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?