When American Eagle announced Sydney Sweeney as the face of its latest denim campaign, the reaction online was swift. People saw and praised Sweeney as the sweetheart perfectly encapsulating the "all-american" beauty. Her blonde hair, porcelain skin and sky blue eyes. In, especially, the 15-second clip that went viral, the camera, just like the eyes of the audience, moves from the Sweeney's thighs to the zipping of her jeans at her hips, to eventually the pair of eyes that resemble the hue of her jeans.

"Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My genes (jeans) are blue."

The ad was later deleted from the American Eagle social media after recognizing the controversy it sparked. On social media, people believed that no matter how hard people try to conceal it as a quirky wordplay or tongue-in-cheek marketing, the campaign revealed something deeper.

Netizens have expressed their discomfort and disdain towards this campaign, believing that in this ad, Sydney Sweeney has not only been capitalized into a symbol of beauty and attractiveness that will act as the camera's spokesperson, but rather, the definition of high-quality, superior beauty rooted in the scientific-fixation of "good genes" --- that is, suspiciously, the archetypical white features.

None of this is blatantly said out loud within this ad. It has been expressed that it is exactly the ambiguity that brings such an uncomfort, one that ties together the lack of racial and cultural diversity and bringing it forward it an innocent, oblivious and intentional manner in this specific political climate.

Opinions on this vary.

Marketing professor Marcus Collins, say, that

"You can either say this was ignorance, or this was laziness, or say that this is intentional. Either one of the three aren’t good."

Shalini Shankar, a linguistic anthropologist at Northwestern University, say, that this ad was created deliberately for aspirational beauty amongst a group of people:

"American Eagle, I guess, wants to rebrand itself for a particular kind of white privileged American."

On the other hand, Megyn Kelly, a former Fox News host, disagreeing with the criticism, tweets that

"I love how the leftist meltdown over the Sydney Sweeney ad has only resulted in a beautiful white blonde girl with blue eyes getting 1000x the exposure for her ‘good genes."

Image Credits: Jay Dixit from Wikimedia Commons

What is the Real Deal Here? A Deeper Dive

Why is this ad so controversial? Well, the real reason lies both within and beyond the ad itself. The creative ideas behind it has first, prompted beliefs that the ad is promoting eugenics, which is basically the advocacy of improving human species by arranging reproduction aimed for more desirable traits and features.

This discredited, obsolete theory has been used during the 20th century under racial biases. It targeted minorities such as people of color or disabled people, justifying their inferiority and bad treatment.

This ad was also released at a special period of time. Having seen the US government take action against DEI and immigrants in the country, it is difficult not to correlate the ad to the propaganda of certain political beliefs.

Sayantani DasGupta, an author and scholar who teaches Narrative Medicine at Columbia University, posted a tiktok debriefing the controversy, now hitting 4 million views. She shares that she'll be using the ad as a teaching moment in her classroom this semester as a tool to spark discussion about race and the current political climate.

“It is both a testament to this political moment, and it’s contributing to and reinforcing this kind of anti-immigrant, anti-people of color, pro-eugenic political moment."

People have also been saying that this ad is inherently misogynistic by sexualizing women, catering to the male gaze.

Washington Post fashion critic Rachel Tashjian writes that:

"The tagline is simply bizarre. Are they trying to say that what matters is not what you look like but what you put on your body? Or that you are assigned a denim style at birth and you must never waver from it? Also: Is Sweeney the every girl or the only girl?"

This ad has also been placed in comparison with Brooke Shields' controversial Calvin Klein ad from 1980. The actress, at the age of 15, sparked controversy under the ad's tagline: "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing."

Sarah Banet-Weiser, dean of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, in an interview with the NPR, noted how [censored] sells to be a golden rule of advertising. Her sexiness is placed at the center of attention.

"It's an attention economy here that is focused on her, but it is also about the profitability of anger and profitability of hate. And we see this over and over again."

Banet-Weiser is not wrong, as with controversy sparks profitability. Despite the backlash, American Eagle stocks have jumped up 20 percent.

On the other hand, people have also said this ad is not that serious. Some say that the critiques are way too woke and that the criticism is coming from triggered liberals.

"It's literally only a Sydney Sweeney is hot joke, nothing to get mad over," one wrote in a comments section of a Tiktok video explaining the controversy.

"Some people have too much time on their hands, it's jeans commercial," said another.

Image Credits: Asato from Pexels

Take the Quiz: Religion, Schools, and Equality

Religion in Schools: Teaching Respect, Not Bias.

Conclusion

In response to public backlash, American Eagle posted on Instagram conveying their stance.

"It is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone."

In my perspective, American Eagle should take some blame for it's provocative and ambiguous campaign idea, but I also suggest a more objective approach.

For decades, the brand has marketed itself as an inclusive, approachable brand with denim campaigns that claim universality: jeans for every body type, lifestyle and budget. In the past, they have also been praised for featuring plus size models and the inclusion of racial diversity.

Hence, what we should ask is, why are they returning to a "safer" visual strategy and why is the society choosing to embrace such a campaign? It should never be a fault to question the legitimacy and correctness of something under the public scrutiny.