Weddings: Hegemonic Practices

Engstrom (2008) argues in his paper that weddings are considered hegemonic practices due to the fact that getting married is considered “the life goal for women” (p. 61). He believes that the media and publications surrounding weddings and wedding materials (for example, dresses, veils, flowers, etc.) make weddings seem glamorous. Engstrom’s focus on hegemony and women is the media that surrounds weddings. Engstrom (2008) writes, “these bridal media serve as an example of hegemony…as the exercise of indirect power as exemplified by civil institutions, among which he includes the media industry” (p. 61). In that, weddings have become part of this category of dominant practices due to the media presenting ideas around weddings. The media portrays weddings as a goal that should be fulfilled by the entire population. Examples of media would be reality TV shows, magazines, advertisements, and even movies surrounding the idea of marriage. All of these examples help support the notion that marriage is considered a ‘hegemonic practice’

Engstrom (2008) states ‘The Knot’ is considered an example of the “political economy of the media” (p.

62). This idea means that this bridal company has created an organization that controls the idea of weddings in media. Their website/company promotes weddings in such a way that their ideas are very appealing to those planning such events, especially brides. ‘The Knot’ is an example of a form of media that controls the economy of weddings from their “relationships with major retailers and media” (Engstrom, 2008, p. 62). In that, these relationships display the political economy of the media, especially pointing to weddings. Having big names on their website helps them promote the idea of a wedding and how it should be done, promoting these ideas to brides and future brides nationwide. Companies like ‘The Knot’ help push the idea that marriage should be a life goal for men, but mainly

women.
Engstrom makes an analysis that wedding media holds an ideal of heterosexual couples only due to the promoting of these couples solely. The culture surrounding marriage since this journal was written in 2008 has definitely shifted. Although I am sure some companies still promote only heterosexual couples due to their own views, other companies have found a financial opportunity in homosexual marriage. Since advances in same sex marriage have been so immense the market to please same sex couples has become large. Wedding media has evolved over the years to show that they are interested in accommodating not only heterosexual couples planning their weddings, but also those who are in same sex relationships. I am sure that if Engstrom made another analysis now, in 2015, his analysis would be shifted to talk about same sex marriages as well. He possibly would have to discuss the controversy that encircles same sex marriage and certain views from different companies. Engstrom (2008) may also need to discuss the idea of race surrounding weddings since he states that weddings on reality shows take on a “white wedding format” (p.67). These two issues would affect Engstrom’s argument in that he would need to make major changes to illustrate the new shifts made in this wedding market.