As I began to look at the role that ideology and "myth or magic" exert in the Amway Corporation the language and images that Amway uses to represent itself intrigued me. Looking through the various Amway media texts and critiques of Amway I began to perceive some consistent phenomena which we will call the "Amway ideology." The term "ideology" may seem a bit odd placed in a discussion of a company popularly known as a soap distributor. However, the term becomes more than relevant in light of how the Amway Corporation represents itself as well as how it is represented by company critics. I find this "Amway ideology" and/or company ideals particularly germane in regard to how "success" is represented by Amway. While Amway claims that anyone and everyone can succeed with an Amway business, their representations of "the successful" do not necessarily conform to such claims. Moreover, embedded within these various Amway media texts are certain ideals of appropriate gender roles and relationships. Such representations point to a larger issue of image and the ways in which image reflects more generally upon Amway ideology. Amway’s image appears to play an important role not only in regard to marketing products, but indeed plays a critical role in recruitment and profit making. This chapter is by no means meant to provide a full analysis of Amway media texts. Indeed this would singularly provide for an extensive arena of inquiry on its own. Rather, I hope to show that even in a quite limited analysis, the inherent contradictions of the Amway belief system become quickly apparent.

After conducting some archival research on the Amway Corporation, I decided to focus my research on two media texts. I began by looking at a video cassette I was able to procure from a friend and former Amway distributor. The video had been part of his introductory business kit he purchased upon signing up as an Amway distributor. I decided to carefully look at the first 20 minutes of the video in which Amway distributors--12 couples and 1 single--present narratives about their lives, dreams, business goals, etc. in Amway. From these narratives, (and the interlacing media shots surrounding these sections of the film), I will try to show the ways in which Amway repeatedly presents an ideal Amway conception of "success," family, and the appropriate gender roles/relationships of Amway distributors. In order to make more general conclusions about the demographics of Amway distributors, I have decided to also include information about the 20 Amway couples featured on Amway’s "Profiles of Success" web-page. The comparisons between the two groups of distributors are interesting given their close approximation.

Throughout the media texts the image of success or the ability to succeed is consistently presented to the potential recruit in such a way that "success" appears to be available to anyone who is willing to get up and do something about the "opportunity" available to them through Amway. The following narrative, (drawn from A World of OPPORTUNITY), is illustrative:

Amway offers a world of opportunity--literally--to virtually anyone interested in operating an independent business. In more than 70 countries and territories around the globe, the Amway business opportunity is a highly accessible, "user-friendly" way to enjoy the advantages of a business of one’s own (www.amway.com/usa/opportun/)

These texts consistently encourage the reader/viewer to believe that it doesn’t matter who you are, where you are from, what kind of educational background you have, what gender you are, what race or class you may be etc. All that is important is the effort or determination you are able to put into the business. While this idea is present throughout much of Amway’s media, this theme is stressed explicitly in the various quotes featured above the 20 names on the "Profiles of Success" web-page. Note the following examples:

Most people are about as happy as they make their minds up to be.--Abraham Lincoln.

All our dreams can come true--if we have the courage to pursue them.--Walt Disney

Genius is only the power of making continuous effort.--Conrad Hilton

Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.--Will Rogers

The quotes within the context of Amway’s "World of Opportunity" all point to this notion that anyone and everyone has the potential to succeed materially through an Amway business. If, that is, (s)he is willing to put everything into that business--in essence, the failure and/or success of a given distributor’s Amway business lies completely in his/her hands.

While these ideals of "opportunity" and success are indeed laudable, I was curious as to whether or not such "egalitarian" notions of success were reflected in the demographics of Amway distributors. In order to better research the question, I decided to take the two groups of Amway distributors I had chosen to examine and simply look and see if I would find that "Yes! Anyone can succeed in Amway!" However, if I did not find this, why were certain groups of people and individuals not represented? What would such an anomaly indicate? I decided upon a group of variables summarizing some very basic demographic information and then graphed the results. Interestingly the "picture" that emerges of Amway distributors does not appear to concretely support the Amway ideal. Indeed, except for a few exceptions, the egalitarian "opportunity" offered by Amway does not seem to be widely available to everyone and anyone. In effect, the graphs indicate that the Amway "opportunity" is in fact reserved to a very specific group of people. In the following graphs labeled A & C the numbers on the y-axis refer to the number of couples, except, of course for the one single who is present in the first chart. Graphs B & D represent a breakdown of the age or "maturity" groups represented within the two groups of Amway distributors. It is only meant to give the reader an idea of what appears to be the predominant age-group represented in these two groups, it is by no means meant to be an exact representation of Amway distributor age demographics.

C	D

While the above graphs are not representative of Amway distributors as a whole, what is interesting about the data is the absence (or perhaps invisibility) of certain groups of people. Except for one notable exception, most of the Amway distributors are couples. And, the one single who is represented also appears to be the youngest of the Amway distributors represented. It also does not seem coincidental that the one single appears on the "Higher Ground" Amway video. This particular video is aimed at new entry-level distributors who have just signed up with the business. Accordingly, it is perhaps assumed that among those who are entering the business there will likely be some who are not as mature and thus un-married, perhaps a college student. It is interesting to note, however, that once we arrive at the "Profiles of Success" web-page there no longer appears to be a need to represent any singles. Perhaps they did succeed. Or, perhaps, they have married and matured before they have arrived at the upper levels of success in an Amway business.

Notwithstanding, "singleness" is curiously mentioned briefly (albeit not explicitly) once in the "Profiles of Success" web page. However, the context within which it appears is again in direct relation to how the distributor in question, Jody Victor, "...met his wife, Kathy, through his Amway business, and they married in 1981" (my emphasis) [see www.amway.com/usa/people /amdist/contents.htm.] Curiously, or perhaps not so surprising, there are very few minorities present in these groups of distributors. While the African-American and Asian-American couple quickly follow the introductory Caucasian couple in the "Higher Ground" video (in itself quite significant) there are no new minority people present with the exception of Quentin Hardy, the one single distributor. With the Profiles of Success web-page, on the other hand, the two minority distributors are merely listed with the rest of the Amway "successful." The fact that there are such low numbers of ethnically diverse Amway distributors is intriguing. On the one hand these statistics may simply reflect upon low interest in the Corporation among ethnic minorities in the United States. Or, perhaps it reflects an issue of class. However, both of these (and doubtless a multitude of other justifications) are contrary to the image maintained by Amway that anyone and everyone is given an equal chance to succeed using the Amway business and marketing plan.

From appearance, Amway seems to have a much better record on the issue of race....It was not "positive" to be racist; it was not professional or courteous and would only harm your business.... Any Black person who could wear a three-piece suit and earn a pin [business profitability indicator/award] was assured a warm welcome....In the Amway environment, whites could relate with Blacks and not get sweaty palms. Smile, offer a Dale Carnegie handshake and talk about Family, Occupation, Recreation, Money. Then punctuate the conversation with "Up your PV! [product volume] and you can’t go wrong. [Butterfield, 1985: 155]

As Butterfield notes, and as Amway would likely enthusiastically echo, Amway does seem to provide spaces where distributors from diverse backgrounds may come together in order to achieve greater economic equality and freedom. However, while Amway vehemently denies unequal recruitment practices and shows that minorities can and do succeed in Amway, many critics are far more skeptical and point to more subtle and complex relationships and structures that continue to ensure racial inequality. Butterfield continues:

Despite the increase of Black membership in Amway, it cannot be said that any serious racial integration has happened within the business. Whites generally do not go into Black neighborhoods to show the Plan....the Blacks who become distributors, typically, already had some kind of middle-class position before they joined. They do not maintain a Black culture, or ideology of Black Liberation, in Amway; they are indoctrinated in corporate "free-enterprise" right along with whites. If the ban on crosslining prevents real friendship from developing between whites, it would also act as a barrier to interracial friendship. White Directs, in fact, although they may wish to sponsor hardworking productive Black distributors, prefer to send their children to all-white private academies and locate their new homes in all-white neighborhoods. Many individuals may not object to having a Black family move next door, provided that family was high enough on the income scale to afford a luxury home.[Butterfield 1985: 157] (My emphasis)

While these observations by no means describe all that may occur in individual contexts where Amway is marketed, Butterfield points out some key issues which I believe are quite useful in explaining why it is that there are so few minorities in these Amway texts and how Amway may in fact discourage true equal opportunity. In particular, the ban on cross-lining seems to be particularly significant. As Butterfield has noted, this system prevents genuine relationships from developing on a wider scale between Blacks, Chicanos, Asian-Americans, and Caucasian distributors. Indeed it only serves to reinforce the socially constructed ideologies that surround race and ethnicity issues, not to mention the socio-economic, political, and power structures that infuse this discourse. While by no means diminishing the accomplishments of individual minority distributors, we must nonetheless recognize that "racial oppression is a systemwide economic and political legacy, not merely a personal hangup of white bigots. It cannot be resolved by ‘free enterprise,’ or by anything less than collective action or the part of all its victims, whether Black or white; male or female" [and indeed by those people who do not necessarily fall into these nicely delineated categories, such as gays, bisexuals, and lesbians] [Butterfield 1985: 157]. Therefore, while Amway does offer a select few the opportunity to achieve the dream, on a more general note the system acts to reinforce systems of racial oppression not to mention the propagation of a unique late twentieth century resurrection of racial segregation.

As I began to look over the preceding graphs I asked myself if there were perhaps additional "factors of success." Consequently, I decided to look at what kinds of employment backgrounds were shared by the two groups of Amway distributors (divided by men and women). As in the previous graphs, what is striking is how closely the two groups of distributors match in their previous work experiences and occupations:

FOH: Former occupation--homecare position (homemaker)

FOS: Former occupation--service sector position (construction, bookkeeper, secretary, T.V. Repair, etc.)

FOB/P: Former occupation--Business and/or Professional position. (Teacher, Lobbyist, Pharmacy Store Owner, T.V. television talk show host, Doctor, aeronautical engineer, child therapist, CPA, etc.)

 

Men	Women

The picture that emerges of Amway distributors is quite interesting. In the preceding graphs most of the former occupations held by distributors are well trained business and professional jobs varying from lobbyist and child therapist to a former NFL player and teacher. While the graphs representing the women’s former occupations do vary more than those of the men, the balance continues to lean in favor of people (especially couples) who have already a reasonably well stacked deck of "chances for success." The distributors are predominantly white, middle-class and fairly well to very well educated.

Such an image of Amway distributors poses some serious questions. It would seem to point to the existence of an Amway ideology and image of success that determines and defines what is and isn’t "successful." The distributors themselves are arguably not that important in and of themselves. Rather, the beliefs, roles, and skills Amway distributors are able to bring with them and "market" appear to be far more critical to the profit making success of the Amway Corporation. As one reads through the Amway texts one seems to be called to ask--Who wouldn’t want to join a company where you can buy high quality goods and services; Be able to give that gift to others who wish to succeed; Dress beautifully; have perfect marital relations; Make incredible salaries and travel the world? All these themes and desires reappear consistently throughout the texts. Stephen Butterfield, a former Amway distributor and critic of Amway, comments on his own attraction to the company:

When I sat there with my Amway product kit, gazing at the red, white and blue box of SA-8, and listing who would buy my soap and shampoo, and dreaming about the faraway places I would travel to on my profits, and letting the vibrations of my own culture, the great American Way, ring my nerve centers like a tuning fork, I was probably living the archetypal first experience of every new distributor. It was a return to childhood. I had given up fighting my country. I was tired of wishing we would all be enlightened and work each according to ability and take each according to need. It was too exhausting to build movements for social change and watch the members and leaders run off to Wall Street. I was bored with political discussions of any kind, having repeated them endlessly without noticeable effect for years. It was as if Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs, the assassinations of King and Malcolm X and the Kennedys, Kent State and the black uprisings, Yankee Imperialism and the hippies and yippies had never happened, and I could go back to the malt shop with Richie Cunningham and the Fonz, as my kids were doing, and start all over again from the beginning. It was like coming home on holiday, after a long separation, to meet the family. [Butterfield, 1985: 21-22]

It is of course very difficult to generalize from these very limited findings all that motivates somebody to join Amway. I would tentatively argue, however, that in light of the preceding graphs and Butterfield’s observations, there seems to be significant contradiction between the Amway ideals and Amway realities. That is, while Amway may stand on its soap box and cry out its message of opportunity and success, their own representations would seem to point to the fact that only a very specific group may actually attain the dream. There is a particularly significant predominance of "white middle-class American family/people" themes underlying many Amway media texts. In addition, (albeit by no means exclusively), these middle class conservative themes appear to be quite salient in regard to gender relations.

In reviewing the 20-minute segment of the video "Reaching for Higher Ground," I began to notice some definite distinctions in regard to gender roles. While women and men each speak exactly 16 times in the interview segment, they do not necessarily speak about the same things. I decided to look carefully over the 20 minutes of video and try and see if I could identify a given set of variables and graph this data. Immediately preceding this particular graph lies a "total" graph which compiles data gathered from the diverse media shots that interlace the "Higher Ground" interview video. The graphs compliment each other in that they both show what appear to be clear gender role differentiations. Women discuss family and future while men discuss the success/products and possibilities of the Amway business "opportunity" and Corporation. In addition, men are completely absent from the sales aspect of the business (particularly homecare). When they are presented with their wives it is they (the men) who speak to the audience or prospective group of Amway initiates.

Mar: Marketing and/or explaining the Amway business system to a mixed gender audience in a home or seminar situation. Dis: Discussing, using, and/or explaining Amway home-care and beauty products. Sp: Which member of the couple is speaking at a public (staged) event when both members are present.

Despite the fact that the Amway business repeatedly presents itself as a "team enterprise" between members of a couple, within that "team"⁷ one can perceive indications of clear distinctions between the roles exerted by women and those practiced by men. (As an aside, please note that these terms are listed and defined in the Endnotes). While I have not found this explicitly stated in an Amway media text, there are, however, subtle indications within the texts which draw on this idea. Looking back through the "Profiles of Success", for example, this idea appears in a statement regarding Greg and Laurie Duncan (Double Diamond Direct Distributors). "From the beginning, Greg and Laurie built their Amway business as a team. He concentrated on showing the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan; she concentrated on sales and training" [www.amway.com/ usa/people/amdist/peopdcn.htm]. While this may seem perfectly harmless, it should be noted that "showing the plan" is a very public and authoritative role. The person who brings the knowledge of Amway’s Sales and Marketing Plan is in a sense bringing the "hope" and the "opportunity" offered by the Amway Corporation. That men would be responsible for this aspect of the business is, I believe, important. It seems to point to an arrangement which, far from challenging existing hegemonic gender structure, conforms to the dominant patriarchal gender system. Thus, on the one hand, women make use of their various networks and abilities to not only sell products but also bring in new customers to their husbands. On the other hand, men exert the very public roles and responsibilities that are said to be critical to building an Amway business-- such as showing The Amway Business and Marketing Plan, going out (outside, that is, the home space) to find new customers and contacts so as to have new sponsors. In an Amway business the goal is to not only sell the Amway products, but also make contacts with people who you can then bring into the business (sponsor them) as a means of building a downline of distributors below you who will then ideally build their own downlines, thus perpetuating and increasing your business growth and profit (See List of Amway Related Terms). Stephen Butterfield, himself a former Amway distributor, makes the following remarks in regard to how gender roles came to be defined and reinforced during his own experience in the Amway business. He writes:

But Amway is not some passive tool that couples pick up and use; it is a social movement that uses and changes them. A definitive model of the family is held up for emulation; the model is enforced by the requirement to set an example for the downline. Even a simple thing like such as which partner draws the circles [technique used to explain the Amway Plan] is,...prescribed by advice from the top. The business cannot tolerate deviance and creativity. If I babysit and retail products and keep the home clean while my wife goes out to show The Plan, I might start a whole line of woman Plan-showers and male homemakers. People might get the idea that in Amway the woman wears the pants. This amounts to a major policy change, a divergence from teachings;....The leaders cannot afford to let their people innovate. Their profits depend on conformity. [Butterfield, 1985:117] (My emphasis)

Amway amplifies...features of corporate capitalism, and worse: the wife belongs back in the home, ironing her husband’s shirts so he can go out and Show the Plan. Her liberation is henceforth to keep the books, serve him coffee when he comes home, sell lipstick and foodbars to her friends, and, once a month deck herself out like an expensive princess for the upcoming Rally to advertise and reinforce his success. Her name is on the bonus checks; "You can’t get any more equal than that," said the wife of a Diamond from North Carolina. Equality is measured, not in rights, or wisdom, or access to politics and education, but in bonus checks. [ibid.: 119] (My emphasis)

Reading the above statements one may have the impression of having stepped into a world one may have thought to have been on the retreat. While it should not be assumed that all Amway distributors are attracted to these particularly "interesting" aspects of the Amway system, we must still ask ourselves to what degree such ideas play a part in the recruiting of new distributors and to whom do such ideas appeal? As Amway does not apparently have new distributors fill out surveys indicating what it is that attracted them to the company, the consistency of particular gender representations seems to indicate that at least part of what attracts people to this company is a search for that which they feel has perhaps been forgotten or rather a system whose fundamentals must be kept firmly in place. On a more general level we must ponder the relationship between the "Amway phenomena" and that of the recent shift to right-wing, neo-liberal, conservative politics in the United States. The Reagan/Bush presidencies corresponded with some of the most remarkable growth for the Amway Corporation. While it is no secret of Amway’s strong support for the Republican Party, the relationship between the two has grown increasingly definitive with the election to Congress of five Amway distributors (all whom campaigned under the Republican banner). The implications of these relationships would seem to point more concretely to the wider social implications of the Amway system. Therefore, Amway as a phenomenon cannot be treated merely as some isolated anomaly. These contradictions and themes must cause us to ponder the underlying ideologies that may in turn help us to understand this company and its particular business/social system. Curiously, but by no means insignificantly, these issues have come to be embodied in a product that while begging paltriness may indeed reveal much more about the role of ideology and consumption in the Amway Corporation.