Through Marketing’ Is Not Doublespeak

  • Editorial Essay
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The articles comprising this thematic symposium suggest options for exploring the nexus between freedom and unfreedom, as exemplified by the British abolitionists’ anti-slavery campaign and the paradox of freedom. Each article has implications for how these abolitionists achieved their goals, social activists’ efforts to secure reparations for slave ancestors, and modern slavery (e.g., human trafficking). We present the abolitionists’ undertaking as a marketing campaign, highlighting the role of instilling moral agency and indignation through re-humanizing the dehumanized. Despite this campaign’s eventual success, its post-emancipation phase illustrates a paradox of freedom. After introducing mystification as an explanation for the obscuring rhetoric used to conceal post-emancipation violations of freedom during the West’s colonial phase, we briefly discuss the appropriateness of reparations. Finally, we discuss the contributions made by the articles in this thematic symposium.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Wilberforce’s persuasive counterarguments to the ‘sham of Negro inferiority’ (Baker 1970), which helped end slavery, were his lasting contribution to society. To commemorate him and the first centenary of the Abolitionist Act, in 1933, the University of Hull established a National Wilberforce Memorial Committee to fund an endowed Wilberforce Chair of History (Hayward 1985). In 1983, a lecture series and conference on the intersection between freedom and slavery was established. “The intertwining of cultural and political themes, inseparable from the history of West Indian slavery and its contemporary legacies…was the leitmotif of the international conference” (Hayward 1985, p. 2). More recently, the University of Hull’s Wilberforce Institute of Slavery and Emancipation helped to shape the U.K. government’s Modern Slavery Act of 2015.

  2. In contrast to de-marketing, which seeks to reduce product demand without maligning the product, counter-marketing treats the product as inherently harmful (Kotler 1973; Kotler and Levy 1971). British abolitionists meant to eliminate demand for slaves by impugning slavery, which is counter-marketing.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Hyman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no ethical standards were violated or conflict of interest created in the production of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shabbir, H., Hyman, M.R., Dean, D. et al. ‘Freedom Through Marketing’ Is Not Doublespeak. J Bus Ethics 164, 227–241 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04281-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04281-x

Keywords

Navigation