The philosopher Immanuel Kant said: “Nothing in the world … can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgment … courage, resoluteness and perseverance … are doubtless in many respects good and desirable. But they can become extremely bad and harmful if the will … is not good.” Among other things, Kant was saying that good talent must be accompanied by good will.
I was reminded of Kant’s thought when I read about the issue involving the clothing giant H&M. Its UK site recently released an online ad showing a photo of a black boy wearing a hoodie with this message on the front: “Coolest monkey in the jungle.”
The feedback from netizens was expected: outright condemnation of the racial tactlessness (at best) and blatant racism (at worst). Even NBA sensation LeBron James posted the controversial image on his Instagram account, editing out the original message and putting a crown on the boy’s head with the words “King of the World.”
The company’s reaction to the public outburst was expected as well: It withdrew the ad, issued a public apology, and stopped selling the product.
Humble admission of mistake. Carefully crafted public apology. Steadfast effort to rectify the misdeed. Solemn promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future. Admittedly, these are all good. Some would say: Give the case a rest. Life must go on. Give H&M the benefit of the doubt and a second chance. Maybe it was not really a case of bad faith. (If that were the case, it becomes not less alarming for it can be a symptom of an equally serious problem of workplace negligence, noninclusiveness, and insensitivity possibly emanating from a reportedly all-white board of directors.)
But one who takes Kant’s insight to heart will ask certain questions. What could have been H&M’s intention when it released the ad? Was the ad really an honest mistake? One imagines the lengthy process of producing the ad, from brainstorming and briefing to designing and directing to execution and implementation. One wonders whether there was not a single soul in the production and marketing teams who expressed discomfort about the outrageous one-liner. Or was there a dissenting opinion that was frowned upon and ultimately drowned in the sea of callousness? We may never know.
An ad is supposed to be a product of an artist’s creative imagination. Following Kant, this creativity which is good can be destructive if the creative individual’s intention is malicious.
Did the company anticipate the possible backlash of the ad? If it did, why did it still issue the ad? Stories abound about marketing strategies that shock and awe in order to get attention and gain buzz. The thinking is that bad publicity is still publicity, and a controversial ad is still an ad. Who knows if the damage is leverage in disguise? Who knows if bad moral reputation is good financial computation, after all?
We may agree with the company’s praiseworthy actions after the public reactions. But we can also grin at such actions made only after the public reactions. If the scandalous ad were a marketing tactic, the only point of a well-written apology is that it is another marketing ploy. The company can hire the best PR person to formulate the best conceivable public apology. But, again, the excellent talent to write an excellent public apology amounts to nothing if it does not flow from good will.
Kant said that even if after all the efforts, a good will cannot attain its desired good intention, it would still shine like a jewel for itself. In the end, it is not H&M’s garments that would shine like a jewel, but its good will—if it really has one.
The clothing giant’s outlets are mushrooming in malls in the Philippines. Will one still find it cool to enter H&M’s jungle? We are not only economic consumers who react rationally to advance our self-interest but also political consumers who can respond ethically to reclaim our self-respect. We may not have the power to actually see corporate good will. But we have the power to put everyone on notice that the citizens’ outrage is real.
Franz Giuseppe F. Cortez teaches philosophy and good governance and social responsibility at the University of Santo Tomas.