Well, I must say that I agree that these articles are easier to read than Rampage.
While reading Bernays' article, I found that he was fairly easy and simple to read. As with rhetoric, my views and thoughts of propaganda were much more narrow that how he explained it. Becuase this was written a while ago, the intro. mentions that there was not a "negative connotation" with the word such as there is today. I like how he explains his views on why it is necessary to use propaganda to influence public opinion, and why it does not always have to be thought of as a "bad" thing that the government uses to "brainwash" our young, exploring college minds!! I think the number of examples he uses, although outdated, are appropriate choices to back up what he is saying, and I like the style he uses when writing. This article really impressed me with its simple definitions and easy to relate to examples.
Lippmann seems to be pretty harsh on the American public in the beginning of his article. However, this has always been an issue in America-the number of people who show up to vote. In the past years that msot of us have been able to vote, there seems to have been a tremendous amount of effort on someone's part to encourage our age group to go out and vote. I think this is just something that goes in cycles throughout history. However, further into the article he seems to be a little kinder to the American citizen andacknowledge that often it is hard to see the effect of one person voting or not voting. I very much agree with him. In the every day government issues, we really do not have all that much control of a government that supposed to be for the people and by the people. I did not like this article as much as Bernays' but I did like the style in which it was written. It was a pretty easy read and an issue that is valid to us personally.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Bernays and Lippmann
A break from Ramage... yay : )
Bernays writes about using persuasion in public relations by identifying problems and discovering solutions that involve some type of manipulation of the public mind (though this is not necessarily a bad thing). Though attempts to sway others may sometimes be for self-fulling reasons, it can also be serving a social purpose that brings about new ideas. This requires an evaluation of the group of people that they are attempting to persuade, and the examples he gave resulted in a financial gains and changes to the public's ideas.
Lippmann discusses persuasion in the political sense, that when politicians and other members of the public attempt to persuade voters to vote, they are often unsuccessful. He discusses the separation between the mass of people who are only affected by politics once in a while and the politicians who are daily accountable, mostly to other people they encounter directly, like other politicians. It then makes sense that those who don't go to the polls turn a cold shoulder to the politicians who try to convince them of the significance of voting.
I think that both Bernays and Lippmann are trying to get across that in order to persuade others you have to be able to analyze why they feel the way they do and act the way they do in certain situations, and bridge the gap by satisfying their personal needs while fullfilling your own. It has to be a give and take relationship.
Bernays writes about using persuasion in public relations by identifying problems and discovering solutions that involve some type of manipulation of the public mind (though this is not necessarily a bad thing). Though attempts to sway others may sometimes be for self-fulling reasons, it can also be serving a social purpose that brings about new ideas. This requires an evaluation of the group of people that they are attempting to persuade, and the examples he gave resulted in a financial gains and changes to the public's ideas.
Lippmann discusses persuasion in the political sense, that when politicians and other members of the public attempt to persuade voters to vote, they are often unsuccessful. He discusses the separation between the mass of people who are only affected by politics once in a while and the politicians who are daily accountable, mostly to other people they encounter directly, like other politicians. It then makes sense that those who don't go to the polls turn a cold shoulder to the politicians who try to convince them of the significance of voting.
I think that both Bernays and Lippmann are trying to get across that in order to persuade others you have to be able to analyze why they feel the way they do and act the way they do in certain situations, and bridge the gap by satisfying their personal needs while fullfilling your own. It has to be a give and take relationship.
Bernays and Lippman articles
Like some of my peers, I'm glad that we didn't have to read Ramage!!! These articles were a bit easier and more...I'm afraid to say enjoyable to read.
Bernays: I understood a lot of the idea's that Bernays talks about. I can agree with him on the whole idea of minorities and majorities when he talks about public opinion. I think that it is ideal that "anyone may try to convince others and to assume leadership". In our society it seems like the "Has" and the "Has nots" are two very different groups of people. The "Has" usually run things and determine what the "has nots" should get. And Bernay's says this in a way when he talks about new ideas. I also liked the discussions on public persuasion. When Bernays talks abut the reasons for manipulation of public opinion it sparked my interest. He basically says that the motives of people to manipulate other's opinions is just basic human instincts, which is something I can understand. I also liked when Bernays discussed tyrannies. It clicked for me when he said " when a public learns more and more on how to express themselves they will learn more and more on how to overthrow a tyranny". I was just thinking in terms of the Civil Rights Movement (R.I.P Coretta Scott King), and how the African American community found non-violent ways to express themselves through marches, sit-ins, silent protest and they eventually overthrew the tyranny rules of this country. So it all makes sense to me, or at least this is how I read it.
Lippman: It was a huge change when reading Bernay's then Lippman. Lippman talks about citizens, and the fact that many of them are uninformed and like it that way. I understand this and see examples of it everyday. As an African American I know how important it is to be an active citizen in our democratic society. It wasn't shocking to read Lippman say that he has never met the "perfect informed citizen". Personally I don't think there is one. It would be ideal for all citizens to be informed on current events and world news, but that just isn't the way life goes. Personally I like to be as informed as possible because it's good to know what's going on in the world surrounding us. I think that times have change in the way that there is more information available but are there more people really utilizing it? Yes, but there will always be those who don't see it as benefits to be informed. Some even find information as just another worry they don't want. And I can understand that. The news can be very depressing. The past presidential elections were depressing for me, because I didn't think either candidate were "good enough" for the position. Did I still go out and exercise my right to vote? OF COURSE!
.
Bernays: I understood a lot of the idea's that Bernays talks about. I can agree with him on the whole idea of minorities and majorities when he talks about public opinion. I think that it is ideal that "anyone may try to convince others and to assume leadership". In our society it seems like the "Has" and the "Has nots" are two very different groups of people. The "Has" usually run things and determine what the "has nots" should get. And Bernay's says this in a way when he talks about new ideas. I also liked the discussions on public persuasion. When Bernays talks abut the reasons for manipulation of public opinion it sparked my interest. He basically says that the motives of people to manipulate other's opinions is just basic human instincts, which is something I can understand. I also liked when Bernays discussed tyrannies. It clicked for me when he said " when a public learns more and more on how to express themselves they will learn more and more on how to overthrow a tyranny". I was just thinking in terms of the Civil Rights Movement (R.I.P Coretta Scott King), and how the African American community found non-violent ways to express themselves through marches, sit-ins, silent protest and they eventually overthrew the tyranny rules of this country. So it all makes sense to me, or at least this is how I read it.
Lippman: It was a huge change when reading Bernay's then Lippman. Lippman talks about citizens, and the fact that many of them are uninformed and like it that way. I understand this and see examples of it everyday. As an African American I know how important it is to be an active citizen in our democratic society. It wasn't shocking to read Lippman say that he has never met the "perfect informed citizen". Personally I don't think there is one. It would be ideal for all citizens to be informed on current events and world news, but that just isn't the way life goes. Personally I like to be as informed as possible because it's good to know what's going on in the world surrounding us. I think that times have change in the way that there is more information available but are there more people really utilizing it? Yes, but there will always be those who don't see it as benefits to be informed. Some even find information as just another worry they don't want. And I can understand that. The news can be very depressing. The past presidential elections were depressing for me, because I didn't think either candidate were "good enough" for the position. Did I still go out and exercise my right to vote? OF COURSE!
.
Bernays' & Lippmann's Articles
After reading both articles it became evident that Bernays took a more coercive approach and Lippmann favored a more persuasive approach. Bernays states, "the manipulation of the public mind, which is so marked a characteristic of society today, serves a social purpose. This manipulation serves to gain acceptance for new ideas." This statement favors rhetoric. To manipulate or coerce the general public into believing or adhering to certain views, styles, products, etc. is saying that in order for people to accept ideas, people with power, prestige and what society deems as "good-looking" are the voices and go-to's for developing an opinon, decision or belief. This completely baffles me. I've stated earlier how I cannot believe the public is so transformable, so reluctant to follow or attach oneself to the words and tactics used by huge corporations and higher-ups of society to pronounce what is "true," "hip," or "right." Bernays affirms, "analysis of the problem and its causes is the first step toward shaping the public mind on any subject." Why must the public mind be shaped into a particular subject? Why should any one individual be manipulated by another individual to think or feel a certain way? Why do people allow themselves to be the product of a coercive society who's existence is based upon creating sameness among its citizens? Another point Bernays brings up, in reference to audience, is "it is the power of the group to sway the larger public in its attitude toward ideas." I do not think any indivdual should be allowed the power to sway the public in its attitude toward ideas. This statement destroys the notion of free speech, free thought and freedom of opinion. Why can't individuals make decisions and opinions on their own, through their own research? This statement shows that the American public is so weak that individual thought cannot even occur because people's minds are so open and susceptible to the persuasive tactics of others.
Lippmann states, "men have general notions which influence their individual decisions and their direct experiences unconsciously govern their general notions." I fully believe this statement. Individuals have feelings toward every possible situation, event, occurence, etc., whether they have been directly involved, indirectly involved, or just feel a certain propensity toward it. Individuals, based on these strong beliefs and notions, shape their future decisions in accordance. Why should a person let the beliefs of another designate or change one's character?
I did not understand Lippmann's article. I do not know if it was his choice of situations or his choice of words, but I found it hard to follow and process.
The more I am reading about rhetoric, the less I like it. It seems the past couple of articles we have read deal with either persuading or coercing individuals to think, feel and believe a certain way. I adamantly believe in knowing oneself, listening to oneself, and not allowing one's being or thoughts to become the victims of manipulation by other individuals. I truly think people should not be swayed by the voices of others. Research, respect and listen to one's inner voice. This is the strongest part of oneself and if one can be so easily swayed to go against it, than one can never be completely happy with oneself, one's thoughts, one's beliefs.
I don't know if I totally went off topic here, I probably did, but I am just so caught up in these thoughts presented, and have such strong convictions against what is being said, that I felt it necessary to comment on it. Sorry!
Lippmann states, "men have general notions which influence their individual decisions and their direct experiences unconsciously govern their general notions." I fully believe this statement. Individuals have feelings toward every possible situation, event, occurence, etc., whether they have been directly involved, indirectly involved, or just feel a certain propensity toward it. Individuals, based on these strong beliefs and notions, shape their future decisions in accordance. Why should a person let the beliefs of another designate or change one's character?
I did not understand Lippmann's article. I do not know if it was his choice of situations or his choice of words, but I found it hard to follow and process.
The more I am reading about rhetoric, the less I like it. It seems the past couple of articles we have read deal with either persuading or coercing individuals to think, feel and believe a certain way. I adamantly believe in knowing oneself, listening to oneself, and not allowing one's being or thoughts to become the victims of manipulation by other individuals. I truly think people should not be swayed by the voices of others. Research, respect and listen to one's inner voice. This is the strongest part of oneself and if one can be so easily swayed to go against it, than one can never be completely happy with oneself, one's thoughts, one's beliefs.
I don't know if I totally went off topic here, I probably did, but I am just so caught up in these thoughts presented, and have such strong convictions against what is being said, that I felt it necessary to comment on it. Sorry!
I Don't Have the Energy to Create a Good Title
Bernays: I would say that Bernays and his examples are borderline coercive. His title, after all, includes the word "manipulating", which I'm sure in today's PR text books would be considered an ugly, non-PR word and a definite no no. Bernays uses more examples than he does actual discussing of theory and the ways of public manipulation. I think that's pretty effective.
The minimal amount of intelligence credited to American consumers in the hat example is staggering. That the leaders of the hat industry (if there's such a thing as the "hat industry") could conspire to dupe the public into buying a certain type of hat, and that such a conspiracy could work so effectively is kind of frightening. Through the hat example and several others, Bernays conveys how easy it is for public opinion to be swayed and almost controlled by companies, politicians, or special interest groups. In all likelihood, putting hats on the six most beautiful women and publicizing that fact would probably work just as well today. Back when Sex and the City was on, didn't whatever goofy purse or stupid set of shoes Sarah Jessica Parker wore in any given episode start flying off the shelves? I don't know cause I never watched that show (not even for the nudity), but I think it's safe to say that I'm probably right.
I suppose it's possible to ask the moral question of whether or not this trickery of the public is "right". In a way, I feel as though it's wrong that the public should be mislead and directed into buying into whatever product is being peddled. At the same time, the public is somewhat culpable in their own deception, so maybe by buying the ugly hat that they don't need, the public is sort of getting what they deserve (Was that pretentious enough for everybody? No? I can go further if I need to... no, I can't).
Lippmann: Lippmann points out that the American public seems to have a distinct lack of interest in politics, government, or voting. He trots out numbers from the 1924 election (and who doesn't remember that one?) to prove his point. I bet it's worse today than it was then. There certainly are a lot of people around who simply don't care enough to pay attention to the news, let alone vote. That's probably got something to do with the general consensus that one vote won't make a difference, and that all politicians are crooked so it doesn't matter who you pick, and that nothing will change no matter who wins. Wow, I think I just talked myself out of voting.
Lippmann's contention is that to get at public opinion you need to approach people with a sense of what their self-interest is. Obviously people are going to do what is best (or what they think is best) for themselves. Hence, if you can start changing public by appealing to self-interest, you can start getting people to care about politics again.
Why the hell did I write so much? And this after I badmouthed Ramage for being longwinded. Well, I'm a hypocrite...
The minimal amount of intelligence credited to American consumers in the hat example is staggering. That the leaders of the hat industry (if there's such a thing as the "hat industry") could conspire to dupe the public into buying a certain type of hat, and that such a conspiracy could work so effectively is kind of frightening. Through the hat example and several others, Bernays conveys how easy it is for public opinion to be swayed and almost controlled by companies, politicians, or special interest groups. In all likelihood, putting hats on the six most beautiful women and publicizing that fact would probably work just as well today. Back when Sex and the City was on, didn't whatever goofy purse or stupid set of shoes Sarah Jessica Parker wore in any given episode start flying off the shelves? I don't know cause I never watched that show (not even for the nudity), but I think it's safe to say that I'm probably right.
I suppose it's possible to ask the moral question of whether or not this trickery of the public is "right". In a way, I feel as though it's wrong that the public should be mislead and directed into buying into whatever product is being peddled. At the same time, the public is somewhat culpable in their own deception, so maybe by buying the ugly hat that they don't need, the public is sort of getting what they deserve (Was that pretentious enough for everybody? No? I can go further if I need to... no, I can't).
Lippmann: Lippmann points out that the American public seems to have a distinct lack of interest in politics, government, or voting. He trots out numbers from the 1924 election (and who doesn't remember that one?) to prove his point. I bet it's worse today than it was then. There certainly are a lot of people around who simply don't care enough to pay attention to the news, let alone vote. That's probably got something to do with the general consensus that one vote won't make a difference, and that all politicians are crooked so it doesn't matter who you pick, and that nothing will change no matter who wins. Wow, I think I just talked myself out of voting.
Lippmann's contention is that to get at public opinion you need to approach people with a sense of what their self-interest is. Obviously people are going to do what is best (or what they think is best) for themselves. Hence, if you can start changing public by appealing to self-interest, you can start getting people to care about politics again.
Why the hell did I write so much? And this after I badmouthed Ramage for being longwinded. Well, I'm a hypocrite...
Captain Apathy
One of the first things that I noticed when I printed out the articles was how old they were. Here we have 2 articles that are around 80 years old, talking about something as contemporary as public opinion. Instantly, my mind shot off on a tangent and I thought, "The general public today isn't concerned with things like sneaking their great uncle's homeade whisky into the local speakeasy; we're walking around scared as hell because we don't know if it will take someone's shoes, some new medicine, a polka dot warning level, or even a dead bird to really ruin your day." But as I read these articles, I appreciated Bernays' comment toward civilization being limited by inertia, because by the time I worked my way into Lippmann's article, I realized just how true that notion was. As the latter described the "drifts of circumstance" and the general disinterest that U.S. citizens have for the current events that affect them daily, I realized that I was a part of that sect of lazy, sarcastic and condescending couch potatoes. As Lippmann deliberated over our general american apathy, I realized that I really didn't care in the least about this last election. I mean just so long as I can watch Jon Stewart make fun of either the boring St. Bernard or the remedial fratboy as they lead one of the world's most formidable and sophisticated armies into the most expensive game of hide and go seek in desert caves to combat our foes whose best defense is to dig a hole and hide (how is this taking years?). While all this is going on, all of our tax dollars are paying for this war, and I can't even tell you the last time I even felt the most remote urge to watch the news or read the paper. Hell, for all I know they could have started up the draft, and I'm already late going to Canada, and it's all because I really just don't care. and you know you don't care if you're writing in pink. -laugh if you want, but you can't get much more candid than that-
Bernays and Lippmann Assignment
These are two very different articles on a somewhat similar idea. Each looks at rhetoric and persuasion in a very different way:
Bernays: Clearly, Bernays believes in the ability of people to influence major decisions. The hat example he gave was very effective, especially as he broke the situation down step-by-step to show how the people involved in it worked to "persuade" the country that large, fancy hats were fashionable. I worked in a public relations office for a semester, and while the steps that the hat industry took don't seem so amazing now, it must have been quite an impressive achievement at that time, especially with organizing all the committees and fashion shows. It makes me think about when I want to buy something that I see on TV. Am I being manipulated or persuaded? There's a very thin line between the two. Anyway, Bernays's article was fairly easy to read, and, I think, he was saying that the ability to manipulate the public is not only a valuable tool, but a necessary one.
Lippmann: Hmm. Times haven't changed much. There are still huge amounts of people who don't go to the polls, and many of them give the exact same reasons that Lippmann cited. When Lippmann states that he has never met a person who embodied the ideal of an informed citizen, I just thought, "Well, duh." I mean, everyone knows that there are people in this country who ignore what's going on in the world and prefer to concentrate on who got booted off the "Survivor" island the night before. Maybe the idea of the "ideal citizen" was still in wide circulation then, but it's certainly not now. Maybe I'm just a cynic.
Bernays: Clearly, Bernays believes in the ability of people to influence major decisions. The hat example he gave was very effective, especially as he broke the situation down step-by-step to show how the people involved in it worked to "persuade" the country that large, fancy hats were fashionable. I worked in a public relations office for a semester, and while the steps that the hat industry took don't seem so amazing now, it must have been quite an impressive achievement at that time, especially with organizing all the committees and fashion shows. It makes me think about when I want to buy something that I see on TV. Am I being manipulated or persuaded? There's a very thin line between the two. Anyway, Bernays's article was fairly easy to read, and, I think, he was saying that the ability to manipulate the public is not only a valuable tool, but a necessary one.
Lippmann: Hmm. Times haven't changed much. There are still huge amounts of people who don't go to the polls, and many of them give the exact same reasons that Lippmann cited. When Lippmann states that he has never met a person who embodied the ideal of an informed citizen, I just thought, "Well, duh." I mean, everyone knows that there are people in this country who ignore what's going on in the world and prefer to concentrate on who got booted off the "Survivor" island the night before. Maybe the idea of the "ideal citizen" was still in wide circulation then, but it's certainly not now. Maybe I'm just a cynic.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Bernays and Lippmann
Bernays and Lippmann both characterize the rhetorical situation in a similar way. They are not so specific as to use terms like channel or message, but the idea is there. What I’ve deduced about the rhetorical situation and persuasion from both readings is this: there are three basic steps in attempting to sway ‘public opinion.’
After establishing a goal (Bernays’ simple example was humanizing Calvin Coolidge during his run for office), the first step is to analyze the goal, the situation, and the possible actions to take. Second, develop a situation or solution that best addresses or attacks the problem. Finally, select the best way to reach the public and put the plan in motion (by dining with several actors and actresses, Coolidge seemed more relaxed and real, which appealed to his voters).
In many of Bernays’ examples, the best way to reach the public was through a powerful speaker or an event that brought the issue to be persuaded or presented to the forefront of the public’s attention. Lippmann implies that the best way to get the public’s opinion is simply by appealing to the public’s sense of self-interest. Bernays also addresses this thought by commenting that at the heart of each public is its desire to move forward, evolve, and “move in the direction of ultimate social and individual benefit”—something anyone who hopes to succeed in persuasion must keep in mind.
It may be manipulative, but it works. A public’s self-interest can be a really powerful tool, and we see how well it works in advertising. Women don’t select Maybelline mascara because it’s the first brand they see on the shelf; they buy it because of self-interest—they want for themselves the beauty and glamour portrayed in the product’s ads, you know: Maybe she’s born with it…
After establishing a goal (Bernays’ simple example was humanizing Calvin Coolidge during his run for office), the first step is to analyze the goal, the situation, and the possible actions to take. Second, develop a situation or solution that best addresses or attacks the problem. Finally, select the best way to reach the public and put the plan in motion (by dining with several actors and actresses, Coolidge seemed more relaxed and real, which appealed to his voters).
In many of Bernays’ examples, the best way to reach the public was through a powerful speaker or an event that brought the issue to be persuaded or presented to the forefront of the public’s attention. Lippmann implies that the best way to get the public’s opinion is simply by appealing to the public’s sense of self-interest. Bernays also addresses this thought by commenting that at the heart of each public is its desire to move forward, evolve, and “move in the direction of ultimate social and individual benefit”—something anyone who hopes to succeed in persuasion must keep in mind.
It may be manipulative, but it works. A public’s self-interest can be a really powerful tool, and we see how well it works in advertising. Women don’t select Maybelline mascara because it’s the first brand they see on the shelf; they buy it because of self-interest—they want for themselves the beauty and glamour portrayed in the product’s ads, you know: Maybe she’s born with it…
Ahhh SO much better
Well first off Id like to thank Prof. Mahoney for not making us read Ramage :P and secondly Id like to say how I really did enjoy these readings. I felt they were making much more clear arguements than Ramage ever did.
I really enjoyed Bernays' piece the most. I was so intruiged by how he viewed propoganda and persuasion. He not only claims staight out that it is a good thing, the concrete examples he gave convinced ME to like it. His description of how it is "more than just selling hats," shows the important ways in which propoganda can be used, i.e. use against prejudice. He shows us how to get new and progressive ideas weaved into society, enough for them to stick, because like he said, the majority opinion is usually old ideas. Propoganda helps them become accepted and integrated through manipulation. He even went as far as to use it against tyranny.
Lippmann, although I also enjoyed this reading, offend me a little. He makes the "well informed citizen not part of a democratic society. He views them as being naive and almost stupid, as well as fickle. His approach was not as concrete and straight to the point, but again more concrete than Ramage.
I hope to see more readings like this, especially like Bernays. I do believe however they both were using their own for of persuasion, one being more subtle than the other( Bernays). Lippmann took a more aggressive approach while Bernays was much more appealing. They both however had a clear standpoint on this issue which is very refreshing after the reading we were assigned for the past 2 weeks.
I really enjoyed Bernays' piece the most. I was so intruiged by how he viewed propoganda and persuasion. He not only claims staight out that it is a good thing, the concrete examples he gave convinced ME to like it. His description of how it is "more than just selling hats," shows the important ways in which propoganda can be used, i.e. use against prejudice. He shows us how to get new and progressive ideas weaved into society, enough for them to stick, because like he said, the majority opinion is usually old ideas. Propoganda helps them become accepted and integrated through manipulation. He even went as far as to use it against tyranny.
Lippmann, although I also enjoyed this reading, offend me a little. He makes the "well informed citizen not part of a democratic society. He views them as being naive and almost stupid, as well as fickle. His approach was not as concrete and straight to the point, but again more concrete than Ramage.
I hope to see more readings like this, especially like Bernays. I do believe however they both were using their own for of persuasion, one being more subtle than the other( Bernays). Lippmann took a more aggressive approach while Bernays was much more appealing. They both however had a clear standpoint on this issue which is very refreshing after the reading we were assigned for the past 2 weeks.
Bernays and Lippmann: The Odd Couple
I would love to see Bernay and Lippmann in a debate. Bernays puts his confidence in the people. He talks about the organization of small groups to influence the whole: "Looked at from the broadest standpoint, it is the power of the group to sway the larger public in its attitude toward ideas." Though Lippmann may agree that it takes a handful of people to influence the masses, "their opinions do not execute these acts." The public opinion may define the acts of man, but it is the individuals that make the decisions that affect the masses.
In the case of George Bush, public opinion gets tossed in the fire with women's rights and Katrina victims. He has actually admitted that he doesn't read the papers. His cabinet is staffed, not by people that are capable of doing a good job, but people who are his long time chums. This is called cronyism. These people are not advising, but merely confirming the ideologies that Bush wants to spread across our nation like Country Crock onto a stale bagel shaped like the U.S. Even as his poll numbers plummet, this man continues to defy the public and do what he thinks is right. This is called totalitarianism. Lippmann quotes Robert Michels as saying "the majority is permanently incapable of government." Lippmann says that he is underburdening himself, but I think he merely stating an observation that he has seen develop in any government. Bernays outlines how propaganda is initiated, and Lippmann describes the affects on the people, no matter what their intellectual status. When applied to the United State's Machiavellian government, the only way to fight propaganda is with propaganda.
Bernays and Lippmann Readings
Bernays article was very easily read. He definitely took on a more persuasive stand point rather than coercive. Bernays writes, "Public opinion is slow and reactionary, and does not accept new ideas." He then states that in order to persuade the public you must study "the psychology of public persuasion." I think that that is a great way to prepare to persuade. You must first study the audience, who it will affect, and who will be listening. Also you must find the most effective way to address the audience. Bernays states that through this, you will "present new problems for study and consideration to the public, and leaves it free to approve or reject them." This line allows readers to realize that Bernays is not attempting to coerce audiences, rather he is attempting to persuade by reaching the audience through their interests, in order to shine light on other ideas or even new ones.
I found Lippmann's article to take on a much more different role than Bernays. After reading the article, I did need feel that Lippmann gave such clear focused ideas like Bernays did, but I feel that I came away from the article with a better understanding of how naive much of the public is to the government and the decisions made for our country. I felt that Lippmann was trying to show readers that the government is very coercive, and while we are voting citizens, many of us do not utilize that important right. While the government coerce's us into believing we have a large say in the present and future of our country, we really don't.
I found Lippmann's article to take on a much more different role than Bernays. After reading the article, I did need feel that Lippmann gave such clear focused ideas like Bernays did, but I feel that I came away from the article with a better understanding of how naive much of the public is to the government and the decisions made for our country. I felt that Lippmann was trying to show readers that the government is very coercive, and while we are voting citizens, many of us do not utilize that important right. While the government coerce's us into believing we have a large say in the present and future of our country, we really don't.
Bernays and Lippmann
Bernays:
Atlanta, hats, and salad- oh my!
That public relations was used to consciously veer the public on such a wide range of issues- it's fascinating.
I wish that more had been addressed regarding the good and bad sides of rhetoric and public relations. A great deal of the pages were devoted to what and how. It's only a very small section that says that these skills can be used in negative ways. This article makes public manipulation seem quite necessary, prevalent, and not at all malicious. (Though the use of the word 'manipulation' does add to any thoughts of ill intent.) This seemed a lot more persuasive than coercive, though I can't be sure.
Lippmann:
He seemed to deal more with the audience than with individual instances in which public relations contrived the appeal of an issue or thing. Lippmann seems to view the audience as bored and disenchanted with the seeming pomp and importance of things around them. He goes on for quite a bit about the apathy of the general populace. For the first half, he had me. But somewhere around page five, I began to get a little confused. I think I was waiting for him to get to a point- regarding public relations/manipulations and how it's done- but he never got there.
Regarding Ramage, it's probably a sign of how little I care for the book when I'm so dismissive over someone hearing from the author. It's so unlike me. Especially knowing that I was one of the people who criticized him. But I can't really bring myself to care.
Or maybe it's because I spent two and a half hours sitting in traffic this morning. Whatev'.
Atlanta, hats, and salad- oh my!
That public relations was used to consciously veer the public on such a wide range of issues- it's fascinating.
I wish that more had been addressed regarding the good and bad sides of rhetoric and public relations. A great deal of the pages were devoted to what and how. It's only a very small section that says that these skills can be used in negative ways. This article makes public manipulation seem quite necessary, prevalent, and not at all malicious. (Though the use of the word 'manipulation' does add to any thoughts of ill intent.) This seemed a lot more persuasive than coercive, though I can't be sure.
Lippmann:
He seemed to deal more with the audience than with individual instances in which public relations contrived the appeal of an issue or thing. Lippmann seems to view the audience as bored and disenchanted with the seeming pomp and importance of things around them. He goes on for quite a bit about the apathy of the general populace. For the first half, he had me. But somewhere around page five, I began to get a little confused. I think I was waiting for him to get to a point- regarding public relations/manipulations and how it's done- but he never got there.
Regarding Ramage, it's probably a sign of how little I care for the book when I'm so dismissive over someone hearing from the author. It's so unlike me. Especially knowing that I was one of the people who criticized him. But I can't really bring myself to care.
Or maybe it's because I spent two and a half hours sitting in traffic this morning. Whatev'.
Ramage Chapter Three
I can honestly say that Chapter 3 seemed clearer to me than the other chapters, perhaps because of illustrations Ramage gave like the section in "The Continuum of Persuasive Practices: From Propaganda to Literature" where he places propaganda and persuasion on one end of the spectrum and purity and literary texts on the other. Like we discussed in class, I also found it enlightening that he placed advertising, salesmanship, and talk radio call-in shows close to propaganda because when I previously thought of propaganda it usally was centered around politics.
A little bit earlier Ramage says, "Many people subscribe to systems of belief that, for them at least, fulfill the role of the old fixed orders in laying out their priorities and defining their choices." If your mother was a stay at home mom and your dad was the bread winner of the family does that mean that you will be filling that same role one day? It reminds me of so many of my friends from high school who went away to college because that was "what they were supposed to do." On the other hand there are others who believe what Ramage says, "Our beliefs , values, relationships, status, and all things that matter most deeply to us are also subject to negotiation and evaluation." I think these are the people who don't worry so much about what they're supposed to do, but instead reflect on what they truly want to do. And because they are constantly reevaluating so many aspects of their life they aren't trapped in one specific role.
A little bit earlier Ramage says, "Many people subscribe to systems of belief that, for them at least, fulfill the role of the old fixed orders in laying out their priorities and defining their choices." If your mother was a stay at home mom and your dad was the bread winner of the family does that mean that you will be filling that same role one day? It reminds me of so many of my friends from high school who went away to college because that was "what they were supposed to do." On the other hand there are others who believe what Ramage says, "Our beliefs , values, relationships, status, and all things that matter most deeply to us are also subject to negotiation and evaluation." I think these are the people who don't worry so much about what they're supposed to do, but instead reflect on what they truly want to do. And because they are constantly reevaluating so many aspects of their life they aren't trapped in one specific role.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Response from a disenchanted student
Honestly, I really didn’t follow Walter Lippmann’s paper too closely. Lippmann suffered from the same disease as Ramage, otherwise known as Pompusitus which symptoms include seven syllable words and long-winded sentences. However, what I did get out of this article was that our society is very apathetic towards the government by not participating in voting. (Unfortunately, that is very true and puts us an a disadvantage of keeping tabs on the government).
Lippmann’s view on public persuasion is much darker than Bernay’s view. He suggests that emotion is a quick way to coerce massive crowd of people with varying views into doing what you want. The chief weapon is fear. That is true. It’s a great way to get what you want from a sibling. Usually when someone is scared, the ability to think logically disappears. The responses towards fear dwindle to two responses: fight or flight. After September 11th, government security increased, people bought bomb shelters and some people stayed housebound.
Edward Bernays presentation of public manipulation is much more benign. The examples he uses as mass persuasion include civil rights and velvet hats. In page one he suggests, “Today the privilege of attempting to sway public opinion is everyone’s from the marketer, to the tree preserver. He even suggests that it’s necessary/beneficial. Finally as society becomes more used to the idea of public persuasion, they will be better equipped to fight tyranny if they would have to .
Chapter 3
Ramage presents a scale for rhetoric ranging from coercion on the left, propaganda in the middle and persuasion on the right. Later he suggests that some of the speeches on TV, particular the State of the Union Address actually fall near the coercion side of the spectrum along with threats and water torture. Although I found many of Ramage’s observations about the State of the Union Address fascinating ,such as the way congress’ applauses resembled the laughter found in sitcoms, I’m not sure if the President’s State of the Union Address can be comparable to coercion.
My first point is, not everyone watched that speech. Sure the speech was broadcasted on like twenty million channels, but Nickalodeon still played Sponge Bob.
My second point is Bush is constantly kept accountable by the media. Today more than ever before, people can find their news 24 hours a day/seven days a week. Literally every moment some reporter on the other side of the earth is chipping away at his laptop and sending in his copy of news to the editor without the government interfering.
After the decision for war occurred, much of the media protested. Images of brutally injured Iraqis flooded the papers, and pictures ’Dubya’s” head taped on a monkey‘s body peppered the internet. If someone was persuaded that the attack on Iraq was a just war, she did not have to look for to find a different viewpoint.
Honestly, I really didn’t follow Walter Lippmann’s paper too closely. Lippmann suffered from the same disease as Ramage, otherwise known as Pompusitus which symptoms include seven syllable words and long-winded sentences. However, what I did get out of this article was that our society is very apathetic towards the government by not participating in voting. (Unfortunately, that is very true and puts us an a disadvantage of keeping tabs on the government).
Lippmann’s view on public persuasion is much darker than Bernay’s view. He suggests that emotion is a quick way to coerce massive crowd of people with varying views into doing what you want. The chief weapon is fear. That is true. It’s a great way to get what you want from a sibling. Usually when someone is scared, the ability to think logically disappears. The responses towards fear dwindle to two responses: fight or flight. After September 11th, government security increased, people bought bomb shelters and some people stayed housebound.
Edward Bernays presentation of public manipulation is much more benign. The examples he uses as mass persuasion include civil rights and velvet hats. In page one he suggests, “Today the privilege of attempting to sway public opinion is everyone’s from the marketer, to the tree preserver. He even suggests that it’s necessary/beneficial. Finally as society becomes more used to the idea of public persuasion, they will be better equipped to fight tyranny if they would have to .
Chapter 3
Ramage presents a scale for rhetoric ranging from coercion on the left, propaganda in the middle and persuasion on the right. Later he suggests that some of the speeches on TV, particular the State of the Union Address actually fall near the coercion side of the spectrum along with threats and water torture. Although I found many of Ramage’s observations about the State of the Union Address fascinating ,such as the way congress’ applauses resembled the laughter found in sitcoms, I’m not sure if the President’s State of the Union Address can be comparable to coercion.
My first point is, not everyone watched that speech. Sure the speech was broadcasted on like twenty million channels, but Nickalodeon still played Sponge Bob.
My second point is Bush is constantly kept accountable by the media. Today more than ever before, people can find their news 24 hours a day/seven days a week. Literally every moment some reporter on the other side of the earth is chipping away at his laptop and sending in his copy of news to the editor without the government interfering.
After the decision for war occurred, much of the media protested. Images of brutally injured Iraqis flooded the papers, and pictures ’Dubya’s” head taped on a monkey‘s body peppered the internet. If someone was persuaded that the attack on Iraq was a just war, she did not have to look for to find a different viewpoint.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Ramage Response
Hi Chris,
Thanks--I think--for sending along the note and the blog. I really did enjoyit--even those posts titled things like "This book still blows." Gotta like the humor if nothing else. Reading through the various entries was sort of like reading your obituary over and over. (A metaphor - but succinct+). It's weird reading people talking about your book--or their experience of reading your book--as if it were you. The different things that interest and annoy them. Not at all like reading reviewers who largely depersonalize the process by translating their moments of annoyance and engagement into the language of disciplinary praise and blame. I guess that's the double-edged sword of blogs if you happen to be the subject of same: you get it straight from the heart and to the point--but from a dozen different angles. Which makes it tough to synthesie and even harder to compose a coherent response.
The temptation is to respond by congratulating everyone who "got it right,"recognized your points and/or agreed with your arguments and then to go to work setting your critics straight. But whenever I've watched people try to do that sort of thing on listservs, it hasn't turned out well. And as a Washington Post editor recently discovered when she atttempted to make a fairly innocuous clarification on the paper's blog, things can go terribly wrong. Not that I would foresee a catastrophe of similar proportions unfolding on your blog site. I was impressed by the civility and the clarity of thought you all demonstrate--even those whose civility and lucidity was spent critiquing my book. I was in fact initially emboldened by the spirit of the site to attempt a full on reply. After spending a couple hours yesterday composing a response I got up this morning, took one look at what I'd written and said to myself, "This ain't gonna fly." It jsut didn't fit the rhetorical situation of the blog--it was too long, too defensive, too preachy. I was coming in from the outside and interrupting an ongoing conversation that was doing fine without me. In answering one set of questions and concerns, my response seemed likely to exacerbate other concerns. And in cases where the writer's feelings about the book figured prominently in the entry, I'd be in the position of telling people how they really ought to feel. That's the sort of rhetorical move best left tothe Ricky Gervais/Steve Carrell charachter from"The Office," setting the crew at Dunder Mifflin straight about how they ought to be taking him.
That said, I'll briefly touch on one item from my lengthy response that seems fairly straightforward. At least one person wondered about the function of chapter two. That's a topic my reviewers and I spent a lot of time on. The relationship between rhetoric and identity is seldom discussed explicitly in intro to rhetoric books and never in writing textbooks--it doesn't get a lot of play in rhetorical theory discussions for that matter. The origins of the chapter go back to my time teaching the TA seminar for first year teachers. The book we were using for the course they taught was a cultural studies reader.While most students found the topics intersting, the book offered little guidance about how to actually "do" culutral studies and many of the TAs were floundering. So I spent a lot of time adapting rhetorical criticism for use with material in the course. I was struck at the time how often the subjects of cultural analysis--fashion, advertising, celebrity culture, and so forth--ultimately came back to the effects of consumption on identity construction. We came to see rhetorical criticismas a useful tool for helping writers consciuosly situate themselves in relation to their culture. At the same time I was teaching that course, I was finishing a book on what I call "success rhetoric," specifially popular management books (Twentieth CenturyAmerican Success Rhetoric: How to Construct a Suitable Self, SIU 2005). The early part of that book traces the development of consumer culture out of the "professional managerial class" that emerged at the turn of the century. The categories of identity inchapter two, particularly the discussion of ready made identity, grew out of the confluence of my teaching and research at the time.
I'll leave it at that. Please share my response with others in the class and let folks know I'm happy to respond to any questions they might want to ask directlyv ia e-mail. I'll continue to follow your blogging, but for the reasons noted above, I'll not barge into the middle of your lively and fascinating conversation. Again, thanks for your interest in my views.
cheers,
j
Thanks--I think--for sending along the note and the blog. I really did enjoyit--even those posts titled things like "This book still blows." Gotta like the humor if nothing else. Reading through the various entries was sort of like reading your obituary over and over. (A metaphor - but succinct+). It's weird reading people talking about your book--or their experience of reading your book--as if it were you. The different things that interest and annoy them. Not at all like reading reviewers who largely depersonalize the process by translating their moments of annoyance and engagement into the language of disciplinary praise and blame. I guess that's the double-edged sword of blogs if you happen to be the subject of same: you get it straight from the heart and to the point--but from a dozen different angles. Which makes it tough to synthesie and even harder to compose a coherent response.
The temptation is to respond by congratulating everyone who "got it right,"recognized your points and/or agreed with your arguments and then to go to work setting your critics straight. But whenever I've watched people try to do that sort of thing on listservs, it hasn't turned out well. And as a Washington Post editor recently discovered when she atttempted to make a fairly innocuous clarification on the paper's blog, things can go terribly wrong. Not that I would foresee a catastrophe of similar proportions unfolding on your blog site. I was impressed by the civility and the clarity of thought you all demonstrate--even those whose civility and lucidity was spent critiquing my book. I was in fact initially emboldened by the spirit of the site to attempt a full on reply. After spending a couple hours yesterday composing a response I got up this morning, took one look at what I'd written and said to myself, "This ain't gonna fly." It jsut didn't fit the rhetorical situation of the blog--it was too long, too defensive, too preachy. I was coming in from the outside and interrupting an ongoing conversation that was doing fine without me. In answering one set of questions and concerns, my response seemed likely to exacerbate other concerns. And in cases where the writer's feelings about the book figured prominently in the entry, I'd be in the position of telling people how they really ought to feel. That's the sort of rhetorical move best left tothe Ricky Gervais/Steve Carrell charachter from"The Office," setting the crew at Dunder Mifflin straight about how they ought to be taking him.
That said, I'll briefly touch on one item from my lengthy response that seems fairly straightforward. At least one person wondered about the function of chapter two. That's a topic my reviewers and I spent a lot of time on. The relationship between rhetoric and identity is seldom discussed explicitly in intro to rhetoric books and never in writing textbooks--it doesn't get a lot of play in rhetorical theory discussions for that matter. The origins of the chapter go back to my time teaching the TA seminar for first year teachers. The book we were using for the course they taught was a cultural studies reader.While most students found the topics intersting, the book offered little guidance about how to actually "do" culutral studies and many of the TAs were floundering. So I spent a lot of time adapting rhetorical criticism for use with material in the course. I was struck at the time how often the subjects of cultural analysis--fashion, advertising, celebrity culture, and so forth--ultimately came back to the effects of consumption on identity construction. We came to see rhetorical criticismas a useful tool for helping writers consciuosly situate themselves in relation to their culture. At the same time I was teaching that course, I was finishing a book on what I call "success rhetoric," specifially popular management books (Twentieth CenturyAmerican Success Rhetoric: How to Construct a Suitable Self, SIU 2005). The early part of that book traces the development of consumer culture out of the "professional managerial class" that emerged at the turn of the century. The categories of identity inchapter two, particularly the discussion of ready made identity, grew out of the confluence of my teaching and research at the time.
I'll leave it at that. Please share my response with others in the class and let folks know I'm happy to respond to any questions they might want to ask directlyv ia e-mail. I'll continue to follow your blogging, but for the reasons noted above, I'll not barge into the middle of your lively and fascinating conversation. Again, thanks for your interest in my views.
cheers,
j
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Yes I emailed Ramage.
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:20 pm
To: john.ramage@asu.edu
Subject: Rhetoric A User's guide
Greetings Dr. Ramage,
My name is Christopher Tiefel and I am currently a professional writing major at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. I am contacting you because we are utilizing your text, Rhetoric A User's Guide, in my Advanced Composition class. The class has a blog that posts responses to our teacher, Dr. Kevin Mahoney (mahoney@kutztown.edu), prompts for each chapter read. I thought it might be intresting for you to read some of the real time responses to you book, and because of the format of a blog, you could even post replies. The blogs address is http://eng230.blogspot.com/
Thanks,
Chris
Finally...
When Ramage alludes to the consequences suffered by rhetoricians who attempt to persuade an audience who refuses to even listen, I am reminded of George W. Bush. Although I didn't find the sidebars to be noticeably helpful, it is where I drew the reference from. The consequences that our president has suffered because of his controversial war are evident in his plummeting approval rating. Even though he had the majority of [U.S.] citizens in favor of his actions at the beginning of the war, he has lost most of that support. The power of persuasion he once had is evidenced by the fact that he was able to launch a military strike on Iraq in the first place. I agree with the author when he questions Bush's choice of threats to invade, but obvious rhetorical labor was dedicated to making Iraq seem like the most logical primary concern. I use the word "rhetorical" because he never (at least to my knowledge) coerced the nation by taking away, or eliminating the other threats on the list. He was able to persuade us into believing Iraq was our biggest threat, and therefore influencing our choice between enemies to take military action towards. Police make me sick- has nothing to do with class discussion, I just had to say it.
Ramage Chapter #3
I completely loved chapters one and two, but chapter three, not so much. I guess I enjoyed the examples and stories Ramage cultivated to help grasp one's own opinion and conclusion on the occurences of rhetoric, and also its definition. The third chapter presented fewer examples, and the ones that it did address, such as the President's State of the Union Address were difficult for me to read, understand and I am not much into politics, or the President for that matter, so to read anything in correlation to either of those two topics, I become distracted, feel stupid and am almost instantly lost within the subject and use of political words.
One of the lines I greatly enjoyed and agreed with was when Ramage states, "How I go about defining and defending my sense of self is not significantly different from how I go about defining and defending my sense of 'justice' or 'the good.' In fact how I define justice and the good is a remarkably good indicator of my self-definition. And my capacity to resist, oppose, and entertain divergent beliefs---to understand my ways of talking about the world 'in terms of' alternative ways of talking about the world---is a fundamental expression of my humanity." I could not agree more. How one talks about different cicumstances, objects, events, propositions and beliefs shows what this person is about, clearly lays out the "essence" or characteristics defining every aspect of this person's being. When a person states an opinion or a belief, another individual is able to interpret how this person feels, what is working in their mind, how this person would react to other events similar in nature. A person can learn and determine a lot about another based upon body language, words and facial expressions.
I also liked the sentence which states, "By forcing ourselves to accomodate divergent views, even if doing so forces us to challenge beliefs and assumptions of our audience, we are focused to engage our creative powers and enrich our arguments." I agree completely once again. If we do not challenge others beliefs and assumptions, if we do not see all sides to arguments, if we do not see outside of our own limited bubble, we are not fully allowing ourselves to view and understand others and the opinions of others with an open mind. In order to strengthen one's own beliefs, one must be challenged by opposing beliefs in order to become entirely resolute on the belief of oneself. An individual can possibly change their mind and reasons for either disagreeing or suddenly agreeing to a differing point of view, but one must take the time, have the patience and listen with an open mind in order to do so.
One of the lines I greatly enjoyed and agreed with was when Ramage states, "How I go about defining and defending my sense of self is not significantly different from how I go about defining and defending my sense of 'justice' or 'the good.' In fact how I define justice and the good is a remarkably good indicator of my self-definition. And my capacity to resist, oppose, and entertain divergent beliefs---to understand my ways of talking about the world 'in terms of' alternative ways of talking about the world---is a fundamental expression of my humanity." I could not agree more. How one talks about different cicumstances, objects, events, propositions and beliefs shows what this person is about, clearly lays out the "essence" or characteristics defining every aspect of this person's being. When a person states an opinion or a belief, another individual is able to interpret how this person feels, what is working in their mind, how this person would react to other events similar in nature. A person can learn and determine a lot about another based upon body language, words and facial expressions.
I also liked the sentence which states, "By forcing ourselves to accomodate divergent views, even if doing so forces us to challenge beliefs and assumptions of our audience, we are focused to engage our creative powers and enrich our arguments." I agree completely once again. If we do not challenge others beliefs and assumptions, if we do not see all sides to arguments, if we do not see outside of our own limited bubble, we are not fully allowing ourselves to view and understand others and the opinions of others with an open mind. In order to strengthen one's own beliefs, one must be challenged by opposing beliefs in order to become entirely resolute on the belief of oneself. An individual can possibly change their mind and reasons for either disagreeing or suddenly agreeing to a differing point of view, but one must take the time, have the patience and listen with an open mind in order to do so.
Rhetorical Environment
When examining film the overall composition of a shot it is called mise-en-scene. This includes the blocking of the characters, the camera angles, the set and props and so on. I found this concept of analyzation interchangeable in examining a rhetorical scene and the function of environment in the moment. Using Ramage's example of President W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address one can see how setting a scene can helpfully add to the persuasive ability of a speaker. Take how Congress must be seated before the President comes in and when he arrives they all jump to their feet reaching out for his hand as if at a rock concert. The set is a podium of rich wood and an American flag draped behind him. As Ramage explains the interjection of applause serves like a laugh track to "signal us that something significant has just been said and invites us to nod along" (88). The environment is carefully constructed to add pervasively to the persuasive power of the President. You can be taken in by the awe of it or shut off you TV.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Oh boy...fun stuff right here
Well, im finally starting to grasp the ideas that Ramage is presenting to me. Rhetoric is the act of persuasion. Thats all I got. haha just kidding. I find myself what Ramage would consider a 'Serious Person." I believe in absolute truths. Ramage shows that persuasion is all dependent on the presentation, all the way down to articulation. In a way, Ramage is just trying to persuade his readers. Up until this chapater I never fully grasped the idea of 'proving opposites.' With his Benny and Gunman example I came to understand it much better. Some of the more accessible points to understand come from Burke. His explaination of persuasion being a form of courtship was very clear and made perfect sense...for once! The section in where Ramage writes about people who believe in their absolute truths (me) need persuasion, which led him into relativism. The theory that there can be no conversing between belief systems was one thought that I had to sit and think about, and I can honestly say that the 'serious person' side of me is beginning to take in and consider some of these arguements being made by Ramage. The way he is going about persuading me is, for lack of a better word....PISSING me off, BUT I trudge on so I can get this blog done so i can go to bed! gnite!
A Breakthrough
Finally! I was ever so pleased to find that Ramage provided us with a basically clear and well-structured third chapter. Instead of a billion different metaphors, his extended State of the Union Address example both supported his points and showed the reader how the elements of a rhetorical situation play out. For this strong and successful example, I am eternally grateful.
Within the chapter, I found myself relating particularly to Ramage’s continuum describing the differences between persuasion and coercion. Always a fan of the continuum (again, the Serious Person in me—I like organization!), I began to place certain friends through their similarities to Ramage’s three main points: propaganda, legal reasoning, and literary texts.
First, D., a long-time friend and wonderful conversationalist, belongs farthest to the right on the continuum, near literary texts. D. is a great listener and a patient analyzer of point of view, possible arguments, and audience. I never feel bullied when I am talking to her, and I frequently leave our conversations feeling enlightened.
Next, A. is also a long-time friend, but one I can never have too much of in one sitting. Like sweet and sour chicken. She definitely goes in the middle of the continuum, and is even debating applying to law school after college. With A., I get the feeling that she first develops an opinion, and then spends hours thinking up ways to smash my arguments if they’re not in compliance with hers. Uurgh.
Finally, C. is a relatively new friend, and although we get along in most respects, there are certain things we just don’t talk about—sex before marriage, Roe v. Wade—because of our differences. When any of these topics appear within a conversation, I run for my life before she can imply that I will burn in hell for my views. She’s just not interested in negotiating her truths. And as for me? Pascal Wager weighs my options on page 74.
Within the chapter, I found myself relating particularly to Ramage’s continuum describing the differences between persuasion and coercion. Always a fan of the continuum (again, the Serious Person in me—I like organization!), I began to place certain friends through their similarities to Ramage’s three main points: propaganda, legal reasoning, and literary texts.
First, D., a long-time friend and wonderful conversationalist, belongs farthest to the right on the continuum, near literary texts. D. is a great listener and a patient analyzer of point of view, possible arguments, and audience. I never feel bullied when I am talking to her, and I frequently leave our conversations feeling enlightened.
Next, A. is also a long-time friend, but one I can never have too much of in one sitting. Like sweet and sour chicken. She definitely goes in the middle of the continuum, and is even debating applying to law school after college. With A., I get the feeling that she first develops an opinion, and then spends hours thinking up ways to smash my arguments if they’re not in compliance with hers. Uurgh.
Finally, C. is a relatively new friend, and although we get along in most respects, there are certain things we just don’t talk about—sex before marriage, Roe v. Wade—because of our differences. When any of these topics appear within a conversation, I run for my life before she can imply that I will burn in hell for my views. She’s just not interested in negotiating her truths. And as for me? Pascal Wager weighs my options on page 74.
The Third Chapter
I found this chapter much more interesting than the last. Ramage's discussion of his multiple forms of persuasion were, very interesting, especially since each form can be identified with something today. I especially liked how he placed the three forms on a line, going from most coercive to most persuasive. Ramage nicely explains how propaganda is simply for the self, while legal reasoning or literary texts may indeed bring fame to the writer, but are also written as a way to shine light on truth. This brings me to the question of the difference between persuasion and coercion. Persuasion allows an individual to decide based on facts and the voice of another, while coercion can be achieved through threats. Simply put, you are persuaded by your own will, you are coerced, because you feel you have no other choice. However, what is very important is that the correct form of persuasion is used in each circumstance. A person attempting to recruit elderly to their retirement home is not going to advertise here at Kutztown University, because the population here is generally young adults. Rather, the advertiser should recruit somewhere, where the population consists of an older crowd.
Chapter Three
Ramage, oh Ramage. You remind me of two people.
1) The boy I had a crush on in elementary school. He was smarter than everyone else, and he knew it. I once hit him with a book in fourth grade.
2) Me, when I’m around small children. They bother me. So I use big words to confuse them in the hopes that they’ll leave me alone.
Unfortunately, I can neither leave Ramage alone, nor hit him with a book. As it is, no matter how irritated I am by his style- which screams, "Look at me, look at me! I am ever so smart!"- I must swim through his overuse of language in order to find points and comment on them.
I liked the bit about rhetoric being like Kenneth Burke’s view of persuasion as a sort of courtship. However, that was more Kenneth Burke’s clever idea than Ramage’s.
In class the other day, I think someone said that Ramage reminded them of the sort of person who would take a joke and analyze it so much it’s no longer funny. He actually did that in this chapter with Jack Benny’s joke. It does illustrate his point in sort of an extreme way, as Ramage does imply (but does not clearly state, as is his infuriating style).
It was in the section "The Continuum of Persuasive Practices: From Propaganda to Literature" that I began to wonder if by ‘authors’ he meant himself. Especially in the sentence, "Just as the way of rhetoric encourage us to slow the production of symbolic acts by taking into account the particulars of our circumstances, the products of pure persuasion force slower, "thicker" readings of themselves on us through self-referentiality and dialect."
Aha! I said, "He’s revealed his evil plan to us!" But it really doesn’t do much good. It’s like a mad scientist saying, "Mad scientists might have secret plans to take over the earth by secretly reprogramming microwaves!" That’s super, but even if it’s true, there’s nothing we can do but unplug our microwave and keep going.
By the way, "self-referentiality" isn’t a word.
1) The boy I had a crush on in elementary school. He was smarter than everyone else, and he knew it. I once hit him with a book in fourth grade.
2) Me, when I’m around small children. They bother me. So I use big words to confuse them in the hopes that they’ll leave me alone.
Unfortunately, I can neither leave Ramage alone, nor hit him with a book. As it is, no matter how irritated I am by his style- which screams, "Look at me, look at me! I am ever so smart!"- I must swim through his overuse of language in order to find points and comment on them.
I liked the bit about rhetoric being like Kenneth Burke’s view of persuasion as a sort of courtship. However, that was more Kenneth Burke’s clever idea than Ramage’s.
In class the other day, I think someone said that Ramage reminded them of the sort of person who would take a joke and analyze it so much it’s no longer funny. He actually did that in this chapter with Jack Benny’s joke. It does illustrate his point in sort of an extreme way, as Ramage does imply (but does not clearly state, as is his infuriating style).
It was in the section "The Continuum of Persuasive Practices: From Propaganda to Literature" that I began to wonder if by ‘authors’ he meant himself. Especially in the sentence, "Just as the way of rhetoric encourage us to slow the production of symbolic acts by taking into account the particulars of our circumstances, the products of pure persuasion force slower, "thicker" readings of themselves on us through self-referentiality and dialect."
Aha! I said, "He’s revealed his evil plan to us!" But it really doesn’t do much good. It’s like a mad scientist saying, "Mad scientists might have secret plans to take over the earth by secretly reprogramming microwaves!" That’s super, but even if it’s true, there’s nothing we can do but unplug our microwave and keep going.
By the way, "self-referentiality" isn’t a word.
Chapter 3 Response (this book still blows)
And now we have chapter 3. This chapter was less cluttered and saw less tangents and distractions than the previous two, which made it easier to understand and a better read, thank God. It was still too long, though. Ah, well...
If Ramage is suggesting that “matters once determined by authority must be submitted to discussion and negotiation,” than rhetoric is the best method with which to arrive at the truth of these matters. Through rhetorical debate, people can engage in discourse towards finding common ground and reaching a tolerable solution to whatever issue might be at hand. Each side can use rhetoric to enlighten the other as to the finer points of its argument, and to try to persuade this opponent into perhaps changing viewpoints.
Analyzing the context is important because it enables the speaker to adjust his rhetorical message to fit the situation. Trying to convince a bunch of small-towners as to the necessity of a building a power plant in their town won’t work if the speak uses a bunch of engineering terms and technical jargon rather than explaining the problem in everyday language. People cannot be persuaded if you don’t persuade them on their terms.
Persuasion and coercion differ in one key aspect: choice. In persuasion, the speaker attempts to change the mind of his opponent by presenting facts and arguments that support his claim. At the end of the day, the choice is still the audience’s, and they’re free to see things whatever way they want. The more effective the persuasion, the more likely they might ultimately ally with the speaker, but even the most persuasive speech won’t win over everyone. With coercion, the speaker is attempting to make the opponent’s mind up for him. The speaker’s way is presented as being the only way.
If Ramage is suggesting that “matters once determined by authority must be submitted to discussion and negotiation,” than rhetoric is the best method with which to arrive at the truth of these matters. Through rhetorical debate, people can engage in discourse towards finding common ground and reaching a tolerable solution to whatever issue might be at hand. Each side can use rhetoric to enlighten the other as to the finer points of its argument, and to try to persuade this opponent into perhaps changing viewpoints.
Analyzing the context is important because it enables the speaker to adjust his rhetorical message to fit the situation. Trying to convince a bunch of small-towners as to the necessity of a building a power plant in their town won’t work if the speak uses a bunch of engineering terms and technical jargon rather than explaining the problem in everyday language. People cannot be persuaded if you don’t persuade them on their terms.
Persuasion and coercion differ in one key aspect: choice. In persuasion, the speaker attempts to change the mind of his opponent by presenting facts and arguments that support his claim. At the end of the day, the choice is still the audience’s, and they’re free to see things whatever way they want. The more effective the persuasion, the more likely they might ultimately ally with the speaker, but even the most persuasive speech won’t win over everyone. With coercion, the speaker is attempting to make the opponent’s mind up for him. The speaker’s way is presented as being the only way.
An Actual Definition??
Wow!! I have not completely finished the reading, but I was simply amazed as I read page seventy-one by how he explained relativism. I actually understood what he was saying it was. There is almost a definition in those long sentences. And then he amazed me even further when he compared relativism to pluralism. I actually understood this too! For once after reading this, my brain wasn't a fuzzy gray mass of confusion.
I also liked the way her explained persuasion and rhetoric. His comments about realizing that there are different beliefs, and tyring to tell people them, but not always expecting them to believe really made sense to me. I could also relate this to my life. I went to private school out of my church, and we were taught a basic set of beliefs that all the teachers followed. However, right after high school, I went to a community college, and obviously, there were many different sets of beliefs being taught by the professors. There were some, of course, that you just put down what you think they wanted to hear on the tests so you would get a good grade. However, some of my favorite professors have been the ones that have very strong points of view, but they are willing to let the students argue why they don't think that view is correct. They encourage this type of debating becuase it means students are thinking for themselves. Okay, sorry for getting off track, back to Ramage...I like, on page 72 where he states that we use rhetoric becuase there is no universal law for proving what theories are right and wrong, but we have to among ourselves what views "are mutally acceptableand represent us as fully as possible in a given circumstance" (72). I really like what I have read so far in this chapter, and I hope I will continue to understand as I continue.
I also liked the way her explained persuasion and rhetoric. His comments about realizing that there are different beliefs, and tyring to tell people them, but not always expecting them to believe really made sense to me. I could also relate this to my life. I went to private school out of my church, and we were taught a basic set of beliefs that all the teachers followed. However, right after high school, I went to a community college, and obviously, there were many different sets of beliefs being taught by the professors. There were some, of course, that you just put down what you think they wanted to hear on the tests so you would get a good grade. However, some of my favorite professors have been the ones that have very strong points of view, but they are willing to let the students argue why they don't think that view is correct. They encourage this type of debating becuase it means students are thinking for themselves. Okay, sorry for getting off track, back to Ramage...I like, on page 72 where he states that we use rhetoric becuase there is no universal law for proving what theories are right and wrong, but we have to among ourselves what views "are mutally acceptableand represent us as fully as possible in a given circumstance" (72). I really like what I have read so far in this chapter, and I hope I will continue to understand as I continue.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Chapters one and two
G’day. I’m Emily #1. (The one with the curly hair). I’m a senior procrastination major. Uh I mean writing major. I love photography, adventure, sunshine, reading, Rita’s, Mistos, and the outdoors. Unfortunately, I’m not outside as often as I’d like so I have to bring the outdoors inside with me. I have eight plants in my dorm room.
Comments on the first chapter.
Judging by the aesthetically boring cover, I thought I was getting a no-nonsense guide on how to use rhetoric effectively, but instead I got philosophy. Confusing philosophy. I really did try to under stand it-- I used a dictionary for like every other word until I got too lazy and gave up on that idea Ramage made his concepts of rhetoric very inaccessible for simple people like myself. Throughout his endless sentences, I felt very much like the kid reaching for the cookie jar on the top shelf. No matter how hard I tried to stretch myself, the cookie jar was out of reach. Needless to say, his book completely contradicts the commonly taught commandment that states writing needs to be clear, concise and simple.
On the other hand, maybe the haziness was intentional. Perhaps Ramage was fully aware of those writing commandments but he wanted to question the reader’s expectations of good writing. While today’s readers generally demand clear, concise writing, the readers of the Victorian era fancied confusing, flowery language. Regardless, it seems like Ramage wanted question the status quo. Perhaps he thought confusing language would strengthen his argument.
Comments on the second chapter
Okay, now that I have listened to Ramage’s writing for two chapters, I’m getting a tad bit more used to it. Although I don’t always understand where he’s coming from or where he’s going, I find his observations about rhetoric, life, or Harley’s rather interesting.
Ramage seems to suggest we cannot completely rely on pure logic to describe an object, but also on other attributes like association and context. First Ramage suggests that in order to understand something, we need to look at in its entire context. For instance that elderly lady in the grocery store might not see her husband as an old man with a cane who takes Metamucil tablets at 6:00pm, but rather the charming creature she fell in love with when she was eighteen. Also, to understand something fully, we cannot rely on a dictionary definition, but rather associations, connotations, metaphors and pictures. (This is pretty fun for artzy people).
Ramage uses the second chapter to build onto his arguments in the first chapter. He states that people and words are constantly evolving like truth. Okay, that’s an interesting philosophy, but I’m curious to see how this will tie with rhetoric.
Comments on the first chapter.
Judging by the aesthetically boring cover, I thought I was getting a no-nonsense guide on how to use rhetoric effectively, but instead I got philosophy. Confusing philosophy. I really did try to under stand it-- I used a dictionary for like every other word until I got too lazy and gave up on that idea Ramage made his concepts of rhetoric very inaccessible for simple people like myself. Throughout his endless sentences, I felt very much like the kid reaching for the cookie jar on the top shelf. No matter how hard I tried to stretch myself, the cookie jar was out of reach. Needless to say, his book completely contradicts the commonly taught commandment that states writing needs to be clear, concise and simple.
On the other hand, maybe the haziness was intentional. Perhaps Ramage was fully aware of those writing commandments but he wanted to question the reader’s expectations of good writing. While today’s readers generally demand clear, concise writing, the readers of the Victorian era fancied confusing, flowery language. Regardless, it seems like Ramage wanted question the status quo. Perhaps he thought confusing language would strengthen his argument.
Comments on the second chapter
Okay, now that I have listened to Ramage’s writing for two chapters, I’m getting a tad bit more used to it. Although I don’t always understand where he’s coming from or where he’s going, I find his observations about rhetoric, life, or Harley’s rather interesting.
Ramage seems to suggest we cannot completely rely on pure logic to describe an object, but also on other attributes like association and context. First Ramage suggests that in order to understand something, we need to look at in its entire context. For instance that elderly lady in the grocery store might not see her husband as an old man with a cane who takes Metamucil tablets at 6:00pm, but rather the charming creature she fell in love with when she was eighteen. Also, to understand something fully, we cannot rely on a dictionary definition, but rather associations, connotations, metaphors and pictures. (This is pretty fun for artzy people).
Ramage uses the second chapter to build onto his arguments in the first chapter. He states that people and words are constantly evolving like truth. Okay, that’s an interesting philosophy, but I’m curious to see how this will tie with rhetoric.
Ramage, Chapter 2
I enjoyed the part in this chapter when Ramage discusses that things exist even though we are not always conscious of them in our lives. He gives the example of the tree falling in the forest when no one is around to see it fall, but we still however believe that it falls. I could relate when he said that few of us really consider things outside of our own selves, and our own consciousness and language. We know that things happen outside of ourselves, and have faith that they do happen, but we don't really take the time to question it.
I thought it was interesting when Ramage used the example of the couples who have been married for 50 and 60 years and still found themselves seeing their partner as the younger person they first encountered. Maybe sometimes we assume that these couples who have been together for so long have just grown comfortable with each other and their shared lives together, when in actuality it is much more complex. We have to be able to see a character, like these couples can see each other, as who they previously were, the characteristics they once had, and then contrast it with what who they are now in order to see the whole picture.
I thought it was interesting when Ramage used the example of the couples who have been married for 50 and 60 years and still found themselves seeing their partner as the younger person they first encountered. Maybe sometimes we assume that these couples who have been together for so long have just grown comfortable with each other and their shared lives together, when in actuality it is much more complex. We have to be able to see a character, like these couples can see each other, as who they previously were, the characteristics they once had, and then contrast it with what who they are now in order to see the whole picture.
WOW...SYSTEM OVERLOAD
Ok,
After two days of deep thought I finally feel confident enough to write an intelligent response to chapter two.(okay..I HOPE it's an intelligent response!!)
The way he started off the chapter was pretty good. It was entertaining, thought provoking and made sense. I agree with Ramage's overall idea that we use language to interpret or make assumptions about one's personality and way of life. I also think that we use language as a representation of who we are and how we want people to see us. I'll be the first to admit that I am guilty of doing this. But It's not done to discriminate against any one type of person. It's done to try to get a ...Sample of who someone is and their beliefs and make-up in a matter of minutes. Often times first impressions are lasting impressions. I agree with Ramage when he says that our identity is a set of traits which in turns defines us. I also like when he discussed "essence". It didn't make much sense to me in my Psy 101 class, but he explained the theory pretty well. Also he briefly talked about religion. Something that I've always been torn between..Religion and philosophy. While I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Ramage...I'm going to continue anyway this is a blog. I think that Essence vs. Substance is a very touch topic because is it the essence makes the person or is it the substance of one's self. Is it who you are inside of what you do that other can see can understand that makes us who we are. In turn either essence or substance is how we identify ourselves and others. Do I like Mary because is a deep person on the inside or do I like Mary because she has a big heart and does things that show she does. Does this make any sense, or am I totally lost and just going on and on.....
After two days of deep thought I finally feel confident enough to write an intelligent response to chapter two.(okay..I HOPE it's an intelligent response!!)
The way he started off the chapter was pretty good. It was entertaining, thought provoking and made sense. I agree with Ramage's overall idea that we use language to interpret or make assumptions about one's personality and way of life. I also think that we use language as a representation of who we are and how we want people to see us. I'll be the first to admit that I am guilty of doing this. But It's not done to discriminate against any one type of person. It's done to try to get a ...Sample of who someone is and their beliefs and make-up in a matter of minutes. Often times first impressions are lasting impressions. I agree with Ramage when he says that our identity is a set of traits which in turns defines us. I also like when he discussed "essence". It didn't make much sense to me in my Psy 101 class, but he explained the theory pretty well. Also he briefly talked about religion. Something that I've always been torn between..Religion and philosophy. While I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Ramage...I'm going to continue anyway this is a blog. I think that Essence vs. Substance is a very touch topic because is it the essence makes the person or is it the substance of one's self. Is it who you are inside of what you do that other can see can understand that makes us who we are. In turn either essence or substance is how we identify ourselves and others. Do I like Mary because is a deep person on the inside or do I like Mary because she has a big heart and does things that show she does. Does this make any sense, or am I totally lost and just going on and on.....
Oh, Ramage
Three random rants:
1. This chapter reminded me less of poetry and more of banging my head against a wall.
2. The last sentence on page 58, which wraps onto page 59, is 74 words long!
3. Somewhere amid this chapter, I began to wonder if the reason Ramage talks so much to his dog is because P-Dog is the only one left who will listen to him.
Now that my mind is clear, let me consider Chapter Two.
I was optimistic when Ramage began the chapter with a strong, almost concrete concept of language as a base for the formation of identity through rhetoric. I understood—even related to—how we use language to sort of interpret and place someone, or to represent ourselves. I think people do this everyday and don’t really consider how they’re (according to Ramage) “understanding, forming, and preserving identity.”
I followed Ramage when he discussed identity as not a “set of traits” that defines us, but as something in motion, evolving. This made me think of the Serious People and how they might view this un-definite concept. Finding identity is like finding truth. Is it situational or singular? Evolving or absolute? I have a feeling these questions are going to haunt me every chapter for the rest of the book.
Finally, I get what a gist is and I get why it’s not a summary or an essence of something. A gist requires interpretation, is changeable, and subjective. And then, somewhere between beer ads, P-dog, and Sylvia Plath, I lost the discussion of the different dimensions of identity and became completely lost. Somebody find me?
1. This chapter reminded me less of poetry and more of banging my head against a wall.
2. The last sentence on page 58, which wraps onto page 59, is 74 words long!
3. Somewhere amid this chapter, I began to wonder if the reason Ramage talks so much to his dog is because P-Dog is the only one left who will listen to him.
Now that my mind is clear, let me consider Chapter Two.
I was optimistic when Ramage began the chapter with a strong, almost concrete concept of language as a base for the formation of identity through rhetoric. I understood—even related to—how we use language to sort of interpret and place someone, or to represent ourselves. I think people do this everyday and don’t really consider how they’re (according to Ramage) “understanding, forming, and preserving identity.”
I followed Ramage when he discussed identity as not a “set of traits” that defines us, but as something in motion, evolving. This made me think of the Serious People and how they might view this un-definite concept. Finding identity is like finding truth. Is it situational or singular? Evolving or absolute? I have a feeling these questions are going to haunt me every chapter for the rest of the book.
Finally, I get what a gist is and I get why it’s not a summary or an essence of something. A gist requires interpretation, is changeable, and subjective. And then, somewhere between beer ads, P-dog, and Sylvia Plath, I lost the discussion of the different dimensions of identity and became completely lost. Somebody find me?
Readymade Post
I couldn't help thinking of the five summers of my life I have spent working construction while reading this chapter. Especially because the boss contractors electrician friend won a Harley in an auction down at his gun club. Yup old Frankie is a badass now, and my image of him was always with a leather jacket and enormous handlebars held high cruising away from kitchen appliances and bedroom outlets he was always hooking up. So my readymade identity for the last five summers has been a construction laborer which served the interest of my employer because he had cheap labor. I saved up enough money to get a car so hooray for me. But whenever the question of what are you going to be arose I kind of sat back and had to ponder what can I say I want to be without the foreman laughing at me? Hmmmm, a poet? Still its hard to pin down a readymade constructed job identity in a expansive field like English so I usually let them fill in the blanks. The foreman proclaimed I would be a sports journalist, my Mother proclaims I will be a magazine writer for some friend of a friend she knows, my Uncle says I will be a screen writer and I just say I want to make crossword puzzles. "By becoming a certain sort of person, by conforming to the pattern of a readymade workplace identity thoughtfully provided by [my] employer, [I] could achieve at least some measure of security. [I] could fit in" (Ramage 46). But I probably am already in some sort of readymade rubric of existence, being guided by the hands of the professional writing program syllabus and university required classes to become a well rounded general educated scholar. I will go with the vagrant student trying to finish his homework and enjoy himself before he has to start paying for everything on his own readymade construct right now.
cut to the chase, ramage.
Maybe Ramage has some great points in chapter 2... i wouldn't know because after the first 15 pages, i found myself too busy thinking of how annoying this guy was to pay attention to what i was reading. i thought chapter 1 was ridiculous in length, chapter 2 is worse! i think i would enjoy the book more if ramage could just get to the effing point. i don't need 8 pages reiterating what was said on the first page. he just went on and on and on with the same point. sigh. he MUST have been getting paid by the word. I will give him credit, he did have some valid points in the section dealing with "readymades," too bad he went on way too long and lost my interest. i'm not sure if he wants to show everyone how smart he is, or display his astonishing vocabulary, but i am sure that if the book continues in this manner, i won't be able to take much more.
Assignment #2
This chapter definitely lacked the catchy dialog and witty examples of the first, yet Ramage was still able to prove his points, though sometimes deeply embedded in obscure words and concepts.
I loved his comparison of Consumer Readymades to that of the "Harley Guy." His blurb on this topic is completely true. Companies, whether it be Harley Davidson or Hollister, are trying to create an image, are trying to manipulate and appeal to the desires of a certain target buyer. It is a shame and almost embarassing to say that the Western world is manipulated and suckered into purchasing items in order to project a certain image or attitude. If only individuals could realize their true self, not try to create a fake alter-image and construe one's present self into the generated sameness and categorization of a stereotypical society. Why must an individual appeal to a world of uncaring, money-hungry corporations and companies whose only care is to sell a product, to create a particular image that gullible Americans will eat up and flaunt?
In reference to this same point I found it interesting, yet lost resepect at the same time, for the actor "John Wayne." For a person to change one's name because it sounds or looks a particular way to a judging society, this person clearly needs to get in touch with one's self. How a person can be manipulated, especially in such extremes as to change one's birth name, in hopes of pleasing and appealing to a certain notion set forth by the possible opinions expressed by other individuals, it just blows my mind.
I enjoyed reading this chapter, though I couldn't see how rhetoric compared to identity; Ramage veered off the topic and his associations were muddy in terms of rhetoric, yet wonderful in terms of truth.
I loved his comparison of Consumer Readymades to that of the "Harley Guy." His blurb on this topic is completely true. Companies, whether it be Harley Davidson or Hollister, are trying to create an image, are trying to manipulate and appeal to the desires of a certain target buyer. It is a shame and almost embarassing to say that the Western world is manipulated and suckered into purchasing items in order to project a certain image or attitude. If only individuals could realize their true self, not try to create a fake alter-image and construe one's present self into the generated sameness and categorization of a stereotypical society. Why must an individual appeal to a world of uncaring, money-hungry corporations and companies whose only care is to sell a product, to create a particular image that gullible Americans will eat up and flaunt?
In reference to this same point I found it interesting, yet lost resepect at the same time, for the actor "John Wayne." For a person to change one's name because it sounds or looks a particular way to a judging society, this person clearly needs to get in touch with one's self. How a person can be manipulated, especially in such extremes as to change one's birth name, in hopes of pleasing and appealing to a certain notion set forth by the possible opinions expressed by other individuals, it just blows my mind.
I enjoyed reading this chapter, though I couldn't see how rhetoric compared to identity; Ramage veered off the topic and his associations were muddy in terms of rhetoric, yet wonderful in terms of truth.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Chap 2
Hi! I am Joanna. I am a jr and an English Professional writing major. I work too much and am really excited to be finished school (because then i might actually like my job). I agree with everyone when they mentioned Ramage being a little wordy but i also feel he has some really great points. There was a lot of times when I found myself wondering what I was going to eat for dinner and then realizing i just ignored an entire page but other times my mouth dropped at a very true and unaccepting point. For example, on page 46 Ramage says, "Success, in the form of the sale or promotion, would be ours at the price of our autonomy." Wow! I know that corporate shit is pretty impossible to ignore if you want to live a semi successful life but doesn't it just piss you off sometimes?! Like shut up mastercard! I work hard to spend my money and i don't want to spend the next 25 years of my life giving it all to you! I think the line of independence and giving in has to be put on an individual decision. People should live how they want and decide what is too much for themselves. I work at a clothes store and the things i could share with the class about how the "sale and promotion" world works is out of control. You would not believe some of the sneaky shit they do just to sell you a shirt for way too much. Everyone falls for some sort of it, but i don't feel like that takes away from my autonomy. But why do i feel like it does at the same time? Damn you Ramage.
Wow
Is Ramaage absolutely desparate to look smart or what?
There is a Ramage in every class in every school in the country. He is the kid who has a thesaurus sitting right by his computer, and if he is writing an essay and thinks of a word that has less than four syllables, he'll go straight to Roget's to find a much longer word. This kid always turned in the most flowery, ridiculous compositions and got high marks from teachers who were impressed by his use of the word "colloquialism." John D. Ramage is that kid in grown up form.
Seriously, what is he trying to say? What is his point? I really don't see the connection between rhetoric and identity, even after reading the chapter for a second time. Yes, he quoted Shakespeare, and that's pretty cool. However, I don't see that allusion placed within the context of the point he's trying to make, and that paragraph ending up completely confusing me. It was all downhill from there.
As many an English teacher has said: keep it simple, stupid.
There is a Ramage in every class in every school in the country. He is the kid who has a thesaurus sitting right by his computer, and if he is writing an essay and thinks of a word that has less than four syllables, he'll go straight to Roget's to find a much longer word. This kid always turned in the most flowery, ridiculous compositions and got high marks from teachers who were impressed by his use of the word "colloquialism." John D. Ramage is that kid in grown up form.
Seriously, what is he trying to say? What is his point? I really don't see the connection between rhetoric and identity, even after reading the chapter for a second time. Yes, he quoted Shakespeare, and that's pretty cool. However, I don't see that allusion placed within the context of the point he's trying to make, and that paragraph ending up completely confusing me. It was all downhill from there.
As many an English teacher has said: keep it simple, stupid.
numero dos
This chapter was definitely a bit more drawn out than the first I felt. I understand the point he was trying to make. BUT he wore me down with the 30 some pages he took to try and convey his point. Just like we talked in class, he seems to use elongated sentences, which would be less confusing if he would just get to the point, for example all the different ways a tree could fall, grow, burn, and any other possible thing that can happen to a tree! The part under 'Why I is a metaphor" held my attention, because I LOVE shakespeare. It would nothave held my interest as much if I could not identify with the point he was trying to make. I feel that is the biggest problem and also his best technique. He presents his ideas in SO many ways, that one has to reach through to the reader. It is time consuming and annoying but also an effective way to getting his point across.
The connection to Freud's Id, ego, and super ego and also Plato's passion.appetite, reason, and spirit was very interesting. I am able to look at things that I was taught previously in different ways. I have to admit i laughed out loud and called my father to read him the Harley Man section, because he is a fatboy owner. The connection between identity and the consumer was fascinating and very easy to understand with the Harley example. The whole pdog bit was funny and again i am able to understand what he is tryign to convey there because i can, through my own experience, relate to what he is saying.
The connection to Freud's Id, ego, and super ego and also Plato's passion.appetite, reason, and spirit was very interesting. I am able to look at things that I was taught previously in different ways. I have to admit i laughed out loud and called my father to read him the Harley Man section, because he is a fatboy owner. The connection between identity and the consumer was fascinating and very easy to understand with the Harley example. The whole pdog bit was funny and again i am able to understand what he is tryign to convey there because i can, through my own experience, relate to what he is saying.
Dude, This Book Blows
I feel like Ramage writes in a needlessly complicated and esoteric style merely to sound smart. I'll bet he's real satisfied at what a wonderfully intelligent treatise he's written that no one who doesn't pen books on rhetoric will ever fully grasp. Maybe he thinks he's writing "rhetorically" by being so longwinded, wordy, and yet still vague, and hence his whole book is deliciously ironic. If that's the case, I question the point of a text book designed to educate people that's hard for those people to understand. At times, though, I think Ramage keeps on writing just because he can. Or maybe cause he doesn't know how to stop. Or maybe he got paid by the word, so he drew it out as much as possible, just like I am with this paragraph (except I'm not getting paid for it). Whatever. Seriously though, has no one at Pearson Longman Publishing ever heard of judicious editing?
Ramage takes 9 pages to introduce what we'll do "for the rest of the chapter," which is to help us learn how to accurately create a "gist" of anyone or anything. How cute is it that it takes him so long to get to the gist of a chapter about gists? Bad form, Ramage. Introductions should be short and to the point. Incidentally, I'm not sure what the "gist" of what I'm supposed to take away from this chapter is.
I don't find Ramage's ideas about identity to be all that unique or new. Yeah, a lot of people have identities that are manufactured by someone else; perhaps from the culture as a whole, which is driven by advertising and consumerism. Yeah, people who take on the consumerist identity or the corporate identity are kind of phony, and yeah, people who buy into concepts like the clichéd "rugged individualist" should maybe get a bit more in touch with reality. And, yeah, people are often unaware of their identity and how they may have come by it. And hey, language is important! None of this is new or particularly interesting to me. Maybe if there was more stuff about beer and motorcycles...
This book really gives too much information. In between all the clever anecdotes and the long form prose, it's difficult to know what to really focus on, and I think that hurts the book's clarity. If it's going to be written that way, a summary at the end of each chapter would certainly help the reader to know which ideas and concepts are key and should be kept in mind for the rest of the book. A summary would also help to reiterate the author's main points... points that I've been unable to figure out thus far... Yeah, that's probably 250 words. Later, folks...
Ramage takes 9 pages to introduce what we'll do "for the rest of the chapter," which is to help us learn how to accurately create a "gist" of anyone or anything. How cute is it that it takes him so long to get to the gist of a chapter about gists? Bad form, Ramage. Introductions should be short and to the point. Incidentally, I'm not sure what the "gist" of what I'm supposed to take away from this chapter is.
I don't find Ramage's ideas about identity to be all that unique or new. Yeah, a lot of people have identities that are manufactured by someone else; perhaps from the culture as a whole, which is driven by advertising and consumerism. Yeah, people who take on the consumerist identity or the corporate identity are kind of phony, and yeah, people who buy into concepts like the clichéd "rugged individualist" should maybe get a bit more in touch with reality. And, yeah, people are often unaware of their identity and how they may have come by it. And hey, language is important! None of this is new or particularly interesting to me. Maybe if there was more stuff about beer and motorcycles...
This book really gives too much information. In between all the clever anecdotes and the long form prose, it's difficult to know what to really focus on, and I think that hurts the book's clarity. If it's going to be written that way, a summary at the end of each chapter would certainly help the reader to know which ideas and concepts are key and should be kept in mind for the rest of the book. A summary would also help to reiterate the author's main points... points that I've been unable to figure out thus far... Yeah, that's probably 250 words. Later, folks...
The Chapter After the First One
Ramage, Ramage, Ramage. This man will beat a dead horse until the flesh wears off and the ribcage cracks. If I were to describe a rainbow like Ramage defines a metaphor, it would go something like this:
“Some have looked at the rainbow as a colorful arch in the sky, but rarely do they realize that it is merely various fragments of light that have been broken by the moister in the atmosphere. Both ideas are descriptions of the same essential thing, but one fact remains. This fact has once been pondered by many minds that, by being intelligent, have developed something that undoes the myth of many less wise individuals which is this: there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.”
He also likes to draw his point out by using phrases like “A gist is not to be confused with an essence, a definition, or a summary” or any other word that is listed in the thesaurus. He does this throughout the chapter and merely elaborates on various definitions of words.
Not to beat a dead Ramage book, but this chapter felt like collection of critical analyses that he wrote in high school. I felt that his use of William Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, and Sylvia Plath backed up his point, but he didn’t follow up with a definitive explanation on its relevance. I had to piece that together on my own. Instead, he smeared his examples across the page like a left-handed student trying to write an essay.
I still enjoyed reading this chapter. To stick to the prompt, he did a good job of transforming words into identity which tied into the title of the chapter. I think his point was to show how words as metaphors can create a “Cultural Readymade” or stereotype, in turn, creating identities that people within a particular culture define themselves with.
“Some have looked at the rainbow as a colorful arch in the sky, but rarely do they realize that it is merely various fragments of light that have been broken by the moister in the atmosphere. Both ideas are descriptions of the same essential thing, but one fact remains. This fact has once been pondered by many minds that, by being intelligent, have developed something that undoes the myth of many less wise individuals which is this: there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.”
He also likes to draw his point out by using phrases like “A gist is not to be confused with an essence, a definition, or a summary” or any other word that is listed in the thesaurus. He does this throughout the chapter and merely elaborates on various definitions of words.
Not to beat a dead Ramage book, but this chapter felt like collection of critical analyses that he wrote in high school. I felt that his use of William Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, and Sylvia Plath backed up his point, but he didn’t follow up with a definitive explanation on its relevance. I had to piece that together on my own. Instead, he smeared his examples across the page like a left-handed student trying to write an essay.
I still enjoyed reading this chapter. To stick to the prompt, he did a good job of transforming words into identity which tied into the title of the chapter. I think his point was to show how words as metaphors can create a “Cultural Readymade” or stereotype, in turn, creating identities that people within a particular culture define themselves with.
Hmmmm
During the first couple pages of the second chapter I found myself confused, but hoped to understand more as I read along. I unfortunately did not understand the connection Ramage was attempting to make between identity and rhetoric. I know that we all use rhetoric in our individual lives, however, I did not feel Ramage explained it that way. I felt his example about the tree falling was interesting, but that it should have not been did the tree really fall if you don't see it. It is obvious the tree fell. What the real question should have been, is if you are not there to hear the tree fall, did it really make a noise when it fell? I expect the class discussion will heighten my understanding of the reading.
Rhetoric- Chapter Two
I feel like this chapter started out with Ramage (I always want to type "Rampage".) saying, "In this chapter I'll explain rhetoric and identity formation." The middle consisted of several rambling streams of consciousness, and then it ended with, "Well. There! I explained it all. Okay, bye. See you next chapter." I was left with a resounding sense of "Whaaa?"
To be fair, I did get the general idea of the connotations we have with words signifying our own personalities and what we think of things. This was something I was already aware of, but it was interesting to read Ramage’s thoughts on the subject. Though, he did go on for thirty-some pages about that general idea. Maybe it seemed that he went on for so long because I already understood the point within the first few pages. Or maybe I just completely missed the point. It’s hard to be certain.
I did like several things, though. What something is opposed to what it isn’t, particularly fascinated me. And I loved the section on P-Dog. I got it, and it was cute.
Sometimes I feel like to understand this book, you really have to like it. It’s almost like you and Ramage need to work together to understand what he’s trying to say. If you get off on the wrong foot, for whatever reason, the understanding is dimmed, and Ramage’s witticisms are irritating instead of funny.
I should note that, while I seem extremely aggressive towards this book, not all of my anger is the book’s fault. I just dropped my sandwich on the floor.
To be fair, I did get the general idea of the connotations we have with words signifying our own personalities and what we think of things. This was something I was already aware of, but it was interesting to read Ramage’s thoughts on the subject. Though, he did go on for thirty-some pages about that general idea. Maybe it seemed that he went on for so long because I already understood the point within the first few pages. Or maybe I just completely missed the point. It’s hard to be certain.
I did like several things, though. What something is opposed to what it isn’t, particularly fascinated me. And I loved the section on P-Dog. I got it, and it was cute.
Sometimes I feel like to understand this book, you really have to like it. It’s almost like you and Ramage need to work together to understand what he’s trying to say. If you get off on the wrong foot, for whatever reason, the understanding is dimmed, and Ramage’s witticisms are irritating instead of funny.
I should note that, while I seem extremely aggressive towards this book, not all of my anger is the book’s fault. I just dropped my sandwich on the floor.
Chapter 2
I am not sure I really understand the connection of the subject of this chapter to rhetoric. I think Ramage makes some good points about how our individual personalities and lives are formed, however. To me this chapter was a little confusing, and as pointed out on Thursady, he uses a lot of words to make a point, and by the time I get done reading it, I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be. I get the general gist that we use rhetoric in our everyday language talking to each other and it helps us define who we are to others. However, that is basically all I got out of the chapter. Does anyone else understand this better??
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Assignment #1
Hey everyone! My name is Sarah and I am a sophomore Professional Writing Major with a minor in Literature. Ever since the age of seven (and the age at which I could finally convince my mom to order me a subscription to Vogue) have I completely embedded myself in reading, watching and studying fashion. Broadening my magazine subscription to include W, Lucky and British Vogue, it seems only natural that once finished with college I hope to take over Irini Arakas' job as Fashion Writer for Vogue. Growing up surrounded by vast farmland in the "complete rural" part of Allentown, I am craving the chance to move to New York and begin a new chapter in my life.
Ramage's "Introduction: The Way of Rhetoric" was extremely exciting and hard to put down. He writes with such vigor, such wit and can surface ideas and arguments that are blatantly honest and thought-provoking. The concluding argument he brings up, comparing rhetoric to slow-food is simply brilliant. Every thought expressed is true. He states that slow-food restaurants are continually changing due to the foods in season and new selections are created in favor of broadening and playing to an individual's changing self. Rhetoric is exactly the same. People who use rhetoric are open and willing to change, to question motives and old traditions, to bring a new light with new ideas to the stagnant sameness and allow their ideas and themselves to be seen as bold, different and passionate individuals who are willing to change and put forth a different stance or view.
I also like the quote from Kenneth Burke stating "cicumstances alter cases." This idea is evident in almost every facet of the human journey. What may occur in one situation at one time in a particular place, can and is entirely different in another setting, time and place. Cases are changed, looked at differently and interpreted in varying degrees by different individuals based upon the circumstances leading up to, during and after. Thus, Ramage's discussion on this matter is beautifully crafted.
I enjoyed reading this chapter, I love his style of writing, his presentation of examples and metaphors is incredible and helps to strengthen the argument and for me at least, it helped me understand and place his words and examples into a clear picture. I then compared my views and feelings with his, and it turns out that almost all of them are the same.
Ramage's "Introduction: The Way of Rhetoric" was extremely exciting and hard to put down. He writes with such vigor, such wit and can surface ideas and arguments that are blatantly honest and thought-provoking. The concluding argument he brings up, comparing rhetoric to slow-food is simply brilliant. Every thought expressed is true. He states that slow-food restaurants are continually changing due to the foods in season and new selections are created in favor of broadening and playing to an individual's changing self. Rhetoric is exactly the same. People who use rhetoric are open and willing to change, to question motives and old traditions, to bring a new light with new ideas to the stagnant sameness and allow their ideas and themselves to be seen as bold, different and passionate individuals who are willing to change and put forth a different stance or view.
I also like the quote from Kenneth Burke stating "cicumstances alter cases." This idea is evident in almost every facet of the human journey. What may occur in one situation at one time in a particular place, can and is entirely different in another setting, time and place. Cases are changed, looked at differently and interpreted in varying degrees by different individuals based upon the circumstances leading up to, during and after. Thus, Ramage's discussion on this matter is beautifully crafted.
I enjoyed reading this chapter, I love his style of writing, his presentation of examples and metaphors is incredible and helps to strengthen the argument and for me at least, it helped me understand and place his words and examples into a clear picture. I then compared my views and feelings with his, and it turns out that almost all of them are the same.
Rhetoric: A Guide for C-SPAN Addicts.
They call me Greg Hafer. My major: Secondary Education with a concentration in English. This campus has turned me into a club junkie. I'm in Altar, Honors Club, Shoofly, the Environmental Club, and the Radio Club. I'm also an activist in the Sierra Club and I've been helping out with the Kutztown Democrats and the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Association. Starting this February, I'll have my own political talk show on Kutztown University Radio. As you can imagine, I got very excited when this class started out with a book called Rhetoric.
The only problem I found with the introduction of Rhetoric was Ramage's overuse of metaphors. Instead of giving metaphors, I think he could have explained rhetoric better with actual examples. Not only would this intro be more topical, but he could make a new edition when his examples become old, and therefore, he could make a little extra cash. For me, the reading wasn't unclear at all. I couldn't help applying everything I read to current political issues. I'm a C-SPAN addict. Whether it's streaming from the internet or on the TV, I'm listening to our representatives in both houses using nothing but rhetoric. Ramage mentions things like "situational ethics" and "partial truths" and "proving opposites." I could cite examples from our congressmen and women on a daily basis. I love this introduction because it gives be a better understanding of how rhetoric works. Now, whenever I have a political debate, I can go beyond calling something rhetoric and explain why it is rhetoric. Again, I don't think that this introduction was vague or all over the place, it just needs some personal application.
The only problem I found with the introduction of Rhetoric was Ramage's overuse of metaphors. Instead of giving metaphors, I think he could have explained rhetoric better with actual examples. Not only would this intro be more topical, but he could make a new edition when his examples become old, and therefore, he could make a little extra cash. For me, the reading wasn't unclear at all. I couldn't help applying everything I read to current political issues. I'm a C-SPAN addict. Whether it's streaming from the internet or on the TV, I'm listening to our representatives in both houses using nothing but rhetoric. Ramage mentions things like "situational ethics" and "partial truths" and "proving opposites." I could cite examples from our congressmen and women on a daily basis. I love this introduction because it gives be a better understanding of how rhetoric works. Now, whenever I have a political debate, I can go beyond calling something rhetoric and explain why it is rhetoric. Again, I don't think that this introduction was vague or all over the place, it just needs some personal application.
Meet Sean
Hey all! Sean Ross here.
I use Ghost Mick as an Internet psuedenym. I'm about to start reading today's required reading in a moment, but I wanted to get this all started. I included alot of information about myself on the profile page here and also a link to my Myspace.com site which i update pretty regularly. I put somewhere between 1-3 blog entries there each week depending on my mood, schedule and course work load.
I suppose I should say that I am a professional writing major with hopes of one day being a professional writer (duh). I actually wish to be a novelist. I'm not living in some dream world; I know theres little to no chance to get anything published. Well I better get to reading, hope everyone here has a good semester.
Hi All
Hi everyone my name is Justin McCleary. I'm a junior Professional Writing major. I like Kutztown, although it's a change from inner city Philadelphia it's a change I've welcomed. I enjoy reading and writing. You can often find letters or articles written by me in the Philadelphia Daily News. I usually write something at least once a month.
I must also agree that The first chapter somewhat difficult reading, but it was interesting. It began to make me do something I haven't done in about a month...THINK. I like the fact that I was made to decide whether I was a s a Rhetorical person a Serious Person and the truth is I really don't know. I rarely get caught up in doing something rountinely because my life is so busy, but at times I would enjoy to have a set routine and follow it. It would make like easier, but would it be as exciting and enjoyable as my life is right now? I liked when R Ramage talks about the "Slow-Food movement". I believe that we experience life more and learn when we allow different things to happen in day to day life supposed to following strict rules. I find some of the most memorable and enjoyable things I've experienced in life come unexpected and at the drop of a hat.
I must also agree that The first chapter somewhat difficult reading, but it was interesting. It began to make me do something I haven't done in about a month...THINK. I like the fact that I was made to decide whether I was a s a Rhetorical person a Serious Person and the truth is I really don't know. I rarely get caught up in doing something rountinely because my life is so busy, but at times I would enjoy to have a set routine and follow it. It would make like easier, but would it be as exciting and enjoyable as my life is right now? I liked when R Ramage talks about the "Slow-Food movement". I believe that we experience life more and learn when we allow different things to happen in day to day life supposed to following strict rules. I find some of the most memorable and enjoyable things I've experienced in life come unexpected and at the drop of a hat.
LOOK I DID MY HOMEWORK
1) Chris Tiefel here, a senior Professional Writing major with minors in Literature and History. I am proudly from the fine state of New Jersey, which I find many a Pennsy-folk has not enough respect for. New Jersey is, as one of my good friends says, "the entire world on a smaller scale." Sure we have oil refineries in Linden and the city with one of the highest crime rates in the country (Camden) but we are called the Garden State for a reason because we do indeed have a healthy farming industry in the rural Western part of the state. And do not forget the miles of white sand beaches, Down the Shore as any Jersian would call that area, and of course Great Adventure, the theme park with the largest fastest roller coaster in the world. So, I am from there.
In closing of my "introduce myself and beyond" section I would like to give a shameless PR plug to the on campus literary journal I am an editor for, Shoofly: http://faculty.kutztown.edu/hthomas/shoofly/index.htm
2) Rhetoric A User's Guide is the first academic reading I have done since the closure of last semester and it brings me back to the days when I took the same philosophy course twice. The reading utilized scathing extended metaphor which I got lost in at times and the informal voice of the author made it possible for him to jump here and there and it seemed like he said a lot of the same things twice but quite often differently. It is hard to pin down exactly what was said, despite abundant highlighted marginalia, though the reading was entertaining. At times I felt like I was conversing with a Greek Surfer on LSD downloading information from the great net of past and futures ever around him. Poetry, religion, Football, Law, and Fast Food (or Slow-Food backlash) were all examples that helped to show what rhetoric is, rather than simply telling in a straightforward definition. Ahh how proud Doc Thomas and Professor Blomain would be.
In closing of my "introduce myself and beyond" section I would like to give a shameless PR plug to the on campus literary journal I am an editor for, Shoofly: http://faculty.kutztown.edu/hthomas/shoofly/index.htm
2) Rhetoric A User's Guide is the first academic reading I have done since the closure of last semester and it brings me back to the days when I took the same philosophy course twice. The reading utilized scathing extended metaphor which I got lost in at times and the informal voice of the author made it possible for him to jump here and there and it seemed like he said a lot of the same things twice but quite often differently. It is hard to pin down exactly what was said, despite abundant highlighted marginalia, though the reading was entertaining. At times I felt like I was conversing with a Greek Surfer on LSD downloading information from the great net of past and futures ever around him. Poetry, religion, Football, Law, and Fast Food (or Slow-Food backlash) were all examples that helped to show what rhetoric is, rather than simply telling in a straightforward definition. Ahh how proud Doc Thomas and Professor Blomain would be.
Rhetoric Chapter One
Hi everyone, my name is Kate, and I'm a senior English/Professional Writing major. After I graduate, I hope to write for a magazine or newspaper, and I want to do a lot of traveling. I just got back from San Francisco where I visited over break and it really opened my eyes to all of the opportunities that are out there.
I agree that the first chapter was a tough read, and it was difficult to find an exact definition for what rhetoric was in simple terms. But, the chapter did raise a lot of questions in my mind. Ramage made me question whether I was a Serious Person or a Rhetorical Person, and I found myself lying somewhere in the middle. Ramage says, "Serious People will consult a map... prior to embarking on their journey and will follow the most efficient route to their destination." Sometimes I get wrapped up in the routine, and find it easier to follow a predetermined path than to take past occurances into account and change my destination, as Ramage says that Rhetorical People are likely to do. Being a Serious Person all the time, however, seems uptight and very limited. Later in the chapter Ramage discusses the Slow-Food movement, and I felt myself realizing that we gain more insight and experience when we embrace variations in our daily lives, such as a surprising meal at a diner versus the predictable meal at McDonalds.
I agree that the first chapter was a tough read, and it was difficult to find an exact definition for what rhetoric was in simple terms. But, the chapter did raise a lot of questions in my mind. Ramage made me question whether I was a Serious Person or a Rhetorical Person, and I found myself lying somewhere in the middle. Ramage says, "Serious People will consult a map... prior to embarking on their journey and will follow the most efficient route to their destination." Sometimes I get wrapped up in the routine, and find it easier to follow a predetermined path than to take past occurances into account and change my destination, as Ramage says that Rhetorical People are likely to do. Being a Serious Person all the time, however, seems uptight and very limited. Later in the chapter Ramage discusses the Slow-Food movement, and I felt myself realizing that we gain more insight and experience when we embrace variations in our daily lives, such as a surprising meal at a diner versus the predictable meal at McDonalds.
Chapter 1
Hi, I'm Liz. I'm a sophomore English/Professional Writing major, and I'm hoping to go into publishing once I'm out of school. I work at Career Services, so you might hear me talk about that a LOT, even if it doesn't exactly fit into the conversation. I'll try to hold back, though.
I'm not going to lie-- that was a tough read. I'm not particularly interested in philosophy (that's why I took art history), which I think really hindered my ability to enjoy or even understand this chapter. Nevertheless, I did grasp some of Ramage's ideas, especially the fast food/slow food paragraphs near the end. I don't think of myself as a very Serious Person, but I like to follow instructions and know exactly what to do and when to do it, so I guess I'm more Serious than I had previously thought.
I'm not going to lie-- that was a tough read. I'm not particularly interested in philosophy (that's why I took art history), which I think really hindered my ability to enjoy or even understand this chapter. Nevertheless, I did grasp some of Ramage's ideas, especially the fast food/slow food paragraphs near the end. I don't think of myself as a very Serious Person, but I like to follow instructions and know exactly what to do and when to do it, so I guess I'm more Serious than I had previously thought.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Response 1
1. Hi, my name is Rob. I enjoy long walks on the beach, sports cars, and consuming excessive amounts of alcohol. I swear too much and like alternative rock. I can't figure out what the hell to do with my hair, and the fact that break is over and I'm back in class makes me want to vomit. I'm a senior professional writing major at KU, but I love it so much that I'll be back next year. What else is there to say?
2. It irritated me that rhetoric was never narrowed down to anything more than a sort of abstract concept. I like to deal in absolutes and definites because anything less than that doesn't seem real enough to me to make me care about it. There were times I was reading where I was like, "what the hell is he talking about"? Maybe Ramage never narrowed down rhetoric beyond vaguely hinting that it's a type of persuasion/persuasive language/way of thought because in rhetoric there is no single solid idea or absolute truth. I suppose he did hint at that in places. Well, good for him, but it still irriatated me.
I found it interesting that on the second page of the book Ramage immediately begins presenting criticisms of rhetorical thinking. I wonder if this was really a strong presentation strategy; to knock rhetoric down before he even clued us in to what his definition of rhetoric is. Sure, he refuted these criticisms by saying that they were, in fact, rhetorical themselves, but still... I felt the rest of the chapter was all over the place, and it was sort of hard for me to follow or even decide what the rest of the book might be about, or in which direction it might go. Is it going to teach us how to persuade people? Is that the idea? I don't really know. Needless to say (and I know you were dying to know this), I didn't particularly like this chapter.
2. It irritated me that rhetoric was never narrowed down to anything more than a sort of abstract concept. I like to deal in absolutes and definites because anything less than that doesn't seem real enough to me to make me care about it. There were times I was reading where I was like, "what the hell is he talking about"? Maybe Ramage never narrowed down rhetoric beyond vaguely hinting that it's a type of persuasion/persuasive language/way of thought because in rhetoric there is no single solid idea or absolute truth. I suppose he did hint at that in places. Well, good for him, but it still irriatated me.
I found it interesting that on the second page of the book Ramage immediately begins presenting criticisms of rhetorical thinking. I wonder if this was really a strong presentation strategy; to knock rhetoric down before he even clued us in to what his definition of rhetoric is. Sure, he refuted these criticisms by saying that they were, in fact, rhetorical themselves, but still... I felt the rest of the chapter was all over the place, and it was sort of hard for me to follow or even decide what the rest of the book might be about, or in which direction it might go. Is it going to teach us how to persuade people? Is that the idea? I don't really know. Needless to say (and I know you were dying to know this), I didn't particularly like this chapter.
Chapter One
1) Hi! My name is Emily. I’m a sophomore Professional Writing major. I commute the 25 minutes to KU everyday while listening to Harry Potter on tape in my car. I love reading, writing, sleeping in, and sunny days. I’m not sure exactly what I want to do with my major after I graduate, but I’m interested in editing, creative writing, and magazine writing.
2) I have to admit, the Serious Person in me became slightly distressed when Ramage declared in the first paragraph that there would be no definition of rhetoric. I’m the kind of person that likes to know definitions, details, and exactly what I’m up against. Sadly, that is not the way of rhetoric. Bravely, I read on.
When Ramage called the world of rhetoric one of “overlapping truths,” it made sense to me by reminding me of writing poetry. When I write a poem, I don’t search for logical progressions of thought to put on my paper; I try to find something subjective, situational, and strong that still rings true in the context of the poem. Something that is effective in one poem might not be as powerful in another.
The concept of truth as it’s used in rhetoric also made me think about audience. When Ramage assumed the position of an Anti-Rhetorician, he argued that, to Rhetoricians, effect on audience mattered more than the truth of an argument. This was an interesting point, and I think it’s probably true, but not in a negative way. If truth is situational, then effect on an audience very well could be a better judge of argument.
When Ramage talks later in the chapter about rhetoricians’ tendencies to blur limits and search for new comparisons, it made a lot of sense to me. I think that is what keeps poetry and conversations new, and maybe that is what generates truth.
2) I have to admit, the Serious Person in me became slightly distressed when Ramage declared in the first paragraph that there would be no definition of rhetoric. I’m the kind of person that likes to know definitions, details, and exactly what I’m up against. Sadly, that is not the way of rhetoric. Bravely, I read on.
When Ramage called the world of rhetoric one of “overlapping truths,” it made sense to me by reminding me of writing poetry. When I write a poem, I don’t search for logical progressions of thought to put on my paper; I try to find something subjective, situational, and strong that still rings true in the context of the poem. Something that is effective in one poem might not be as powerful in another.
The concept of truth as it’s used in rhetoric also made me think about audience. When Ramage assumed the position of an Anti-Rhetorician, he argued that, to Rhetoricians, effect on audience mattered more than the truth of an argument. This was an interesting point, and I think it’s probably true, but not in a negative way. If truth is situational, then effect on an audience very well could be a better judge of argument.
When Ramage talks later in the chapter about rhetoricians’ tendencies to blur limits and search for new comparisons, it made a lot of sense to me. I think that is what keeps poetry and conversations new, and maybe that is what generates truth.
Rhetiroc Assignment
1. Hi everyone! My name is Casey. Im a Secondary Ed. English major. I am hoping to get certification once i graduate so I can teach phys ed. Kutztown does not have that here so it was either go for another 2 years and re-do everything, or put what I already learned towards getting my BA in Sec Ed English and then just go back and get certified in phys ed.
2. I enjoyed certain parts of the reading assignment. But like Christina had mentioned in an earlier post, I found it a little hard to follow at times. By not directly talking about rhetoric, he was leading me into several directions, one after another, to come to my own conclusion. I did not enjoy this method. I did however enjoy learning about how Socrates would manipulate Sophists' (rhetoricians) and their statements to bring them to a whole other conclusion, which was oposite of the original statement they had made. The way Ramage explains how rhetoricians 'promote what suits his interests' and Socrates promotes the Truth 'whoever it suites or doesnt suit.' This does however make me question rhetoric and its moral purpose. It seems that the art of using rhetoric is based off of the beliefs and wants of one person, not necessarily what it best for the whole. And I do believe Ramage touches significantly on this when talking about gravitas. He claims it is not something possessed by a large number of those who practice rhetoric. I thoroughly enjoyed reading how Roethke shows us how oppositions may only be illusions. I find it funny how Ramage explains rhetoric using fast food chains and small unique diners. It broke rhetoric down into something that was much more easy to understand. I felt he drew out certain points he was trying to make, way beyond the attention span of someone reading this who was not assigned the first chapter. Overall I did feel it was a little long for trying to indirectly explain rhetoric, but I did however enjoy it.
2. I enjoyed certain parts of the reading assignment. But like Christina had mentioned in an earlier post, I found it a little hard to follow at times. By not directly talking about rhetoric, he was leading me into several directions, one after another, to come to my own conclusion. I did not enjoy this method. I did however enjoy learning about how Socrates would manipulate Sophists' (rhetoricians) and their statements to bring them to a whole other conclusion, which was oposite of the original statement they had made. The way Ramage explains how rhetoricians 'promote what suits his interests' and Socrates promotes the Truth 'whoever it suites or doesnt suit.' This does however make me question rhetoric and its moral purpose. It seems that the art of using rhetoric is based off of the beliefs and wants of one person, not necessarily what it best for the whole. And I do believe Ramage touches significantly on this when talking about gravitas. He claims it is not something possessed by a large number of those who practice rhetoric. I thoroughly enjoyed reading how Roethke shows us how oppositions may only be illusions. I find it funny how Ramage explains rhetoric using fast food chains and small unique diners. It broke rhetoric down into something that was much more easy to understand. I felt he drew out certain points he was trying to make, way beyond the attention span of someone reading this who was not assigned the first chapter. Overall I did feel it was a little long for trying to indirectly explain rhetoric, but I did however enjoy it.
Assignment 1
1) Hi! My name is Amy. I am a junior here at Kutztown and I am a Secondary Education English major. My ultimate goal is to move to NYC, receive my Doctorate and teach at a University.
2) I found the Introduction to the book very interesting. I especially like one of the opening lines that the author is not going to give readers a clear definition of what Rhetoric is, but rather, allow readers to come to their own conclusion of its definition through the reading. After reading the introduction I was made more aware that rhetoric is used everywhere and by everyone. Each person uses different ways of persuasion. The annoying telemarketers that call during dinner time are using rhetoric in order to make money, while others use it to sway a persons decision, opinion, or in order to receive something. I also found fascinating the idea that total truth's cannot always be reached. We live in a world full of contrasting ideas, therefore rhetoric will always be used.
2) I found the Introduction to the book very interesting. I especially like one of the opening lines that the author is not going to give readers a clear definition of what Rhetoric is, but rather, allow readers to come to their own conclusion of its definition through the reading. After reading the introduction I was made more aware that rhetoric is used everywhere and by everyone. Each person uses different ways of persuasion. The annoying telemarketers that call during dinner time are using rhetoric in order to make money, while others use it to sway a persons decision, opinion, or in order to receive something. I also found fascinating the idea that total truth's cannot always be reached. We live in a world full of contrasting ideas, therefore rhetoric will always be used.
RHETORIC- Chapter One
Introduction:
Hello! My name is Christina. (Sometimes I abbreviate it as 'Ctina' because there are so many other 'Christina's... and because I get lazy.) I'm a sophomore and a Professional Writing major. I work in the English Department Office. Good times.
Chapter Reaction:
I thought it was interest that Ramage was using rhetoric, in the form of a "Rhetoric Persona" to debate the evils of rhetoric. In our culture, rhetoric is subtle and pervasive. The book itself points this out in subtle and pervasive ways. Having realized this, I spent the rest of the chapter looking for rhetoric within the words on the page. It was actually very distracting from the actual book.
The section on Act and Motion was interesting. At first, I didn’t understand what Ramage was getting at. When he mentioned that Act was like our conscious motivation but Motion was the subconscious, I had an "oh!" moment and suddenly understood it much better.
I never would have thought to compare rhetoric to cooking. It makes a lot of sense, but the suddenness and near-absurdity of the original comparison almost made me chuckle.
While certain parts of this chapter were thought provoking, I mostly found it very hard to focus. I felt like the author was trying to get at a specific point, but before he really hit it on home, he changed topics and decided he wanted to try to make another point. I felt like I had to dig through a lot of words to get to the meaning. The book has several interesting points, but I didn’t really enjoy it.
Hello! My name is Christina. (Sometimes I abbreviate it as 'Ctina' because there are so many other 'Christina's... and because I get lazy.) I'm a sophomore and a Professional Writing major. I work in the English Department Office. Good times.
Chapter Reaction:
I thought it was interest that Ramage was using rhetoric, in the form of a "Rhetoric Persona" to debate the evils of rhetoric. In our culture, rhetoric is subtle and pervasive. The book itself points this out in subtle and pervasive ways. Having realized this, I spent the rest of the chapter looking for rhetoric within the words on the page. It was actually very distracting from the actual book.
The section on Act and Motion was interesting. At first, I didn’t understand what Ramage was getting at. When he mentioned that Act was like our conscious motivation but Motion was the subconscious, I had an "oh!" moment and suddenly understood it much better.
I never would have thought to compare rhetoric to cooking. It makes a lot of sense, but the suddenness and near-absurdity of the original comparison almost made me chuckle.
While certain parts of this chapter were thought provoking, I mostly found it very hard to focus. I felt like the author was trying to get at a specific point, but before he really hit it on home, he changed topics and decided he wanted to try to make another point. I felt like I had to dig through a lot of words to get to the meaning. The book has several interesting points, but I didn’t really enjoy it.
Rhetoric Chapter One
1) Hello everyone! My name is Beth. I am a Sec. Ed. English major. This is my fourth year of college, but only my second at Kutztown. Although I should graduate this year, I still have a couple more semesters to go. I have a daughter that will be two on Friday, so that always keeps my life interesting.
2) I have not completely finished reading the first chapter one of our book , but what I have read has been very interesting. I was not aware that rhetoric was such a complicated subject matter. I have always only thought of the word in connection with political aspects, such as Ramage describes on pages 7-8. However, this reading showed me that this subject was much more complex. I liked the way that Ramage took the side of an Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson for the first pages. I think by doing this, he was able to give a clear presentation of how Anti-Rhetoric person views rhetoric. I also liked how he describes rhetoric as a disregarding of the thought that everything is either real and true or unreal and false. As he discribes on page ten, in all of our conversations, we each decide what which one of our thoughts we should or should not say at that particular moment. This is a very different view of rhetoric that I have ever held. I have always associated the word rhetoric with lies, but after reading this, I see that we each use a form of rhetoric whenever we talk to each other. His discussion of using past experiences to guide you or simply following a specific map was interesting. I like how he presents the views for both sides that most people hold in the extremes, and he then conbimes them and delivers a more realistic view of how Rhetorical people and Anti-Rhetorical think. This makes his views easier to understand.
2) I have not completely finished reading the first chapter one of our book , but what I have read has been very interesting. I was not aware that rhetoric was such a complicated subject matter. I have always only thought of the word in connection with political aspects, such as Ramage describes on pages 7-8. However, this reading showed me that this subject was much more complex. I liked the way that Ramage took the side of an Anti-Rhetoric Spokesperson for the first pages. I think by doing this, he was able to give a clear presentation of how Anti-Rhetoric person views rhetoric. I also liked how he describes rhetoric as a disregarding of the thought that everything is either real and true or unreal and false. As he discribes on page ten, in all of our conversations, we each decide what which one of our thoughts we should or should not say at that particular moment. This is a very different view of rhetoric that I have ever held. I have always associated the word rhetoric with lies, but after reading this, I see that we each use a form of rhetoric whenever we talk to each other. His discussion of using past experiences to guide you or simply following a specific map was interesting. I like how he presents the views for both sides that most people hold in the extremes, and he then conbimes them and delivers a more realistic view of how Rhetorical people and Anti-Rhetorical think. This makes his views easier to understand.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Welcome to Mahoney's Spring 2006 Advanced Comp
Welcome to the blog for my spring 2006 Advanced Composition class. We will use this blog as a space to reflect on our class readings, brainstorm ideas for papers, respond to each other's work, and to consider how writing for a public audience poses different challenges than those posed by writing solely for a college course.
As you can see, this blog is a continuation of the work students did in my fall 2005 course. In a sense, these posts form part of the "conversation" you will be taking part in this semester. In order to get acquainted with using our blog, I want you to introduce yourself to your fellow classmates (and the on-line world!).
Post a brief response to the first chapter of Ramage's, Rhetoric: A User's Guide. I am not asking you to post a summary of the chapter, I am more interested in what you thought of what Ramage said about rhetoric and how he is presenting the material. The benefit of a blog is that you have an opportunity to “write through” your response; that is, you can post your thoughts informally and dialogue with your classmates. You can also post questions for your classmates, make connections to other things you have read, or simply “try out” your ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)