'The battle never stops' - A discourse analysis of Nerf toy gun advertisements

(1)

‘The battle never stops’

A discourse analysis of Nerf toy gun advertisements

Léa-Noémi Huber

Malmö University

Department of Global Political Studies Peace and Conflict Studies

Bachelor Dissertation PACS III Spring Semester 2019

(2)

1

Abstract

This study consists of a discourse analysis of five Nerf toy gun commercials which were aired on US television between 2017 and 2018 and were produced by the international toy gun company Hasbro Inc. Using Gillian Rose’s model of discourse analysis I as a method in combination with discourse theory, theoretical concepts of militarisation and masculinity, the question how militarised masculinity is produced through the discourse of the selected Nerf toy gun commercials has been posed and guided the analysis of this study. The findings of the analysis showed, that militarised masculinity is produced through the discourse of Nerf toy gun advertisements as presenting militaristic behaviour in combination with everyday scenes. Throughout the commercials, characteristics that are typically perceived as being masculine, such as boldness, hardness and enthusiasm for technology are frequently displayed. Moreover, the way in which protagonists in the Nerf toy gun commercials act, conveys the feeling, that when using Nerf toy guns, the viewer will belong to an exclusive group which contributes to the persuasiveness of the discourse.

(3)

2

1. Introduction

We all might have encountered them when being in contact with young children: war toys. Having a little brother who is now eight years old, I became interested in what it is that seems so thrilling about war toys, especially toy guns and rifles, that almost every little boy (and some girls) in Germany and across Europe and the world wishes to own and play with them. Whereas I remember having played with self-made spears, bows and arrows and swords, today's popular war toys feature more technical characteristics and at times can resemble actual rifles used in modern warfare, for instance the toy guns produced by international toy and game manufacturer Hasbro’s subsidiary brand Nerf. Nerf toy guns are very popular among my little brother and his friends, as well as a large number of children in other countries as indicated by the brand’s annual revenues of approximately US$ 400 million, half of which come from outside of the United States of America (Rodriguez, 2015).

The following research problem has sparked off this study: When referring to toy guns for children, some people might say that there is ‘nothing wrong about it’, since these are only toys and made for children to have fun and play. Yet there might be more to it, for instance an intended convergence of children from a young age on to military discourse and an overall fascination for, and normalization of, guns and rifles. Having reviewed the pre-existing research on the topic in chapter three of this work, a gap has been identified in regard to how the companies that produce toy guns, in this case Hasbro, draw children’s interest at their products, for instance through their way of advertising. Nowadays many children have access to Television and/or internet platforms such as YouTube, which is known to toy manufacturers and actively used in promoting and advertising their products (Hasbro, 2017). Hence, a number of Hasbro’s TV commercials, which are also available on their YouTube channels have been selected for the analysis in this study.

(5)

4

1.1. Research aim and research questions

Based on the research problem formulated above, this study’s overarching aim is to provide an insight into the rhetoric and imagery that is used by the international toy and board game company Hasbro, Inc. to promote and advertise their NERF toy guns for children. This study therefore aims at providing an understanding of the discourses underlying the visual and textual material shaping Hasbro’s NERF toy gun advertisements in relation to the process of militarisation and concepts of masculinity. To achieve this aim, one main research question has been formulated as follows:

How is militarised masculinity produced through the discourse of Nerf toy gun advertisements of the international toy company Hasbro Inc.?

To further guide the analysis of the selected material, the following interrelated operational questions have been formulated:

1. Which reappearing expressions and themes can be found in the selected toy gun advertisements of Hasbro’s subsidiary brand Nerf?

2. How are notions of militarisation presented in the selected Nerf toy gun advertisements?

3. How are notions of masculinity presented in the selected Nerf toy gun advertisements?

As already indicated above, to achieve the study’s aim and answer the research questions formulated above, all seven chapters of this work are building upon each other to ensure that the aim can be reached and the questions can be answered. Therefore, the theoretical framework (chapter 4) provides theoretical foundation of this work in the form of discourse analysis (as a theory) in combination with concepts of militarism and militarisation, and masculinity. The selected method, discourse analysis I, as outlined by Gillian Rose (2001) is introduced in chapter 5 and will be applied to the selected Nerf toy gun advertisements.

(6)

5

1.2. Relevance for the field of Peace and Conflict Studies

According to Johan Galtung, who is one of the main thinkers of the field of Peace and Conflict studies, peace and war have to be seen “in their totality, at all levels of organisation of life” (1996:vii). Making children’s toys resemble weapons used in modern warfare might contribute to the militarisation of the civil society from a very young age. Taken out of the violent context of war into the hands of young children, these toys might normalise and trivialise the deadly reality of war and what the original weapons were built to do: to fight and to kill people.

This issue is relevant for the field of Peace and Conflict Studies, because the promotion of and contribution to the militarisation of civil society, in this particular case children, might contribute to the normalisation of violence and warfare which is problematic because the use of modern weaponry and war as a whole could be legitimised through normalising war play. The aim of peace building processes is the reduction of violence and loss of lives, which differs significantly from the promotion of warfare and weapons, including copied war toys. This study contributes to the field of Peace and Conflict studies by providing an insight in how the international toy gun company Hasbro Inc. uses toy gun advertisements to produce notions of militarisation (and masculinity) aimed the youngest members of civil society: children.

1.3. Delimitations

This study is mainly focused on the discourse of Nerf toy gun advertisements and how they produce notions of militarisation and masculinity. To achieve the study’s aim and to answer the research questions a relatively small number (five) Nerf toy gun advertisements have been selected to ensure a thorough process of analysis with regard to the given scope of this bachelor thesis. I am aware of the fact, that this might only give an insight in one particular war toy brand and that to study this matter further, other war toy production companies (e.g. Softair guns) as well as computer games (‘ego shooters’) may be considered as well to enrich the findings. Moreover, the method of discourse analysis I, as outlined by Gillian Rose (2001), has been selected for conducting this study, as it focuses on discourse as being articulated through various kinds of (verbal) texts and visual images. As a

(7)

6 method, discourse analysis could, however, also focus on the practices of institutions and be more concerned with issues of power as outlined by Rose in her second method, discourse analysis II. Yet, for this particular study, discourse analysis I has proved to be best suitable, especially with regards to the feasibility of this work and to successfully answer the research questions which were formulated earlier on in this chapter.

1.4. Thesis outline

This study consists of seven chapters. In the first chapter, the introduction, the thesis’ aim and research questions have been formulated as well as the selected theoretical concepts and method. Moreover, the study has been positioned within the field of Peace and Conflict Studies and the study’s delimitations have been disclosed. Chapter two provides a background information on war toys and the international toy production company Hasbro Inc. as well as their subsidiary toy gun brand Nerf. In chapter three, previous academic research on the topic of toy guns and war play has been presented as well as the gaps within this previous research have been defined. Chapter four consists of the study’s analytical framework which includes the discussion of theoretical concepts of discourse analysis, militarism and militarisation as well as masculinity. In the fifth chapter, the methodological framework of this study is presented with sub-sections on the selected method of discourse analysis, rhetorical strategies for doing discourse analysis and an assessment of the study’s material chosen for the analysis of this work. Chapter six consists of the analysis itself, which is divided into four sub-sections: the first subsection (chapter 6.1.) investigates in how the commercials’ visual, textual and sound-wise features interrelate and how their content is conveyed to the viewer. The second sub-chapter (6.2.) focuses on key themes and expressions conveyed. The third one (6.3.) focuses on notions of militarism and militarisation and in the fourth sub-chapter (6.4.) the focus lies on notions of masculinity. The study’s research questions are also answered in the analysis in chapter six. Chapter seven consists of a conclusion of the study and ends with suggestions for future research.

(8)

7

2. Background

This chapter provides a background information on war toys and the international toy production company Hasbro Inc. as well as their subsidiary toy gun brand Nerf.

2.1. War Toys

War toys have played their part in disseminating discourses of war for at least 200 years (Machin & Van Leeuwen, 2009). Toy soldiers were first commercially manufactured in the early nineteenth century in France and Germany. Children used them to play out colonial battles and toy soldiers were often wearing national uniforms which, according to Machin & Van Leeuwen, played a role in “naturalizing both the activities of the empire and the relatively newly established nation states” (2009:52). During World War II, war toys started to be made out of plastic and kept alive the discourse of the ‘good war’, presenting soldiers as heroes who are celebrated for defending freedom for their nations.

In the United States of America, the first commercially manufactured toy guns began to appear in the middle of the nineteenth century. Today, the US are dominating the distribution of plastic war toys around the planet, which is, according to Machin and Van Leeuwen (2009), no coincidence, since the US also dominate the world arms trade. This dominant role in the global war toy industry was owned by the former colonial powers, hence European countries, before the end of World War II, when it shifted to the US (ibid.).

Whereas the war toys that were manufactured before the end of World War II represented toy soldiers as being part of massive passive anonymous armies, it shifted to active heroic large armies that represented society as a whole (Graham & Luke, 2003). Contemporary war toys though, suggest individualism with war toys being presented as belonging to “a small, flexible team able to operate swiftly” (ibid.). Moreover, newer war toys, for instance those initiated by Star Wars action figures, further switched the focus from ‘real war’ play to more mechanical and bloodless image, thus contributing to ‘sanitise’ war play (Varney, 2000). Also, in newer war toys, the historical context and a clear enemy image has been removed,

(9)

8 what might make it seem as if the enemy is rather vague and somehow alien in nature (ibid.).

2.2. Hasbro Inc.

The toy manufacturing company Hasbro Inc., which was formerly known as the ‘Hassenfeld Brothers’ (between 1923 and 1968) and ‘Hasbro Industries’ (between 1968 and 1985) is an American toy and board game company and among the leading toy manufacturers worldwide (Sicoli, 2014). In terms of stock market value the company is the world’s toy manufacturing leader, and in terms of annual revenues, it is the third largest worldwide with US$ 4 billion. The second largest toy manufacturer in terms of revenues is the Lego Group with US$ 4.5 billion and the first one is Mattel Inc. with US$ 6.3 billion (ibid.).

One of the most popular toys manufactured by Hasbro is the line action figures GI Joe which first appeared in the early 1960s as a male counterpart to Mattel’s Barbie dolls (Fletcher, 2009). Hasbro realised that there was a gap in the industry for doll-like toys designed specifically for young boys. The first editions of GI Joe were military-themed, the name itself stems from World War II jargon and is a typical shorthand symbol for a service man or “Government-Issue Joe”, hence GI Joe (ibid.). Along with the peace movement against the war in Vietnam, the sales of Hasbro’s GI Joe war toys decreased and the designers introduced more action oriented toys to distance the toy figure from the military and instead give it more of an ‘Adventure Team’ touch (Kirby et al., 2014). However, this change resulted in a commercial failure, so that Hasbro reintroduced more militaristic qualities to the figure, as well as to other toys.

Hasbro has been confronted with criticism regarding various issues. One of them being that the company is reinforcing gender stereotypes (Grinberg, 2012). Another criticism is that Hasbro Inc. have corporate links to the US military which is seen as unethical by for instance Machin and Van Leeuwen (2009). This appears obvious when considering the keenness to ‘cash in’ which, according to Varney (2002) is mutual between the toy industry and the military. Varney argues, that a spate of war specific toys followed the US military’s foray into the Gulf in early

(10)

9 1991 and that it benefited those who were “well placed to profit from the war” (ibid.:43).

2.3. Nerf

Nerf is a toy brand owned by Hasbro Inc. It is known for its typical foam balls and toy guns which were and still are increasingly popular among children, especially boys (Rodriguez, 2015). The brand has expanded its product line and recently added toy gun editions designed for girls as well, following the increased popularity of pop culture heroines such as Katniss Everdeen from “The Hunger Games” (ibid.). Due to the brand’s success since 1969, Nerf’s legacy in the toy gun market gives it a “leg up over new entrants” according to Rodriguez (2015), also because parents might remember Nerf toy guns from their own childhood and trust the brand. The brand’s annual revenues are approximately US$ 400 million, half of which come from outside of the US (ibid.).

One of Nerf’s most popular products are the Nerf Blasters, which are plastic toy guns that can be loaded and shoot with foam darts which come in different colours and shapes as well as special features (Pinkerton, 2009). Just like other Nerf toy guns, the Nerf Blasters shoot ammunition made from Nerf foam and often feature bright neon colours and increasingly versatile technical characteristics.

(11)

10

3. Previous Research

In this chapter, previously published literature accommodating research about war toys and war play is reviewed, to obtain an overview of what has been done so far in this field and to point out potential gaps where my research comes in.

The question, whether playing with war toys is harmful or problematic for children and how it affects their upbringing and behaviour as adults later on has been researched by several scholars (e.g. Holland, 2013; Varney, 2002; Hart et al., 2013). Findings range from war toys as having a permanent impact on children and how they perceive the values of a society, whereas others found, that children’s playfighting and use of war toys can bring a lot of benefits for the child’s development of social skills and creativity.

Toys, including war toys, are often described in academic literature as miniature objects that children will handle as adults which influences how children view the world as they grow up (Machin & Van Leeuwen, 2009; Higonnet, 2007). Moreover, toys have been related to as transitional objects, which enable children to practice their behaviour towards the ‘real world’. Machin and Van Leeuwen (2009) argue, that war toys are not of this kind, and that children playing with war toys do not necessarily grow up to be soldiers, yet they are introduced to certain values of society. Varney (2002) takes this further by stating that war toys do not only reflect, but also feed back into attitudes towards conflict and war, while downplaying the harsh realities of war and encouraging and giving credence to their fantasies and myths. Varney further argues, that the full impact of toy designs and promotions are not widely recognised, especially in relation to war toys. Kirby et al. (2014) pose the question whether violent play prefigures violent lives and if toy guns eventually become real guns. In their study, the authors write about men who joined the British army, reflecting that war toys played a significant role in introducing them to this career path. Another aspect mentioned, are violent video games, which, according to the authors, have influenced murderers and mass shooters such as Anders Breivik who stated, that he was playing violent video games before his attack in 2011 to improve his shooting skills (Kirby et al., 2014). Yet, there are several scholars who see benefits emerging from children’s playfighting and the use of war toys. Hart et al. (2013) argue, that it is important to recognise, that children’s playfighting or playing with war toys lack the intention

(12)

11 to harm and injuries are not the purpose of this particular play. Though, it becomes problematic, when children lack age-appropriate prosocial skills and a more cohesive terminology which identifies different types of aggressive play is needed to aid carers and parents to supervise playfighting and war toy play (ibid.). Playfighting and the use of war toys can bring benefits in the form of improved social behaviour and increased confidence and creativity, according to Pevzner (2014). Moreover, Pevzner argues, that play fighting may increase children’s empathy, for instance, when they realise that for another child the play is not fun anymore and they go to help each other.

However, when putting a negative label on aggressive play and telling children to stop, they might get the impression, that their fantasies and imaginations are bad and invite them to hide their real feelings (Pevzner, 2014). This is when the zero tolerance approach to war, weapons and superhero play comes in. It has been used by educators in nurseries, kindergartens and schools as well as by parents for many years and it means that children are not allowed to bring war toys, toy guns and the like to such settings, let alone engage in playfighting and using war toys (Holland, 2013). Though, the roots of this approach cannot be traced, and Holland argues, that drawing a connection between childhood playing experiences and the development of aggressive behaviour should be challenged and reflective practice with persons who take care of children should take place to carefully look at the impact of a zero tolerance approach on the children. Adding to this, Varney (2002) states, that the challenge for carers and parents is to engage in a dialogue with the children about war toys and war play and their context. In doing so, children “may still covet the war toy, or greatly admire their warrior characters, but they will at least know that approval is not universal; that there is a body of concern about such toys and that concern intermeshes with concern for their own wellbeing” (ibid.:43). Furthermore, Holland (2013:13-14) argues, that research into war and weapon play is overwhelmingly concerned with the effects of the findings associated with this area of play, whereas the attention should lie on the role of the people taking care of children and their “possibility of working with children to mediate these effects”. The connection between toy manufacturing companies acting in the interest of militarists and playing a role in the process of militarization has been mentioned by several scholars (Varney, 2000; Machin & Van Leeuwen, 2009). There is a gap in relation to how war toys are promoted and advertised and which values are

(13)

12 conveyed in contemporary toy gun advertisements. This is where my research project comes in, as it is concerned with the question of how militarised masculinity is produced through the discourse of Nerf toy gun advertisements.

According to Varney (2000:385), children are “potential warriors and supporters for future wars”. Even though less foot soldiers are needed in today’s wars, military support workers and the need for complicity in militarism exists just the same. Moreover, Varney argues, that it is in the interest of militarists and the people who benefit from war, to socialize children into militarism to make military actions and wars seem “logical, necessary, ‘natural’ and even fun” (ibid.:358). This said socialisation and promotion of militarism happens through various outlets, such as toys, television, and computer games. As result, children learn, that military methods are the ‘best and only’ ways of dealing with conflict and that military engagement is adventurous and exciting, according to Varney (ibid.). In later works, the author adds, that toys are nowadays given more impetus from market forces that from any social consideration about what is of benefit for children’s play (Varney, 2002). Furthermore, the eagerness to achieve high profits is mutual between the toy industry and the military, according to Varney.

Research has been done on the role of toys in promoting and legitimising militarism and preparing children for armed conflict, yet there exists a gap in research on how war discourses are made available to children, especially as children make up a “very important target of many systems of propaganda” (Machin & Van Leeuwen, 2009:51). Moreover, toy manufacture has been included as part of military expenditure by Graham and Luke (2003), who also draw a link between the companies producing war toys and the way in which they help to maintain the largest sector of global manufacturing: the arms industry.

(14)

13

4. Theoretical Framework

This chapter introduces several theoretical concepts surrounding discourse, militarism and militarisation, and masculinity. The reason for this is, that these concepts are relevant for the analysis in chapter six of this study and will provide the reader with an understanding of the context on which this discourse analysis is based. Moreover, this chapter will provide the theoretical framework which is necessary to answer the study’s research questions.

4.1. Discourse

According to Gillian Rose, who has developed the method for doing a Foucauldian discourse analysis (which will be introduced in chapter five), discourse refers to “a group of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of that thinking” (2001:136). Moreover, discourse is about how we view the world, what we know about the world, which then shapes how we understand it and how we do things in it (ibid.). Additionally, discourse can be defined as a “particular form of language with its own rules and conventions and the institutions within which the discourse is produced and circulated” (Nead, 1988:4).

A central aspect of discourse is what is referred to as intertextuality (Rose, 2001). According to Rose, intertextuality is important to understanding discourse as it refers to the way that the meaning of any discursive text or image is not solely depending on the text or image itself, but on the meanings that occur in other texts or images (ibid.). Rose emphasises, that discourses can be articulated through all sorts of verbal or visual images, and that it is indeed possible to think of visuality as a sort of discourse too (ibid.). Moreover, a specific visuality will make “certain things visible in particular ways, and other things unseeable […] and subjects will be produced and act within that field of vision” (Rose, 2001:137). This is particularly interesting in regard to my work, as it is concerned with visual material as well as spoken text found in Nerf toy gun advertisements which are analysed in chapter six of this paper. Moreover, the term ‘discursive formation’ refers to the way in which meanings are connected into a particular discourse (Rose, 2001). In

(15)

14 other words, a discursive formation exists, whenever we can define a regularity or an order between parts of a discourse. This can be said to be the case in the selected material for this study which will become clear later on in this work.

In Foucauldian approaches to discourse analysis, the notion of power plays a central role, just as it did for Foucault himself (Foucault, 1972). According to Foucault, discourse is powerful because it is productive (ibid.). It disciplines subjects into specific ways of thinking and even further acting. In doing so, discourse is not simply repressive, but rather produces human subjects through the operation of discourse. In other words, discourse “produces the way as it understands it” (ibid.). Foucault suggests, that power is not something that is forced upon a society’s ‘bottom layers’ from the top of the same society. Power is, according to Foucault, rather everywhere, since discourse too is everywhere (Foucault, 1972).

Yet, Foucault admitted, that certain discourses are more dominant than others and in his work he focused on the emergence of institutions and technologies which were structured through particular discourses (Foucault, 1972;1977). Not only the location in socially powerful institutions made certain discourses more dominant, but also their claims of absolute truth. This leads to the intersection between power and knowledge, which are, according to Foucault, directly implying one another.

Foucault focused on how power worked and rejected approaches that “look behind or underneath things and practices for other processes that would explain them” (Rose, 2001:139). Moreover, Foucault rejected the Marxist claim that meaning is determined by the system of production and his works leaves questions as to what extend discourses connect to other, non-discursive processes and factors like for instance, economic change (Rose, 2001). He acknowledged, that power has got aims and effects, but he did not specify these by pointing at notions of human or institutional agency (ibid.). Linking this to my work, the connection to economic aspects and other possible institutional interests of toy gun advertisements is not necessarily in the foreground of my analysis as I will apply a method based on Foucauldian approaches, yet it is worth mentioning that a connection might exist and could be investigated in future research projects.

The scholars Laclau and Mouffe suggest a different way of looking at discourse than Foucault and built their notion of Discourse Theory upon a combination of post-Marxist social thought and post-Saussurian linguistics and

(16)

15 melt them together in a wide-ranging theory of the social world (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). Laclau & Mouffe are critiquing the Marxist division between the material economic conditions and the ownership of the means of production in a society and the so called ‘superstructure’ (e.g. political and cultural institutions of the state, church, education system and media). As post-Marxists, they are leaning on theorists such as Gramsci, who argues that within a society, the dominant classes use discursive processes, to produce popular consent for unequal distributions of power and wealth (Gramsci, 1971; Rear, 2013). To describe this discursive construction of identity and consciousness, Gramsci used the term hegemony, which is taken up by several scholars who brought forward different approaches of discourse theory (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; Fairclough, 1991). Laclau and Mouffe took Gramsci’s ideas on hegemony further and developed a different way of looking at society than Gramsci did: they dissolved the division of society into base and superstructure, stating that all groups that exist in a society are the result of political, discursive processes (Rear, 2013). A central feature of Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory is the idea that the meanings of social phenomena can never be permanently fixed, since they are mediated through discourse. Hence, there exists a broad formation of discourses, each of which are structuring reality in different ways and attempting to define what is ‘true’ in particular aspects of the social world. The way in which people relate to these aspects (also referred to as ‘domains’ or ‘terrains’) is determined by the ongoing struggle between various discourses. In other words, the perceptions of society and identity are constantly subject to new representations since meanings are as well constantly transformed and reconstructed by varied, competing discourses. Taking this into consideration, the aim of discourse analysis is not necessarily to uncover the ‘truth’ about reality, but rather to describe how discursive struggle constructs this reality, making it seem natural, even neutral (ibid.). Connecting this to the analysis of toy gun commercials, it can be said, that it is indeed possible that the inherent discourse contributes to constructing reality and what it perceived as natural for children. This notion will be elaborated on in chapter six.

Laclau and Mouffe integrate the representation of discourse as a structuring of meaning within a certain terrain in their concept of hegemony, which was introduced by Gramsci (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; Gramsci, 1971). Discourses become hegemonic, when social practices, structured and influenced by those

(17)

16 discourses, become so natural, that the society fails to see that political hegemonic practices play a significant role in undermining these discursive practices (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). Moreover, hegemonic discourses might even get to a point where they are perceived as ‘common sense’ by the members of a society, whereas their actual contingency and origins are overlooked. This relates to the study of Nerf toy gun advertisements as playing with toy guns is perceived as normal by many people throughout society and there exists a possibility that there is more to it, for instance a possible connection to militarism (which is introduced in section 4.2.).

Whereas Laclau and Mouffe are of the opinion that the social world is thoroughly constituted by discourse, critical discourse analysis (CDA) distinguishes between discursive and non-discursive social practices. Moreover, critical discourse analytical approaches share the claim, that discursive practices contribute to creating and reproducing unequal power relations between social groups which is referred to as ideological effects of discursive practices (ibid.).

Largely speaking, the aim of critical discourse analysis is to reveal the role of discourse and discursive practices in the maintenance of social relations, especially those that involve unequal relations of power to contribute to social change and more equal power relations in communication processes and society in general (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002).

In Norman Fairclough’s approach to critical discourse analysis it is central, that discourse is seen as a social practice, which both “reproduces and changes knowledge, identities and social relations including power relations, and at the same time is also shaped by other social practices and structures” (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002:65). According to Fairclough and Chouliaraki, Discourse Theory, as developed by Laclau and Mouffe, is “unable to explain which social forces have greater capacity to effect articulatory changes and why” (1999:125). Moreover, they hold the opinion, that not all groups in a society have equitable access to key discourse genres which would enable them to bring about social change, which is not really considered in Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). Fairclough states, that

On the one hand, discourse is shaped and constrained by social structure in the widest sense and at all levels: by class and other social relations at a societal level, by the relations specific to particular institutions such as law or education,

(18)

17

by systems of classification, by various norms and conventions of both a discursive and non-discursive nature, and so forth... On the other hand, discourse is socially constitutive.... Discourse contributes to the constitution of all those dimensions of social structure which directly or indirectly shape and constrain it: its own norms and conventions, as well as the relations, identities and institutions which lie behind them. Discourse is a practice not just of representing the world, but of signifying the world, constituting and constructing the world in meaning (Fairclough, 1992:64).

Fairclough identifies three aspects of the constructive effects of discourse, in which he leans on Foucault’s (1972) work: the contribution of discourse to the construction of ‘social identities’ and ‘subject positions’, the ability of discourse to construct social relationships between people and contribution of discourse to the construction of systems of knowledge and justified belief. Moreover, Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis approach suggests, that within texts, evidence of struggles between competing social actors, interest groups and possibly their different ways of viewing the world can appear (Rear, 2013). In other words, discourse is not only seen as a ‘site of power struggle’, but also a ‘stake in power struggle’ (Fairclough, 1992:67).

Whereas Laclau and Mouffe, as well as Fairclough and other theorists of CDA, present a conflictual picture in which contrasting discourses coexist or struggle for the right to define what is viewed as true, Foucauldian approaches to discourse analysis tend to focus more on how discourses work and how they construct what is viewed as ‘true’ and how it works to persuade. Considering the aim of this study, which is to get an understanding of the discourses underlying the selected Nerf toy gun commercials, a Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis has been deemed to be best suitable.

4.2. Militarism and militarisation

Militarism can be defined as an ideology and a set of institutional arrangements, as well as everyday practices which are aimed at mobilising a society to prepare for, support and fight wars (Adelmann, 2003). Militarism further tends to blur the line between what is considered as military and what is considered a normal part of

(19)

18 daily life (Detraz, 2012). This could, among other factors, be the case in the selected material which is analysed later on in this work, since toy guns are considered a part of daily life for many people (see chapter 6). The term militarism is also typically used to refer to values and ideologies which are generated by or for the military (Adelmann, 2003). Apart from military as an institution being a central part of militarised societies, militarism also shapes the cultural, political and economic sphere and influences people’s values and views within a society.

Militarisation, which is not the same as militarism, refers to a process, by which “a person or a thing gradually comes to be controlled by the military or comes to depend for its well-being on militaristic ideas” (Enloe, 2000:3). Moreover, in a militarised society, it can be hard to differentiate between being at war and not being at war (in so far as wars are fought in other places). Adelmann (2003) argues, that in a militarised society, one is always oriented towards war. According to Lutz (2002:725), militarisation “draws attention to the simultaneously material and discursive nature of military dominance”.

With regard to the focus of this paper on toy guns, there exists the argument that it is in the interest of militarists and the people who benefit from war and everything that goes with it, to socialise children into militarism to make military actions and wars seem “logical, necessary, ‘natural’ and even fun” (Varney, 2000:358).

4.3. Masculinity

Masculinity, or the “approved way of being an adult man in any given society”, often refers to what is viewed as ‘real’ or ‘true’ manly features in a person (Gilmore, 1990:xi).

Militarised masculinity is not only present in the military, but also in everyday life outside the military. Ratele (2012:4) refers to it as “a set of ideologically informed practices that normalise violence”. This can be linked the military man being often presented as the masculine ideal, and, according to Ratele, to overcome violence and move towards building peaceful societies, the making of masculinities has to be reconsidered. Since masculinities are constructed and reproduced in various social settings such as families, schools and the media, they

(20)

19 can be changed through, for instance gender conscious farmers, doctors, carpenters, and so on. Ratele also mentions hegemonic masculinity and defines it as the “normative pattern of practices that define and regulate men as men, while at the same time granting them power over women and some men power over men” (Ratele, 2012:18). These issues are relevant to my work, since there is a possibility, that toy gun advertisements and war toys in general affect how young children learn about what it means to be ‘masculine’, or ‘manly’. Moreover, this directly relates to the main research question of this study (“How is militarised masculinity produced through the discourse of Nerf toy gun advertisements of the international toy gun company Hasbro Inc.?”).

Other scholars argue, that gender relations are informed by, and in turn also sustain relations of power (Cohn et al., 2005). According to Cohn, Hill and Ruddick (2005:1), gender is “not only about individual identity or what a society teaches us a man or woman, boy or girl should be like. Gender is also a way of structuring relations of power – whether that is within families (…) or in societies at large”. Moreover, individual identity and structures of power are significantly related to each other and the meanings and characteristics which are culturally associated with masculinity make it seem ‘natural’ and just for men to have the power to govern their families and societies (ibid.). Linking this to what has been argued earlier on in this chapter about notions of power and discourse at large, a correlation can be identified and taking it further, it indicates, that for this particular study, a combination of discourse theory and theoretical concepts of masculinity and militarism and militarisation are best suitable to conduct the analysis following in chapter six.

(21)

20

5. Methodological Framework

In this chapter, the selected method, discourse analysis I as outlined by Gillian Rose (2001), is introduced along with the rhetorical strategies developed by Rose to guide the process of doing a discourse analysis (section 5.2.). There will be a reflection on the choice of this method in section 5.3. Moreover, the selected material, namely five Nerf toy gun commercials, will be introduced and assessed in the fourth section of this methodological framework.

5.1. Method

This section discusses the method for conducting a discourse analysis, which belongs to qualitative strategies of inquiries and was outlined by Gillian Rose in her book ‘Visual Methodologies’ (2001). In the sixth chapter of her book, Rose introduces what she calls ‘discourse analysis I’, drawing inspiration and theoretical foundations from Foucault’s work (1972; 1977; 1979). Some of these theoretical foundations have been introduced in the theoretical framework in chapter four of this study. As mentioned before, discourse analysis comes as a package, meaning that the method of discourse analysis is directly building upon discourse analysis theory (Rose, 2001). Rose suggests, that Foucault’s work has produced two somewhat different methodological emphases, the first one, which she calls discourse analysis I, tends to rather pay attention to the notion of discourse as “articulated through various kinds of visual images and verbal texts” than it does to the practices entailed by specific discourses (Rose, 2001:140). In other words, discourse analysis I is mostly concerned with discourse, discursive formations and their productivity and refers to “all forms of talk and texts” (ibid.).

The second methodological emphasis deriving from Foucault’s work, according to Rose, is what she refers to as discourse analysis II (Rose, 2001), where more attention is paid to the practices of institutions than on visual images and verbal texts. It further tends to be more concerned with issues of ‘power’, ‘regimes of truth’, ‘institutions’ and ‘technologies’ (likewise, these terms are defined in chapter four). In section 5.3., I explain why I have deemed discourse analysis I to be best suitable for this work.

(22)

21 Rose argues, that discourse can be articulated through a varied range of images, texts and practices, which are all legitimate sources for conducting a discourse analysis (Rose, 2001). She further states, that for most sorts of research questions, it will seem obvious which are the key sources for the analysis, as they might be particularly interesting and productive in relation to the given research aim and question. Sometimes the key sources themselves are what started the researcher off for conducting a discourse analysis. However, it might be valuable to widen the range of sources which can potentially be time consuming. And, as Tonkiss (1998:253) emphasizes, what matters for conducting a discourse analysis is “the richness of textual detail, rather than the number of texts analysed”. Hence, it is appropriate to select a small number of sources if they seem particularly interesting and ‘substantial’, which can be said to be the case in this discourse analysis.

Regarding the production and rhetorical organization of discourse there have been some efforts to make the procedures of discourse analysis more specific, particularly in the social sciences (Rose, 2001). Tonkiss (1998) suggests, that the procedure of discourse analysis can be divided into two possible steps which build one on the other: firstly, the analysis of the structure of the discursive statements and secondly, the concern for the social context of such statements, as to who is saying them and under which circumstances.

Another theme of discourse analysis is the organization and structure of discourse itself. Rose (2001) suggests, that the researcher investigates in how particular discourses describe things, how it constructs blame and responsibility, how it constructs stake and accountability and how it categorizes in both its written and spoken forms. Yet, she reminds us, that the power of discourse means that it produces the things it claims to be describing (Rose, 2001:150). Regarding visual materials, many studies have focused especially on how social difference is constructed (e.g. Cowling, 1989).

When conducting a discourse analysis, it is important to keep in mind, that all discourse “takes place in specific social circumstances” (Gill, 1996:142). Apart from the rhetorical strategies for doing discourse analysis, the social production of discourse can indicate why certain discourses are more dominant than others (Rose, 2001). Foucault (1972) emphasizes, that there is a need to locate the social site from which certain accounts are made, and to also position the speaker of these accounts

(23)

22 in terms of social authority. It may seem obvious that a statement coming from a source appointed with authority is likely to be more productive than a statement coming from a marginalized social position. According to Rose, the way in which authority is established may be a valuable issue to address. Another important aspect of the social production of discourse, is the audience that discourses are aimed at or assumed by its images and texts. Hence, the social context of discourse production plays an important role in discourse analysis. However, in discourse analysis I as introduced by Rose (2001), the focus tends to lie more on the rhetorical organisation of texts and images and on their impact in terms of social location of their production. The impact of social institutions may be neglected by this approach to discourse analysis, which I am aware of in regard to my work.

Regarding the method’s strengths and weaknesses one could argue, that the fact that is pays close attention to the texts and images themselves and to issues of intertextuality in which they are embedded is a strength. Moreover, it addresses notions of power and the production of social difference as articulated through the materials themselves, which can be considered a strength as well (Rose, 2001).

One aspect that might be considered a weakness, is that it can be difficult to know where to stop collecting and analysing different materials, as there are endless texts and images which could be analysed with regard to discourse. Or, as Rose puts it, “the practical problem posed by this sort of discourse analysis, then – where to stop making intertextual connections – can also be an analytical one – how to make the intertextual connections convincingly productive” (2001:162). Another aspect is causality: the focus of this type of discourse analysis lies on how things are happening, not so much on why they are happening (ibid.). This can get ‘blurry’ when considering the relation between discourse itself and its context. According to Rose, this could be connected to the method’s focus on texts and images themselves and the social institutions that produced them, rather than focusing on the social practices and institutions of discourse, which is more central in her second approach, discourse analysis II. However, this second approach does not lie at focus of this paper, but would be worth considering in future research projects. Regardless of the method’s weaknesses, its strengths are prevailing with regard to this study and it is considered to be the best suitable method for conducting the analysis in chapter six with regard to the research aim and questions as well as the selected material.

(24)

23

5.2. Rhetorical strategies to guide the process of doing

discourse analysis

Rose (2001) divides the interpretive process of doing a discourse analysis into seven steps, which will be used in this study to conduct the analysis in chapter six.

As a first step, Rose suggests that the researcher familiarizes himself or herself with the selected material, leaves all preconceptions about it behind and looks at it with “fresh eyes” (Rose, 2001:150). This process might require some time, which is fine because we may not always be aware of our preconceptions and where they derive from. As stated by Foucault, preconceptions

must not be rejected definitely, of course, but the tranquillity with which they are accepted must be disturbed; we must show that they do not come about by themselves, but are always the result of a construction the rules of which must be known and the justifications of which must be scrutinized (Foucault, 1972:25).

The second step, according to Rose, is to immerse oneself in the materials chosen for the analysis (Rose, 2001:150). In terms of visual images, it is important to look very carefully at the different elements of an image and its interrelation to other elements. Likewise, this process may require some time, as it demands the researcher to look and get immersed in the visuals over and over again.

When proceeding to the third step, more systematic methods come into play: Rose suggests using a version of a coding process in connected to content analysis. She states, that “familiarity with the sources will allow you to identify key themes, which may be key words, or recurring visual images” (Rose, 2001:150). Yet, the words or images that occur the most often may not be the most relevant and vice versa, which is important to keep in mind. A list of those recurring words and images can be created to facilitate going through the different materials and applying the coding. There might be connections between and among certain key words which are to be examined thoroughly. In addition to that, Rose suggests the need to consider the broader, nondiscursive context of discourse. According to

(25)

24 Foucault (1972), these sorts of questions focus on the productivity of discourse in the sense that they address its production of meanings and things.

While conducting the analysis, new questions or themes may occur, which can be an opportunity for returning to the material in a second moment of interpretation. In that regard, the method of discourse analysis differs from a traditional content analysis, in which the researcher might have to halt the analytical process in this case and start the process again with revised categories (or key themes). Rose further encourages the researcher to “let the details of your materials guide your investigations” (Rose, 2001:154).

One central question in discourse analysis, and the fourth step of investigation is, how the discourse works to persuade and produces so called ‘effects of truth’ (Rose, 2001:154). This might entail detecting and focusing on claims of truth incorporated in the discourse. In other words, the researcher has to search for “the work that is being done to reconcile conflicting ideas, to cope with contradiction or uncertainty, or to counter alternatives” (Tonkiss, 1998:255). The reason for this is to highlight processes of persuasion which may otherwise be left unnoticed.

The fifth step relates to the complexity and contradictions internal to discourse. Rose states, that “discursive formations have structures but that does not necessarily imply that they are logical or coherent” (2001:155). That is why a part of the power of discursive formations may rest on the diversity of different arguments which can be produced in their terms.

Moreover, the sixth step is about dealing with what is, and what is not seen or said in a certain discourse. Rose argues, that “invisibility can have just as powerful effects as visibility” (Rose, 2001:157-158).

The seventh and last step is to pay close attention to detail while conducting discourse analysis. What makes a discourse analysis fruitful, are the assumptions it makes about what is true, real, natural and what is contradictory or said / not said (ibid.). All of these require attentiveness during the process of analysis.

(26)

25

5.3. Reflection on the choice of method

With regard to my research aim and questions, as well as the choice of material, the first methodological approach, discourse analysis I, seems best suitable for this paper. This is firstly, because discourse analysis I is centrally concerned with language and how it is used to construct people’s accounts of the social world (Rose, 2001). Rose adds, that it can also be used to explore, how images “construct specific views of the social world (…), visuality is viewed as the topic of research, and the discourse analyst is interested in how images construct accounts of the social world” (ibid.:140). This can be linked to this study as it is concerned with Nerf toy gun advertisements, which contain both text and visuals, and how they construct militarised masculinity through discourse.

Moreover, discourse analysis addresses questions of power/knowledge and as a method, it pays careful attention to the social production and effect of images. However, Rose states, that discourse analytic methods are “not much concerned with questions of reflexivity” (Rose, 2001:141). Linking this to Foucault, who certainly separated his practices as an academic and his private life, and in his work

The Archeology of Knowledge even ridicules autobiographical efforts of reflexivity

with the words: “do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order” (Foucault, 1972:17). Rose argues, that from a Foucauldian perspective, the social sciences “are just as discursive as any other form of knowledge production, and in producing a piece of research you are participating in their discursive formation” (2001:160). Hence, when conducting a discourse analysis, arguments about discourse, power, truth and knowledge are just as relevant as the analysed materials. Moreover, discourse analysis aims at being persuasive, rather than truthful, since it cannot be argued that they are the only, true analysis of the given materials. Therefore, it is important to reflect on the rhetorical organisation of a discourse analysis and to consider the power of visual images which “in some ways limits that of the researcher”, according to Rose (ibid.). In addition to that, it can be said that, whether a discourse analysis becomes persuasive, depends on the interpretive context of a discourse, which is, in my case, the social sciences.

(27)

26 Rose (2001:161) puts together a list of guidelines to guide reflexivity during the analytical process and to ‘erase’ the institutional context in which the discourse analysis is produced:

- Using detailed textual or visual evidence to support your analysis, - Using textual or visual details to support your analysis,

- The coherence the study gives to the discourse examined, - The coherence of the analysis itself,

- The coherence of the study in relation to previous related research, - The examination of cases that run counter to the discursive norm established by the analysis, in order to affirm the disruption caused by such deviations.

These guidelines are kept in mind throughout the process of conducting this study. Moreover, the theoretical framework in chapter four of this work has been composed in a way which best ensures that I as a researcher am able to acknowledge my potential biases and can conduct the analysis and to make the analytical steps seem as transparent as possible, even though a lot depends on my own interpretation of the material. From a social constructivist viewpoint this is impossible to avoid, as it holds the epistemological assumption that there are multiple subjective understandings of sociocultural phenomena (Creswell, 2014). Constructivist researchers further intent to make sense of the meaning others have about the world (ibid.). In the case of this particular study, the way in which this meaning is constructed is also at focus.

5.4. Material

The following primary sources were selected as material to be analysed in chapter six building upon the previous chapters of this study: Five different Nerf toy gun advertisements which were all aired on US-Television between 2017 and 2018 (Hasbro, 2017;2018). Three of the selected Nerf toy gun TV commercials are now available on Hasbro’s YouTube channel. The other two Nerf toy gun TV commercials are now available on the ‘Nerf Official’ YouTube channel. To give the reader an insight into the titles of the selected commercials and to clarify, how they will be referred to in the analysis later on, I decided to list them here as follows:

(28)

27 1. Commercial videoclip (as of now referred to as Video 1): “NERF – ‘Modulus Regulator Blaster’ Official TV Commercial” (Hasbro, 2017).

2. Commercial videoclip (as of now referred to as Video 2): “ ‘NERF Elite Infinus’ Official Commercial” (NERF Official, 2018)

3. Commercial videoclip (as of now referred to as Video 3): “NERF – ‘Delta Trooper, Firestrike & Disruptor’ Official Spot” (NERF Official, 2018).

4. Commercial videoclip (as of now referred to as Video 4): “NERF – ‘This is How We Play’ Official TV Commercial” (Hasbro, 2017).

5. Commercial videoclip (as of now referred to as Video 5): “NERF – ‘Dart Refills’ Official TV Commercial” (Hasbro, 2017).

Three of the five commercials are thirty seconds long (Videos 1, 2, and 3), which probably conforms to the chosen airing time for commercials on television. However, Video 4 is longer with one minute and thirty seconds duration. Video 5 is twenty seconds long, hence the shortest of the five selected commercials.

Given that all of the five Nerf TV commercials selected for this analysis were aired between 2017 and 2018, they are all relatively recent toy gun advertisements which was a criteria for selecting them. The reason for this is, that the interest of this study is the current standard of toy guns and toy gun advertisements. Moreover, these toy gun advertisements have been selected, because they provide video material in which the protagonists are actively using the advertised product which, in my opinion, offers rich information for the analysis as it combines visuals, texts and sounds in one source. Also, in the selected toy gun advertisements, the protagonists act with the products in their ideal form, meaning that it implies how Hasbro Inc. is presenting the products and how they suggest to use them. Clearly, there are certain biases related to this. When a company advertises their own products it wants the viewers of these advertisements to buy these products and hence, presents them in their ideal shape. Moreover, conflicting ideas or criticism are not included or targeted in these commercials, which is particularly interesting

(29)

28 with regard to this study and one of the main reasons why these commercials have been selected.

(30)

29

6. Analysis

In the following chapter of this study, the selected commercials will be analysed, first with focus on how they are produced to get an understanding of how visual, textual and sound-wise features interrelate to address the viewer of the Nerf toy gun commercials. The second section focuses on key themes and expressions conveyed. The third one focuses on notions of militarism and militarisation and in the fourth section the focus lies on notions of masculinity. During this process of analysis Rose’s seven steps (or strategies), which have been introduced in detail in chapter five, will be respected and applied. Since the first two points (1.“looking at your sources with fresh eyes”, and 2.“immersing yourself in your sources”) concern strategic actions that are not visible to the reader’s eye and the remaining five steps have to be kept in mind basically all at the same time, the reader might notice, that I do not refer to them in the original order, but rather as the analysis goes on, following what Rose referred to as “let the details of your material guide your investigations” (Rose, 2001:154). In other words, all seven steps are respected and carried out in the analysis, yet not in the same order as introduced in chapter five, but adapted to the flow of the analysis, to allow a consistent and comprehensive reading experience.

At the end of each sub-chapter, the findings derived from the analysis will be assessed with regard to the theoretical and methodological framework, as well as the research questions and aim of this study.

6.1. Interrelation of visuals, text and sounds

When watching the commercials, it appears that they are full of details, contrasts and action. The combination of the visual image, the commentators voice and other sounds gives the impression that a lot is happening at the same time. To ensure that this analysis is comprehensive, this section will investigate in how the commercials’ visual, textual and sound-wise features interrelate and how their content is conveyed to the viewer.

While the commentator of all five commercials is a male adult, the protagonists are exclusively children, approximately between the age of eight and

(31)

30 fourteen. Most of the protagonists are boys and only boys are shown in close up, yet there are a few girls who appear in two of the five commercials, especially in Video 4. All protagonists of the Nerf toy gun commercials are light-skinned, except at the end of Video 4, a group picture includes a few people of colour, yet only at the margins and never in focus. The clothes worn by the protagonists could be described as casual and comfortable, just like average children in for instance the United States and Europe would wear them. Overall, the viewer gets the impression, that the neighbour’s boy could act in one of the chosen Nerf toy gun commercials.

Regarding the settings in which the scenes are filmed, it appears, that there are a lot of contrasts. While the majority of the scenes is filmed outside, especially in the woods and parks, some scenes are filmed in spaces that look like warehouses, with pieces of metal standing around, light bulbs on the walls which seem to be made of concrete and metal, just like the rest of the rooms (e.g. in Video 1 and Video 5). The settings all look clean and there is another contrast in terms of light: while the warehouse settings are quite dark, with a few bright light sources, the nature scenes are brighter, yet barely sunny. Video 4 hereby is an exception as it features almost all scenes outside in urban settings such as basketball courts, sports fields, skateparks and on doorsteps. Moreover, Video 4 features a lot of scenes in different neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods range from wealthy looking streets with single family houses to less wealthy looking high-rise housing estates. Throughout all commercials, the settings convey a sort of adventurous feeling, underlining the frequent use of words such as ‘mission’ and ‘battle’, as there could be a potential threat around every corner - yet there never is throughout the commercials.

Throughout the video clips, the protagonists are very active, especially in the outdoor scenes in the Videos 1,2,3, and 4: they are running, jumping over obstacles such as fallen tree trunks, tumbling and racing in the same direction, while constantly firing at a target that the viewer cannot see. At times they stop, to reload their toy guns, at times they reload while running, depending on the technical versatility of the given toy gun. Interestingly, none of the protagonists ever gets hit by a dart and they are never firing at each other, but rather working in teams, firing at an invisible target or enemy. The only times where the darts are visibly hitting a target are on target circles and tin-like targets (see Video 5 and Video 2). This gives

(32)

31 the impression of a training situation to increase precision accuracy of the shooters. In Video 4, the focus does not seem to lie on firing with toy guns, but is rather embedded in the pursuit of other activities, such as skateboarding, riding bicycles, playing the drums, swinging, jumping over fences and on trampolines, dancing and boxing. Video 4 is also the commercial, in which a strong feeling of togetherness is created, emphasised by the frequent use of phrases like “you are one of us”, “we do what no one else does” or “we do it because we can” (Video 4). The other commercials also convey a sense of belonging to a group, yet the focus lies more on toy gun play and the toy guns and darts themselves.

Regarding the media production, it becomes clear, that images of action as described above, are supported by special film effects, such as close ups, slow motion and a ‘x-raying’ effect to show the inner life of introduced toy guns to accentuate their technical features.

A central feature of all five commercials is the male, adult commentator’s voice. He provides the textual information to the visual video clips and the way in which he does it, reminds of a sports coach or a sports commentator. While commenting on the commercials, he sounds excited, at times almost stressed as well as enthusiastic. Some of the words or phrases he says, are additionally written on the images for instance in Video 1, where he speaks of the Nerf Modulus Regulator’s ‘switch fire technology’, the words ‘switch fire’ are written down at the time he mentions them.

Along with special film effects and the commentators voice, the producers of the commercials made matching choices with regards to sounds. All five commercials are underlined with Rock music, with emphasis on the drum patterns. Other sounds are those of loading and firing toy guns, mechanical sounds and the buzzing and whooshing of the fired darts. Additionally, there are the sounds of children’s relatively high sounding voices (probably before puberty vocal change) screaming things like “yeah!” and “aaah!”, which is in contrast to the deeper sounding male adult’s commentating voice.

All in all, the five selected Nerf toy gun commercials are action-loaded and lively. Extensive use of technical means such as slow-motion, close ups in combination with visual contrasts such as light and dark, fast and slow, noisy and calm are increasing the capturing effect on the viewers. Given that they are all relatively short (between 20 seconds and 1 minute and 30 seconds), they

(33)

32 nevertheless give the viewer the impression of taking part in an adventurous mission with great importance. This contributes to the production of ‘effects of truth’ and the persuasiveness of the produced discourse in so far, as it reconciles conflicting ideas that might be related to toy gun play as being problematic and turning it into adventurous action-play where no one seems to get hurt but instead everyone has a lot of fun.

6.2. Reappearing themes and expressions

Having studied the five Nerf toy gun commercials in detail, there are several reappearing key themes and expressions, both of textual and visual nature. These key themes and expressions that have been found are ‘performance’, ‘belonging to the group’, ‘technological progress’, ‘being exclusive’ and ‘contrasts’ and will be elaborated in the following section to answer the first operational question: Which

reappearing expressions and themes can be found in the selected toy gun advertisements of Hasbro’s subsidiary brand Nerf? Identifying key themes and

expressions in a given discourse is also an important part of doing discourse analysis I as outlined by Rose, as it enables the researcher to discover possible relations between these key themes and how these are given specific meanings (Rose, 2001; Foucault, 1972).

Performance: One reoccurring theme is that of the Nerf toy gun player’s

‘performance’. Performance is hereby closely linked to the repeatedly used words ‘mission’ and ‘battle’ and emphasis is put on the importance to perform well and how Nerf toy guns will ensure a strong performance (Videos 1;2;3;4;5). This is expressed in sentences like “With Infinus, the battle never stops” (Video 2). Even the Nerf darts are advertised with the words “official Nerf darts are designed, tested and approved for the performance you want” (Video 5). Linking this to the visual underlining of this key theme, the commercials’ protagonists are almost constantly on the move. Either they are running, jumping over obstacles such as fallen tree trunks, tumbling or racing towards a place the viewer cannot see. The importance of performing well is also made visible through the protagonists’ various facial expressions, especially the more serious and focused ones, which are in contrast with occasional smiles. The voice of the commentator contributes to the emphasis

&apos;The battle never stops&apos; - A discourse analysis of Nerf toy gun advertisements