It is common to connect with others who share similar values and beliefs to your own. It is common to interact with and form relationships with individuals located close to you geographically – neighborhoods, schools, work places. It is more common to form relationships with other individuals who have the same religious belief, or share the same language or ethnic background. These characteristics are good examples of basic commonplaces.
According to Jaques Ellul, in Persuasion and Influence in American Life, individual identification stems from shared cultural beliefs known as commonplaces. Commonplaces, “represent the core thoughts and ways of thinking that characterize a particular society” (168). Although the notion of commonplace is constantly a play, “it is rarely quoted” (169). Seattle University student, Jamie questions the potential negative effects of not verbalizing audience commonplaces.
I believe there are positive effects in not consistently expressing the commonplaces that bond audiences together. It can be assumed that every American wants complete recognition of their natural rights. It would be right to assume that the majority of our country and a belief in something greater. This is not to say everyone has a belief in God, or higher divinity, but that someone believes in the higher power of the law, or in the potential of people. Some manifest their spirituality in nature or through the innocence of children. Our nation prides itself on the opportunities it allows and the freedom it provides. These are not values I believe need to be states over and over again.
However, as the subject narrows, when examining “commonplace” beliefs such as, “everyone has a right to life” the need for explanation and discussion grow. What does a right to life mean? And who’s right to life are we discussing? Protesters of Pro-Choice believe the unborn baby has a right to life. Yet, many would argue that the quality of life of the future baby and mother could be diminished if the birth occurs due to external factors. Many have argued the death penalty violates the constitutions argument against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Everyone has a right to life, even if another life was wrongfully taken. However, the individual life that was immorally cut short had a right to live as well that was taken away. When developing a campaign add or an educational advertisement it is important to discuss the potential commonplace beliefs of your intended audience. In my mind this discussion would come up naturally in basic audience analysis.
I think Jaime has formed an interesting question about whether or not we should engage more in conversation about our beliefs to avoid devastating generalizations. To go even further with this question I think we should consider how we inadvertently hold conversations about our values as a society, as well as individuals. I would argue I am consistently talking about my core values with close friends and family, and even in a classroom setting. We are constantly being triggered to make judgment calls on various topics and readings. Headlines and policy issues are consistently challenging us as persons and as a community to analyze the direction we want to grow in.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
I Know That Song...
Are you preaching to the choir if your persuasive message already aligns with the audience’s beliefs? If we are to accept Woodward and Denton’s definition of persuasion as “a conscious attempt by one individual or group to change the attitudes, beliefs, or the behavior of another individual or group of individuals through the transmission of some message” then it would seem that Jasmine’s example of Bill O’Reilly and his intended audience is not a form of persuasion, but simply a sharing of opinions.
For Bill O’Reilly, there is no pressing need to persuade his audience, as they are either avid fans, or staunch critics simply keeping the enemy close. O’Reilly’s air time is filled with drama, exaggerated emotions and sensationalized reporting. I do not believe that O’Reilly is committed to convincing others to see eye to eye with him, but more to rile audiences. Although, one could argue his use of evidence and general premises are persuasive means. Perhaps then, there is a scale of persuasion.
It would seem silly to consistently “persuade” individuals and groups of people that already agree with you. However, a politician cannot discontinue dialogue with certain publics, simply because they already agree with him/her. A politician will merely redirect their message priorities; they will utilize different persuasion strategies to communicate with the undecided voters. In the case of politics, it is necessary to continually reiterate your foundational message to thwart confusion or doubt regarding the stability or integrity of the message.
Another aspect of “preaching to the choir” we must consider is how much we enjoy it, and how difficult it is to start singing another tune. More often than not we surround ourselves with people who possess similar values and worldviews to our own. Naturally through our involvements, thoughts and actions we are compelled toward certain types of individuals we share commonalities with. This magnetism helps form our sense of community and belonging in the world. During the election, my social circle sounded like a tape recorder. We were constantly repeating our reasons for why Obama was a great candidate. We were all saying the same things and loved being validated in our beliefs. However, there were a select few who did not share our excitement over the potential president. If ever those select few began to speak in opposition to Obama they were immediately shot down. Not only were they outnumbered, but they were attempting to persuade those who could not or would not be deterred.
Just as seemingly pointless it is to “persuade” those who already agree with you, there is no value in challenging yourself to persuade an audience that is not open to being influenced or hearing a different set of opinions than their own. A balance must be found. Woodward and Denton allude to this balance in Jasmine’s quote, “an audience is more likely to accept the speaker’s evidence and conclusions if the persuader seems to see the world in the same terms as the audience.” The audience and the speaker do not have to agree on all accounts, but a common ground must exist, even if that common ground is a simple willingness to listen to the other.
For Bill O’Reilly, there is no pressing need to persuade his audience, as they are either avid fans, or staunch critics simply keeping the enemy close. O’Reilly’s air time is filled with drama, exaggerated emotions and sensationalized reporting. I do not believe that O’Reilly is committed to convincing others to see eye to eye with him, but more to rile audiences. Although, one could argue his use of evidence and general premises are persuasive means. Perhaps then, there is a scale of persuasion.
It would seem silly to consistently “persuade” individuals and groups of people that already agree with you. However, a politician cannot discontinue dialogue with certain publics, simply because they already agree with him/her. A politician will merely redirect their message priorities; they will utilize different persuasion strategies to communicate with the undecided voters. In the case of politics, it is necessary to continually reiterate your foundational message to thwart confusion or doubt regarding the stability or integrity of the message.
Another aspect of “preaching to the choir” we must consider is how much we enjoy it, and how difficult it is to start singing another tune. More often than not we surround ourselves with people who possess similar values and worldviews to our own. Naturally through our involvements, thoughts and actions we are compelled toward certain types of individuals we share commonalities with. This magnetism helps form our sense of community and belonging in the world. During the election, my social circle sounded like a tape recorder. We were constantly repeating our reasons for why Obama was a great candidate. We were all saying the same things and loved being validated in our beliefs. However, there were a select few who did not share our excitement over the potential president. If ever those select few began to speak in opposition to Obama they were immediately shot down. Not only were they outnumbered, but they were attempting to persuade those who could not or would not be deterred.
Just as seemingly pointless it is to “persuade” those who already agree with you, there is no value in challenging yourself to persuade an audience that is not open to being influenced or hearing a different set of opinions than their own. A balance must be found. Woodward and Denton allude to this balance in Jasmine’s quote, “an audience is more likely to accept the speaker’s evidence and conclusions if the persuader seems to see the world in the same terms as the audience.” The audience and the speaker do not have to agree on all accounts, but a common ground must exist, even if that common ground is a simple willingness to listen to the other.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Identity Crisis
1.Ernest Bormann argues in his article, “Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality” that the dramatization of speech unfolds “into public speeches and into the mass media, and in turn, spread out across larger publics, serve to sustain the members’ sense of community, to impel them strongly to action…and to provide them with a social reality filled with heroes, villains, emotions, and attitudes” (3). What is it about the archetypal hero and villain that appeals to us so much, that we begin to mold our life into such conventional models? Why does a romanticized reality appeal to us? The alteration of reality was previously brought up by, columnist Horsey, for the Seattle PI; how does Bormann’s article relate to Horsey’s burning question, “Why do people ignore reality?”
2.Greg Dickinson writes a stirring case concerning the relationship between identity, location and consumption. Recalling his time spent in Pasadena, Dickinson is overcome with sensations of “comfort, community, and home” (7). While I am moved by the author’s sentiments, I am caught up by his firm belief that “contemporary identities are performances that utilize the resources of memory; these performances occur in and are structured by landscapes of consumption” (2). To genuinely believe that, who we are is controlled most by what we buy and surround ourselves with, seems in my mind very disheartening. Am I alone in thinking that we as communities of people are capable of creating individual, as well as group identities without the emphasis of a consumer culture? How does the memory and identity of an individual in a less capitalistic /consumerist society differ from an American’s? Is there a way to impede the “breakdown of traditional hierarchies and modes of living [that] uproots the individual from the past and from the structures of community” that Dickinson warns us about (5)?
3.Kevin DeLuca introduces a very interesting notion of the body, as a form of rhetoric. The image of a body as an argument, as exemplified in the pro-Choice, pro-Life debate was a fascinating point of interest to me. DeLuca quotes from another author not that “the pro-Life argument was more persuasive than the pro-Choice argument due to superior verbal commentary. Rather, it was a battle of images” (4). Similarly, Deluca discusses measures taken by Earth First to draw attention to their cause by using the bodies of volunteers as road blockers. DeLuca maintains, “images of bodies at risk are encapsulated arguments challenging the anthropocentric position granting humans dominion over all living creatures” (6). I wonder, if such a narrowly defined message is genuinely understood by the masses? When using simple images, such as a body, either that of an adult or a baby, will an audience understand the meaning of such a complex message, as the anthropocentric position of humans in relation to nature, without being told specifically? What could be the potential differences in meaning and understanding of an images function between people?
2.Greg Dickinson writes a stirring case concerning the relationship between identity, location and consumption. Recalling his time spent in Pasadena, Dickinson is overcome with sensations of “comfort, community, and home” (7). While I am moved by the author’s sentiments, I am caught up by his firm belief that “contemporary identities are performances that utilize the resources of memory; these performances occur in and are structured by landscapes of consumption” (2). To genuinely believe that, who we are is controlled most by what we buy and surround ourselves with, seems in my mind very disheartening. Am I alone in thinking that we as communities of people are capable of creating individual, as well as group identities without the emphasis of a consumer culture? How does the memory and identity of an individual in a less capitalistic /consumerist society differ from an American’s? Is there a way to impede the “breakdown of traditional hierarchies and modes of living [that] uproots the individual from the past and from the structures of community” that Dickinson warns us about (5)?
3.Kevin DeLuca introduces a very interesting notion of the body, as a form of rhetoric. The image of a body as an argument, as exemplified in the pro-Choice, pro-Life debate was a fascinating point of interest to me. DeLuca quotes from another author not that “the pro-Life argument was more persuasive than the pro-Choice argument due to superior verbal commentary. Rather, it was a battle of images” (4). Similarly, Deluca discusses measures taken by Earth First to draw attention to their cause by using the bodies of volunteers as road blockers. DeLuca maintains, “images of bodies at risk are encapsulated arguments challenging the anthropocentric position granting humans dominion over all living creatures” (6). I wonder, if such a narrowly defined message is genuinely understood by the masses? When using simple images, such as a body, either that of an adult or a baby, will an audience understand the meaning of such a complex message, as the anthropocentric position of humans in relation to nature, without being told specifically? What could be the potential differences in meaning and understanding of an images function between people?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Loving Reality
1.Author, Sonya Foss introduces her book, The Nature of Rhetorical Criticism with a general definition and explanation of rhetoric. Foss argues that our use of rhetoric aids in the creation of a common world. “Rhetoric is not simply a communicable form. It is the process by which our reality or our world comes into being; reality or knowledge of what is in the world is the result of communicating about it” (6). I agree with Foss’s understanding of how a more collective comprehension of the world could eventually exist, if all humans were talking about the same type of people, events, establishments etc. within a similar context and awareness. Yet, how does the process of reality through rhetoric change cross-culturally? In regards to the example of love, in a number of languages, including Spanish, French and German there are many different words to describe the various forms of love; plutonic love, love between lovers or family members, etc. Yet, in the English vernacular to describe love of any sort we have only one word to use “love.” With such culturally different ways to describe an emotion, can Foss’s “common world” ever really exist?
2.As emphasized in Persuasion and Influence in American Life, “The greatest potential for awareness and memorability of ideas, according to John Rossiter and Larry Percy, lies in the use of dynamic pictures (video), static concrete pictures (print)…Advertisers “brand their products by placing them in contexts where images link the product with symbols that carry a message…certain images trigger more or less reliable attitudes” (384-385). The use of visual images as a form of persuasion has escalated dramatically in the past two decades with the increased use of television, internet, and mobile phones. Significant amounts of money are made off television and internet advertisements every year. In relation to influencing advertisements, and the use of emotionally triggering advertisements what ethical guidelines exist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYjbWHbbjjg&feature=related What are the moral codes around using young children, or impoverished families, or beautiful women to sell a product or idea?
3. Although, I was intrigued Herbert Wilchens contributions to neo-Aristotelianism , I felt that his overall analysis of rhetorical criticism seemed rather deficient. In regards to the listed topics identified by Wilchens, there was no explanation as to how the elements should be utilized. As a critic, how would you deal with the essential topics identified by Wilchens? Once characteristics of the topics are identified what do they signify? Are the original elements Wilchens identified still prevalent to the study of speech today? Are there any other topics that should be added, now in the 21st century?
2.As emphasized in Persuasion and Influence in American Life, “The greatest potential for awareness and memorability of ideas, according to John Rossiter and Larry Percy, lies in the use of dynamic pictures (video), static concrete pictures (print)…Advertisers “brand their products by placing them in contexts where images link the product with symbols that carry a message…certain images trigger more or less reliable attitudes” (384-385). The use of visual images as a form of persuasion has escalated dramatically in the past two decades with the increased use of television, internet, and mobile phones. Significant amounts of money are made off television and internet advertisements every year. In relation to influencing advertisements, and the use of emotionally triggering advertisements what ethical guidelines exist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYjbWHbbjjg&feature=related What are the moral codes around using young children, or impoverished families, or beautiful women to sell a product or idea?
3. Although, I was intrigued Herbert Wilchens contributions to neo-Aristotelianism , I felt that his overall analysis of rhetorical criticism seemed rather deficient. In regards to the listed topics identified by Wilchens, there was no explanation as to how the elements should be utilized. As a critic, how would you deal with the essential topics identified by Wilchens? Once characteristics of the topics are identified what do they signify? Are the original elements Wilchens identified still prevalent to the study of speech today? Are there any other topics that should be added, now in the 21st century?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
