Why Is Everyone Fighting Over Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle?

American Eagle’s “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” ad, which features the actress promoting their denim line, has caused a major debate, especially online. In the commercial, Sweeney provides a voice-over that explains how genes (spelled g-e-n-e-s) are passed down, influencing traits like hair and eye color. The camera then focuses on her wearing a pair of blue jeans (spelled j-e-a-n-s), and she states, “My jeans are blue.” The ad concludes with the text “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” The campaign’s wordplay has been praised by some as clever and memorable marketing. However, this play on words has also been at the center of a heated controversy.

The controversy stems from the ad’s use of the word “genes” in connection with Sweeney, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white woman. Critics argue that the ad’s messaging, which highlights her physical traits as exemplary, taps into historical and eugenicist ideas about “superior” genetic traits. They claim that while the ad’s main purpose is to sell clothes, its undertones suggest an idealized physical standard rooted in whiteness. This critique has been amplified by the current cultural climate, where discussions around race and white supremacy are increasingly prominent. The ad’s defenders, on the other hand, dismiss these claims, arguing that the message is a harmless pun and that connecting it to eugenics is an overreaction. 

Reactions to the ad have been heavily politicized, with both the left and right using it as a talking point in the ongoing culture war. Those on the left have pointed to the ad as evidence of subtle, yet pervasive, white supremacist messaging in media. They’ve also connected the ad to the general political climate, citing an increase in overt expressions of Nazism and white nationalism in recent years. In contrast, those on the right have championed the ad as a refreshing break, arguing that the ad is simply a return to common-sense marketing and a rejection of what they see as hypersensitivity. The debate was further fueled by the current person holding the White House hostage Donald Trump, who publicly praised Sweeney and the ad while simultaneously attacking what he called “woke”, perpetuating the incorrect usage of the term and his divisive ideology, campaigns from other companies. This intervention made the ad even more political, with people on both sides using it to support their preexisting beliefs. Some claim the controversy started with a small handful of people criticizing the ad then the right reacting to that criticism which blew up the controversy.

The strong reactions to the ad beg the question: Is the criticism valid, or is this simply a sign of the times? On one hand, one could argue that the ad is, at best, tone-deaf. Even if unintentional, its wordplay touches on sensitive topics that have a history of being used to promote discriminatory ideas. The context of a blonde, blue-eyed woman being the face of an ad about “great genes” could easily be seen as an appeal to a specific, and historically privileged, aesthetic. On the other hand, it’s possible that the ad is being overanalyzed. In a different era, say the 1990s, it’s likely the ad would have been seen as a simple, clever pun. The public may not have had the same level of awareness or sensitivity to these issues, and it would likely not have become a national controversy. The polarized reactions today reflect a deeply divided society where anything can become a battlefield for competing ideologies.

Have you seen the ad? Were you offended by the Sydney Sweeney Jeans ad?

Watch the full discussion on this episode of Nuance.