Selling Domesticity: A Socio-Cognitive Critical Discourse Analysis of Patriarchal Ideology in Mid-Twentieth-Century Advertising

This study examines the discursive construction and normalisation of patriarchal ideology in mid-twentieth-century advertising through a socio-cognitive critical discourse analysis. This study analyses a representative 1950s domestic appliance advertisement through Teun van Dijk’s socio-cognitive framework of Critical Discourse Analysis, investigating the interaction between linguistic choices, visual components, and the social cognition that shapes discourse and society. The analysis demonstrates that textual strategies such as polarisation, presupposition, and evaluative language, in conjunction with visual elements like gendered positioning and symbolic domestic imagery, functioned to normalise the confinement of women to domestic labour while legitimising male authority as a benevolent provision. These discursive patterns establish collective cognitive frameworks that portray domesticity as an inherently feminine duty and consumerism as the appropriate solution for inequitable domestic labour. This study asserts that the advertisement, contextualised within its historical and ideological framework, served not merely as a promotional artefact but also as a powerful instrument for perpetuating and disseminating patriarchal gender norms across generations. The results underscore the enduring relevance of socio-cognitive Critical Discourse Analysis in elucidating how quotidian media discourse sustains gender inequality and highlight the imperative of critical media literacy in challenging entrenched ideological paradigms in contemporary contexts.

Critical discourse analysis; patriarchy; gender ideology; advertising discourse

1. Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular feminism and popular misogyny. Duke University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2023). Is gender still relevant? Gendered norms in advertising and consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Eager, E. (2021). Marketing domesticity: Advertising and gender roles in postwar America. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Elliott, S., & Robinson, V. (2021). Gender, consumption, and domestic labour in post-war advertising. Journal of Consumer Culture, 21(3), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540520948087 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Fairclough, N. (2018). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Gill, R. (2018). Gender and the media (2nd ed.). Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting terrain of sex and power: From the “sexualisation of culture” to #MeToo. Sexualities, 21(8), 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460718794646 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Lazar, M. M. (2007). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Articulating a feminist discourse praxis. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900701464816 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lazar, M. M. (2018). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2016). Multimodality, discourse and social practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Manne, K. (2018). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Orgad, S., & De Benedictis, S. (2021). The “stay-at-home” mother, postfeminism and neoliberalism: Contentment, choice and value. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 24(2), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419872095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Sunderland, J. (2019). Language, gender and children’s fiction. Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. van Dijk, T. A. (2021). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis.Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Wodak, R. (2021). The discourse–historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed., pp. 23–61). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Methods of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Synonymy in the Songs of Ummaru Bagobiri: A Contextual Linguistics Analysis
• Aspect of Compounding and Affixation in Bassa-Nge
• Kinayah (Metonymy) in Malay: An Analysis Based on the Science of Balaghah
• Optimality Theory: Application of Dahl’s law in Kindia
• Selling Diversity: The Politics of Representation in Global Advertising