Men Are More Meaningful Cows

As I began reading Chapter 2... my eyes immediately turned to the two lines on the second page.

"The baby cried. The mother picked it up."
"The baby cried. The mother ate a salami sandwich."

I read these two lines aloud to a friend and his response? "That's a woman for ya, eating a sandwich instead of picking up her crying baby."

After laughing, and then scolding him I began to think about his response a little more.

Lakoff says that the first response seems more natural than the second, a familiar cause and effect relationship. So why then did my friend hear the second statement and respond as if it were just as natural as the first? Perhaps like Lakoff says this is based on his own individual prior experience, that he knew someone who wasn't a very good mother or that he has his own set of stereotypes about women and their roles in society.

The section on The Markedness of the Femine (And the Female) was particularly interesting. I don't often analyze the way gender plays a role in language and how words reflect a woman's place in the world. When Lakoff gives the example of her youth when female physicians were referred to as a woman or lady doctor while the men were never referred to by their gender I am reminded of a riddle I once heard. I think it went something like, "A father and son are in a car accident and the father dies. The son goes to the hospital, and upon entering the room the doctor says, "I can't operate on him, that's my son." The point of it, is that the doctor is his mother, though most automatically assume that the doctor is male and are faced with confusion.

On a closing note to this somewhat random blog...
When we talk about animal species in general men get to be tigers and women get to be cows?!
There are just so many typical common cows out there that I guess they just have to be feminine.

Lakoff-the great one of language?

unlike rammge, i find Lakoff to be boring and, quite frankly, uninspired. I found it very hard to read through and it felt like the author was rambling through a lot of liturgical nonsense about the role language in the modern world. I personally didn't like this. I felt like I was listening to a drunkard war vet going on and on and on about the big war he fought in like it was the only thing he knew about instead of something practical to enrich my life.
She uses some of the same tactics used by Rammage, offering weird and extreme examples to prove points that I couldnt understand the point of to begin with. perhaps upon a 2nd reading of the first two chapters then maybe ill get ti better and like it more. but as of now im more of a fan of Rammage.

we are in a hurry

edit profile laundry traffic
red !go! renomination showers baby jam MY VERY ENTHUSIASTIC mother
just served grapefruit myjuice apples which is McCarthy neutral hotel milk
sophmoric rants fraile creamy tiny m&m grammarian
spring my two best friend
are lefties lytle
house on the prarie
respectability blind colour [pompous] colour
& discourse-- as3 ieiionao#donsa; jnadoain^ei nkla(dnramgaeswef das ; "asdjnf % abnhdo noais+nd oorimjfvui uisd0annadf ijasdf bvulgarjuhbafdovaoidaijefin klnkeratouseijasbdff aasdkfk iuawe jajfn % ^ &&&&
I thought I had an elevator home penfold ihadvationme.
holecaustal class lectures & 21gigawatt 1985 silver clad delorian travel ed tit 1comments
before the native americans dies [you can't say that] ebb tides





imperative lackluster viewing
lackluster imperative

remember when books used to say something?

I can only assume that later in this book there is some great assertion or something to tie all of these points together, or at least I hope. Lakoff (to me) makes only observations of different aspects of language, but never actually SAYS anything. This book only provides lengthy elaborations on ideas that are unimportant at best. So far everything I've read in this book could have been summed up in a few pages. So far, I have seen no reason for this book to even exist.
I'm fairly sure that if i were given the thousands of works referenced in the reading, I know I could sit around and do the same 'academic masturbation' that Lakoff does. All I saw happening in the text was the author correlating all of her references to the Whorf hypothesis- for over 40 pages. I don't know if I am being too closed-minded or have been spoiled, but I like to read books that make a point, or at least try to. This reading comes off like a research paper muddled by too many examples.
I agree with the whorf hypothesis to the extent that synonyms of the same word do imply different thoughts and opinions--hey people, that's why synonyms exist in the first place-----oh shit---look what I did!!!! I just summed up lakoff's 40 pages in 8 words. Lets face it, if someone says "infant" it brings a different image to the reader's head than if you were to say "baby." Its called word choice and I learned about it in 6th grade, too bad Lakoff didn't focus on what I learned in 7th grade, "How to Clearly State Your Thesis."

intro to lakoff

Wow, so it's taken me awhile to post, apologies!

I really enjoyed the introduction & chapter one. Although the selection was 41 pages, similar to Ramage length, it was enjoyable and I was able to connect with what she was saying and she described definitions which helped as well, especially with terms such as performative utterances and transformational syntacticians.

In the introduction I liked how she stated, "at one time many of us thought the responsibility for meaning (in Western culture at least) lay with the producer: the speaker/writer produced the meaning; the hearer/reader might or might not perceive the speaker's meaning correctly." This is so true. When a professor speaks, students must write down what he/she says, will be tested on what is being taught by this individual. The professor is throwing out facts, truths held by his/her beliefs, and the student must accept those beliefs (even if only for the test or paper or assignment) in order to do well in that course.

In class, the topic of apologies was heavily dissected, so I will not touch upon that topic, since I am writing this late and expressed my thoughts, and have had my thoughts expressed by other students in the class already.
So, moving on.
Another quote I enjoyed was "..who gets to decide who can make the language, choose words, assign meanings, mediate between the real-world referent and the concept via language." I have often wondered this. I cannot think of few other jobs or accomplishments that can boost one's entire self more than being the one who decides which words to put in the dictionary, assign meanings for the words chosen; it completely baffles my mind. So much honor and prestige is held to that task. How does one even qualify? Is there a test, how do you choose people over other people? How can the opinions of a select few, or even a single person matter? Are they even the right opinions? This is such a baffling subject! I really do wonder how our society goes about the selection process. I wonder how extensive the interview is. I wonder what credentials one must posess. This is a topic one can ponder for a lifetime; very exciting to see that she brought it up!

La la la la Lakoff

Humans are creatures of habit; we’ll try to frame anything to make ourselves more comfortable. When it gets weird is when we find ourselves mixing frames.

For example, on Saturdays I’m a waitress at a small, family-owned local restaurant (“Mom and Pop” died, now it’s their kids). Most of the time, our customers are regulars; I start making a pot of decaf before Bill and Nancy even sit down, and they always ask me how my semester is going. I’m comfortable waiting on them, and they welcome me into their lunch routine (and leave a decent tip). We’re in the same frame.

However, sometimes people will come in who are not used to the restaurant’s casual atmosphere (frame). They’re annoyed when they have to seat themselves, are confused when we don’t serve fries, and are taken aback when I collapse at the booth across from them to take their order. These customers live in a different frame. They aren’t interested in chatting and want to see me only for refills. Since I’m in the friendly-restaurant frame, I feel uncomfortable adjusting to their give-me-the-food-and-don’t-get-in-the-way-restaurant frame.

And you know what happens then? They complain about the lack of side dishes (which I can do nothing about), and I end up stereotyping them into the grumpy customer frame. My fellow servers and I are clearly the exnominated group (the customer is not always right). And that turns into an “us against them” mentality. They are the uncivil other; we are their polar opposite. This mixing of frames causes distress and discomfort which fortunately lasts only as long as a cheeseburger.

numero dos

Ok...although I did enjoy the first chapter, I was a little more frustrated with the second. I realyl feel that we are beating trivial statements to the ground. The whole marked/unmarked of the past present future, I believe, isnt because one is more complex and important than the other, but MAYBE they are just spelled different...i dont know...just a thought.

When Lakoff describes the use of masculine names when referring to animals, it means the speaker is being more specific and "meaningful" then when talking about the female. But Lakoff goes to reverse the idea when the speaker is talking about the female. The female is marked and considered "not-fully-human." Where does this switch come in? It feels like a stretch to make feminist statement.

I did enjoy reading the section on common sense and the differences that envolve over time in what is common sense and what isnt. The mere fact that people who go agaist common sense always have to be justifying their views, and people who views are considered common sense does not have to.

Overall some things did frustrate me because they seemed like a stretch, but i did enjoy reading about the evolution of language and the section with dear abby excerpts.

ps. jerry springer rocks my socks...well actually not really....

Lakoff Reading 2

I found the "Victimization and Devictimization" section very interesting. I find it incredible how we can persuade people to feel a certain way through subtle hints or suggestions. It is very similar to subliminal advertising. Showing a picture of a Coke to make you want a coke. I also found the second paragraph interesting, it had a lot to do with last weeks conversation about apologies. This is where victimization comes in. When a public apology is made, the apologizer being in a more powerful position, makes the audience the victim. The apology they are recieving is because they have become victimized. Therefore, sometimes an apology does not make the victims feel better but more victimized.

I don't have title creativity: Lakoff Chapter 2

Well, I have not completely read the whole chapter yet, but so far, I am continuing to like this book. I particulary liked his theme throughout the chapter of having "frames" that we are familir with and others that seem to be inconprehensible to us. These sense of normalcy, in actions and words, plays a huge part in our everyday lives. We constantly have and idea in our mind about how something is supposed to go, and when faced with a different scenerio than what's expected, we are thrown off. For instance, when we call a doctor's office, we expect to be put through a series of annoying menus until you have to leave a message and wait a few hours to get a call back. This is the scene and words we expect to hear, and when we actually get through to a real live person, we are shocked by the sound of a human voice that's not on a recorded message. (sorry, I've had to make appointments a lot lately.) I also like Lakoff's example on the second page of the chapter about the baby and mother. The first one, we expect, whereas the second completely throws us off base. Lakoff continues with the frame idea, and on page 48, after discussing Alice's confusion, she compares this confusion to being an infant. As the frames are continually shifting as the world changes, we also have to constantly change what is "normal" in our minds. Once this shift happens in our minds, it seems that our language also shifts into whatever is appropriate for this new circumstance.

Christina reads Lakoff. Christina eats a salami sandwich.

Because I am taupe, which is not the brightest crayon in the box, I didn't realize this author was a woman till I got to class and everyone was saying "she". Oops.

The Orange Highlighter of Those Who Have Come Before, directed me to a good quote which summarizes a good point, "...as society changes, perception changes; as perception changes, language changes with it."
Even though I understood completely, just from the short bit about masculine and feminine terms, I vaguely wish Lakoff would have gone into it more. (She seems to make lots of good, brief points that I like- but only addresses them for a section before she moves on.)

This chapter dealt a lot with the fact that we often just assume things to be true, but they actually are not. It makes me think. I wonder what our society believes now, what we accept as "common sense" that actually isn't. It's so hard to think of possible examples without sounding like I'm trying to be ridiculous, simply for the sake of being ridiculous.

Reading all of these complications regarding language, I'm trying to become obsessive and over-analyze everything I read and write. It's surprisingly difficult.

All Men Are Created Equal

I have never read such and in-depth analysis of Bugs Bunny and William Shakespeare. I didn’t even know there was a difference between the two until this chapter. I mean, wow! “The studies of both Shakespeare and Bugs Bunny tell us who we are: we are creatures who have created both, who need and understand both, who are enhanced by knowing both.” When I read that I was losing touch with Lakoff’s point and the relevance of Bugs and Bill until this little gem: “To deny that either one is relevant to our human experience is to diminish that humanity.” I had no idea that Time Warner was such a powerful force in their quest to exemplify humanity.

Besides that, I like this section’s focus on what is valid and what is not when it comes to language. It’s interesting that words develop as perceptions change. In the book they mentioned sexism and racism. It made me think of Thomas Jefferson sitting down with a quill in hand, writing the Declaration of Independence.

TJ: Yes, yes… we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, *cough, cough* Oh slave boy! Yes, you there. Slave boy, could you fetch me a nice hot cup of tea? Thank you dark one. Where was I? Oh yes… that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Ah, isn’t that splendid?

I like how Lakoff elaborated on the topic in the chapter. It was very well done. Yes, splendid. And by the way… Ellen was cancelled because the show sucked, not because she is a lesbian.

untitled

Finally. No more Ramage. Moving on.
I was a bit put off by the lengthy introduction. I felt that Lakeoff spent too much time trying to explain the point of her book as opposed to just diving right in. I was ready to dismiss the book as a Ramage-esque piece. But then I began chapter 1. Lakeoff made some really excellent points and brought up many interesting aspects of society. I’d like to focus on the section about apologies. I know that we discussed this at length during class; however, I would like to make one last point that was somewhat touched upon near the end of the class. Apologizing for things that happened in the past - I’m sure we can all agree that yes, it’s the nice thing to do. But I also think that it’s just a ploy to gain audience support. The prime example being the apology for slavery. I think that it is a crucial tactic on the part of any middle-aged, upper class, white politician. What better way to gain ethnic support than to apologize for the wrong doings toward their race? Sure, there are people who are genuinely sorry for slavery, but it seems that politicians are really sorry around election time. It just seems that whenever a person wants to gain the support of a group of people from a different race, the appropriate thing to do is to apologize for something that happened solely to that group of people.
Moving on to chapter 2, I’d like to point out two very important points from this section. First, dealing with a passage found on page 71. Lakeoff points out Croce’s sentence in parenthesis “showered with Oscar nominations while the Serbian genocide goes on…” and questions the importance of that statement. I think it’s important to note Croce’s attempt to take something innocent and attempt to create guilt in an audience. I feel that this happens on the regular. Often, someone who is trying to persuade an audience to agree with their position will use guilt. Let’s think back to the days of our childhood. How many times have we heard from parents “there are starving children in China/Africa/etc who would love that pot roast! Now eat it!” parents would attempt to make us feel guilty for wanting to waste food, and try to guilt trip us to finish the last few bites. Perhaps that’s a crazy example, I don’t know. BUT it does [at least, I think] get my point across. Croce’s statements about the ongoing genocide are meant to make the people who watched/attended the Oscars feel bad. They could have been saving the world; instead, they were getting trophies for movies.
I think I am beginning to confuse myself, so I will move on to my next point. Page 80 contains a passage discussing black people who are ok because they seem white. I found this to be very interesting. I just wanted to throw in, that along with OJ Simpson and the Cosby family, there is also Will Smith. I find it interesting that The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is appealing to both white and black audiences. The formula is simple. The Banks family is “white” enough to be accepted by white society – the family consists of a Judge, a college prof., a talk show host, a model/singer and a butler. Will smith adds the right amount of blackness to the show. He is from the “hard streets” of Philly and occasionally will say “ethnic” statements. [What up G, That honey be bangin’, etc.]
Its 2:30am, I am tired. Take my post for what its worth.

Lakoff take-off

Lame. How lame of me and my title.

I absolutely hate introductions. I read this one, though. And it bored me. Towards the last few pages of it, I sort of skimmed the words and flipped the pages to the awesomeness that was chapter one. I'm hardly exagerrating when I say that too! I really liked chapter one.

There was an abudance of information and evidence of applied science in this chapter. I find this reading a bit more believable than Ramage's because.... While there were points in chapter one where I kind of felt like the examples were stretched a bit-I at least understood what was going on. Anyway...a few things.

About news stories that took over peoples conversational lives.......
"Each of these stories, whatever it appears to be about, is really about how hard, yet how interesting, it is to be us, here and now." <--pg 18 GREAT! AWESOME! RIGHT ON! That's what all of this is, right? Why talk about anything? --that intrinsic need to know what's going on with ourSELVES ...we find satisfaction of that need in each other...and the stories we share.... when news stories don't die-it's not that these stories are changing our lives and that the news is so surprising and that we really care. I don't think we really care...it's more like... when we talk about whatever -bs- we talk about..it's kind of like... CAN YOU EVEN BELIEVE WE'RE ALIVE RIGHT NOW?

Yah, anyway.. I thought I found Ramage's takes on identity interesting.... I enjoy Lakoff's explanations even more. The way it was presented...sort of reminded me of Buddhist philosophy. Great, I'm gonna drag Buddha into this one.. um. Lakoff points out that sometimes authors of "fictional" books will put themselves in the shoes of the main character...describing very real events, with only the mask of some other character...when in reality-this piece isn't incredibly fictional at all... Don't we do that in our daily lives? I mean, I remember who I was when I was six....I wore a hyper-color shirt...and stretch pants and had a missing front tooth. (That was probably in June of that year.) So...everything that has happened to me since then.. I am that as well. But..I don't really have proof-except pictures...but I just show you pictures that tell a story....and it's not happening anymore-but since I told you that it happened...you believe me. I suppose I can trust my memory? This reminds me of one of my favorite parts in the movie "Waking Life" ...when a woman is talking about her baby pictures-she says that she KNOWS its herself, but only because a story leads her to believe it. Hmph.

The Alice in Wonderland excerpt really helped me get a good grasp on the discussion of identity as well. (pg 38) Where do we draw the line between who we were and who we are now? How does it happen? What is going on!??

I'm going to back it up a little bit...to the discussion on apologies. I will admit, that I, unfortunately, have the awful habit of saying "I'm sorry" when it's completely unnecessary. WHAT THE HECK IS THAT? So, after reading that part...I quit. I was listening to Fiona Apple a few hours after finishing my reading...and I was inspired by some of her lyrics that, I find, really compliment the reading. {Please, please, please No apologies At best, they buy you time Till you next step out of line} Lots of apologies are just combined words and phrases that sort of seem like they mean something-but actually hold no real weight. I think I know what that's like...and um, thanks Fiona for singing about it. And.. that's it, why do I always feel like I've said nothing once I'm done writing one of these blogs..

I'm really dizzy-there's something in the air of my apartment-I'm not lying. I'm nervous. Anyway, good chapter Lakoff- I'm looking forward to see what other exciting lessons I will learn from reading your book.

Ramage, my sincerest apologies

I'm sorry that I like Lakoff better than Ramage.
I'm sorry that Ramage isn't as likeable.
Ramage looks upset.
Why was Ramage's book in my hand to begin with?
Can't he give his damn book to someone else?
He shouldn't have written the book in the first place.

If Ramage were sitting in front of me, I might feel as though I should apologize for choosing another book over his, partly because I'm used to apologizing, and also because as Lakoff states, we are accustomed to giving apologies that lack meaning. But even if I said I'm sorry, it wouldn't change anything... perhaps Ramage would feel a sense of contentment knowing that I gave some of my power to him by apologizing and treating him as superior. Or maybe he would see right through me, and his rhetorical mind would question my sincerity. When I read this section in the book I ran through instances in my head of when I have given and recieved apologies, and I realized that yes, sometimes I'm more interesting in hearing the words "I'm sorry" from the person who has wronged me than actually contemplating whether or not they are sincere.

Lakoff says, "Women seem especially prone to this usage, apologizing even when no discernible wrong has been done or the speaker has had no imaginable part in the wrongdoing that occurred." I had a friend once in high school who knocked a music stand over during band practice and quickly shouted, "I'm sorry!" When we are apologizing to inanimate objects perhaps the phrase "I'm sorry" has become overused and meaningless? I am definitely prone to saying I'm sorry atleast ten times daily, whether someone asks for for directions, and being directionally impaired I end up giving an apology before they drive away disappointed. But Lakeoff says apologies are about admitting a wrongdoing, and not being able to help someone immediately is not directly wronging them. So why do we say I'm sorry? Because we are creatures of habit, and perhaps the phrase needs to evolve into something else, or two separate phrases, one that has more emotional meaning, and one that is more of a casual apology.

Afterthought

From my dad's book, The Cynic's Dictionary:

Language: "the felicitous misapplication of words."
-J.B. Greenough

Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Response to The Intro/Chapter 1

So I suppose I could belittle the last book we had to read for class, and mention how glad I am to be done with that book and its associated crappiness. I could make borderline slanderous (or libel, as it's the printed word) comments about how much that book sucks and how this new book glows in comparison. But Rob Davis is above that.

Some thought-provoking ideas in this new book. I found the concept of whether the meaning in a message is created by the author or reader (or speaker or listener) interesting. I guess it's easy to assume that the meaning is created by the person delivering it. Still, if the audience doesn't understand that meaning, does the message have a meaning at all, or does it just have another meaning that the audience created for itself? Can different people take away different meanings, or is there one big Meaning?

I relate that to something like songwriting, where certain writers are vague and broad enough in their lyrics so that everyone relates on some level. They write songs about their own lives, and yet they leave the door open so that the fifteen-year-old who steals the music off the internet can apply it to his life. I guess the answer to this whole (poorly written) rambling nonsense is that the author has his idea of meaning, and the reader has his own thoughts on that matter, and the truth is somewhere in between. Or maybe everyone creates their own meaning for everything in their life. Or maybe everything is just meaningless and I should dye my hair black and wear eyeliner and write bad poetry and listen to emo (ah, that takes me back to sophomore year...).

I've always been a big fan of phony apologies. In fact, I've probably only apologized for real about five times in my life, and those were for instances such as the time I called my mom a "bitch" (in fairness to me, though, my mom was a bitch when I was 15, so even that probably wasn't that real of an apology). I would wager that the majority of apologies are fake: carefully worded to express the expected message of some sort of regret, yes, but devoid of any real substance and genuine meaning. How "sorry" are you really when you say you're sorry? You're sorry you woke up your roommate? Sure you are.... You're sorry you cut someone off in traffic? Yeah, right.

Apologies are strange animals: you expect them, if you don't get them it pisses you off, and yet they really don't have much actual value other than as a social mechanism. If somebody hits your car in the parking lot, you expect a sorry but it doesn't keep you from being pissed off. No one I know says, "Oh, since you're sorry just don't worry about the $2500 of body damage." But if you don't get that sorry, you'll be bitching the next day, "And the jackass didn't even say he was sorry...."

Likewise, Bill Clinton wasn't the least bit sorry about lying about the whole Lewinsky thing. Oh, he had to come out and act humbled and regretful about it, but to quote my grandmother "he was only sorry he got caught in the lie." How sorry do you think Clinton would've been had no one found out about the whole sordid affair? I doubt he would've have been kept awake at night by guilt and regret.

In closing, I'm sorry I didn't go to class last Thursday. I'm also sorry I downloaded all those Weezer albums illegally, and I'm sorry that I use the f-word far, far too often (I wrote a screenplay and put the dreaded f-word in it over 300 times), and I'm sorry that the only coherent thoughts I can muster about the Olympics relate to how hot all the female athletes are. Finally, I'm sorry that I wrote this much, and I'm sorry that you read it.

Another Post Relating to the Apology Section

Towards the end of Chapter 1, one of Lakoff’s themes that stuck out to me most was that of gray area in language. It’s developing everywhere. Meaning gets lost in the Bermuda Triangle between the speaker and the interpreter. The definition of news is floating around somewhere between what we think we should read and what we actually want to read. If I have to use third person for self-reference, than who am “I”—really—and why am “I” so unreliable? I know how poor, indefinite Alice felt.

In addition, apologies seem to have entered a huge gray area. This was the part I enjoyed most about Chapter 1. Rather than trying to find the right words to construct a true, heartfelt apology, it seems that a lot of what we hear is trying to seem apologetic, while really avoids actually apologizing (The “Sorry your cat got stepped on” apology).

Lakoff’s discussion of apologies was interesting because it revealed the psychology beneath the words we choose. Whether we’re trying to dodge it, semi-apologize, or un-apologize, how we say it says a lot about our thoughts on ourselves, our actions, beliefs, and mistakes.

If you ask me, an apology should be so good that the only response required would be, “You had me at ‘hello.’” Obviously, this is not very realistic. But there has to be guidelines out there for the somewhat-decent apology, because as Christina points out, most of what we hear generally sounds like a passive aggressive, “I’m sorry you feel that way” (with the emphasis on you, because clearly none of it was my fault).

Maybe the concept of the apology also possesses a “special mystique,” and people can’t relate anymore to what it is to truly feel sorry for causing harm to another. So they wheedle their apologies down until it’s nothing but gray area.

And, to close, let’s all enjoy the imagery Lakoff uses when she describes language as “just puffs of air.” :)

Surely, if nothing else is, that is worthy of a damn punctuational smiley face.

Goodbye Ramage, Hello Lakoff

Well I must admit that I enjoyed the first chapter of this book more than all of Ramage's chapters put together. I am thankful to be moving on, even though I just LOVED "Rhetoric: A Users Guide" (ITS SARCASM PEOPLE).

I was a little nervous to begin the first chapter after reading the introduction. I felt we were going to cover another book that does not deal with definites and definitions. But after starting the first chapter, I felt a little more at ease. I enjoyed this first chapter. I had to laugh when he described out culture as a 'culture of narcissism.' Who ever thought of the Undo Attention Test is one smart cookie, let me tell you! No, but it really does show the issues that we americans hate to let go of..and just taking a look at those issues says a lot! Then he moves on to use the term "serious people" and I had a horrible flashback.

He enjoyed the section on Language, and how it is not tanglible, it is merely air, but yet it has such a huge significant impact on our reality. Without it, we could not 'construct and analyze' reality at all. This air has the ability to not only construct and analyze reality, but to change it all together. J. L. Austin then takes us through the different types of language...the declarative and performative.

Lakoff describes to us the different kinds, and applications of the applogy. When he wrote that women are more prone to using appoligies, even when they are not needed reminded me of myself. I am always appologizing!! My mother actually yells at me for that! I should hook her up with Lakoff. If true appologies are always painful how many people actualllllly give true appologies...seeing the regression froma true apology to blaming the owner of a CAT was actually a clear example of how I see most apologies carried out. These demonstrate language politics in action.

In my opinion, there is a HUGE difference between a public apology and a private apology. A point so simple, as how public leaders may withhold an apology as to not appear as the aggressor in war is something that I have never noticed before. There are things that have been pointed out to me in this class (esp while watching the Persuaders) that i would rather not have had pointed out to me. Like the section on our first Bush. I do feel however that the section on the Un-Apology made a lot of sense. Should our leaders be percieved as imperfect and apologize, or portray the man that is the strenth of our nation? The Mrs. King section had me completely torn between admitting to making a mistake (our PRESIDENT) or keeping his image because he IS the president.

Overall I enjyoed this reading, partly becasue it had much easier concepts to understand, just by the way it is written. However, I do feel that some things are trivial, and there can be no ONE conclusion. This is one frustrating part of literature, I cant stand when authors focus on issues that will only start debate because there can be NO ONE SOLUTION. anyway thats about all I have to say! goodnight!

Robin Lakoff is SO a national treasure! Like whoa!

I hate making subjects lines.

I think it's kind of funny, and subtly clever, that those in the field of Linguistics said, "Nono. We're a social SCIENCE. Yes. Not in the Humanities department. Noooo. Science." Because- of all the areas of study one expects to be clever with words- here we see that Linguistics signs, seals, and delivers.
Or something.

Someone had this book before me and there's some highlighting in it. So I suppose I should mention that this person felt that semantics and pragmatics were very important, as well as pretty much anything that has to do with linguistics and culture. And that this person used an orange highlighter. Ooooh. Orange.

At first I was worried I wasn't going to like (tolerate?) this book. In the Introduction, Lakoff sort of dances around the word "Linguistics", telling every possible interpretation- just to know what it IS. Judging from Chapter One, and flipping ahead a bit, later chapters seem a bit more concrete. Dealing with aspects of Linguistics, rather than just the vague word. (This isn't the Mexican Hat Dance, buddy. If you step on it, you don't have to marry it.)

Chapter One Comments:
-Hillary Clinton is NOT Helen of Troy. No way, no how.
-Lakoff says that words have no physical reality, and yet the have such a great effect. In the same vein, thoughts have no physical reality- ideas have no physical reality- and yet their effects can be just as great as things that do have a physical reality.
-The section on apologies reminded me of how much I can't stand it when people say, "I'm sorry that you feel that way." And not actually apologize for whatever it is they did. Grr.

This book just might be interesting. (I try not to get my hopes up.)

Not Bad

There's some pretty interesting stuff in here. The introduction was a little dense, but I thought the first chapter or section or whatever you want to call it was definitely worth reading.

I've never thought so much about what an apology means. If, after all, someone steps on my foot in a dark movie theater, I'd certainly want an apology, but I don't want them to interrupt the movie by falling to their knees and crying out for forgiveness. The section on apologies for past tragedies (like apologizing for apartheid, slavery, ignoring the Nazis, and so on) was truly interesting. What I would like to know is, how much sorrow is actually involved in these public apologies? Sure, it's terrible that slavery and apartheid, and the Nazis took so many lives, but are the politicians and clergymen who speak out after the fact (sometimes hundreds of years after the fact) really expressing their deep sorrow? I think not.

I would have liked to seen the author consider the possibility that these "apologies" are just publicity stunts to make these higher-ups look good. Perhaps that sounds harsh, and maybe some of these public figures are truly apologizing, but I find it hard to believe that self-interest does not play a large part in these mass apologies. Maybe Lakoff just gives politicians more credit than I do.

Also, what we were talking about in class the other day (when we can use words and how they can lose their effectiveness) definitely played out in this section, especially when talking about the word "holocaust." When can this word be used? Should it be treated as a special word that is only applicable when we're talking about World War II ("Holocaust" with a capital "H"), or can it be used to describe any tragedy, man-made or natural? If the word is used more often, will it lose meaning, like "Nazi"?

I was surprised that Lakoff didn't mention one of the other definitions of the word, that of destruction or a sacrificial offering through fire. In the film, "The Philadelphia Story," Jimmy Stewart tells Katharine Hepburn that she's "lit from within. You've got fires banked down in you, hearth-fires and holocausts." Of course, that was in 1940, before Hitler's atrocities were fully revealed, but when I first heard that line, it definitely got me a little. It makes sense because the context in which he uses the word fits the definition of the word, we've given the word a completely different meaning.

I think that's all I have to say. Thank you and good night.

P.S. bobdole

NO MORE LINGUISTICS, PLEASE!!

I have to admit that I was a little bit annoyed to see the word "linguistics" so many times in the intro to this book. After having suffered through Intro to Linguistics last semester, I never really wanted to hear the word again in my life. However, I guess I must accept this as my fate as a sec ed english major. I was greatly releaved to find that Lakoff did not go into the text book definitions and wordy uncomprehendable babble that Dr. L. tried to make sense of in the class. Anyway, so far I like the book. Lakoff has some good and interesting points of view on politicians and linguists that she explains in a fairly easy to understand and readable way. I found the topic of political apologies to be really interesting. I am not a politics junky, so I do not spend a lot of time reading or watching political happenings, but the apology that's not really an apology does seem to be a very popular "tool" of politicians today. I like her point about it bringing the "big" people down to our leval, but it also makes them even bigger because the American public likes to see these apologies.
The beginning of chapter also comments on the power of language. Becuase we have seen this is various aspects throughout the course, this stands out to me. On page nineteen she comments that for so long America as a whole has taken the words of upper class white men to be the final say in anything. She goes on to question how language, which is really just hot air coming out of various mouths, has the power to create our "reality." It is just a really amazing concept to me. However, when we stop and think about it, it's true. Even without the political connection, we use language everyday to create and control our lives. What we say to people or what they say to us has the power to change our lives forever. Anyway, that's all I have for now....I need to rescue my daughter who is trying to climb through upside down chairs...Ahh two year olds!!

Noam Chomsky Is The Root Of All That Is Good In This World(and this book we are reading)

I have a feeling that everyone is going comment on how this book’s first chapter was written in a more conversational style and how it is more digestible than Ramage. I agree this book great. Then, maybe you’ll go into some detail on how language is used in modern politics, ancient civilizations, novels, dictionaries… but I have to stop and talk about Noam Chomsky who was mentioned in the Introduction. Transformational generative grammar… The man’s a genius!

I’m not even going to comment on the book. I have to tell you about Noam Chomsky. This man turns up in everything I study. He turns up in politics, linguistics, psychology, philosophy… He’s behind everything. You should try playing 12 Degrees of Noam Chomsky. This man has more degrees and academic achievement awards than there are white people in the Winter Olympics. Chomskyan models have been used as a theoretical basis in a lot of fields. The Chomsky hierarchy is often taught in fundamental computer science courses because of its insight into the different types of formal languages. This hierarchy can also be discussed in mathematical terms, and has generated interest among mathematicians. A number of arguments in evolutionary psychology are derived from his research results. I read somewhere that a Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine and Physiology used Chomsky's generative model to explain the human immune system. Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who learned 125 signs in American Sign Language, was named after Noam Chomsky. They named a friggen chimp after this guy. How many chimps are named after you?

Anyway, this guy is the source of all that is intelligent in our modern world. Maybe I’ll post about the actual book tomorrow if you don't cover everything already. Sorry I got off topic, but I can’t get away from this Noam Chomsky.

Song Uniforms

Spade's designs for Song Airlines uniforms. However, there is mention in the article that the female flight attendants, for reasons of practicality, wouldn't be wearing stiletto boots. That's a relief.

The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till

Tuesday at 2:00pm McFarland Student Union showed the documentary titled "The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till". With about 50 students, Black and white and every other race sat down in the Alumni Auditorium to watch this film. Many people went in not knowing anything about the Till story. Personally, I knew the story years ago, but this was a new documentary with comments from his mother, other family members and various people who were alive and involved during the era. The documentary was very informative and emotional. The director told the story through his Emmett Till's mother, who passed away shortly after the release of the film. Here's some background on who Emmett Till was and what's all the drama about. This info is from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/filmmore/index.html: "In August 1955, a fourteen-year-old black boy whistled at a white woman in a grocery store in Money, Mississippi. Emmett Till, a teen from Chicago, didn't understand that he had broken the unwritten laws of the Jim Crow South until three days later, when two white men dragged him from his bed in the dead of night, beat him brutally and then shot him in the head. Although his killers were arrested and charged with murder, they were both acquitted quickly by an all-white, all-male jury. Shortly afterwards, the defendants sold their story, including a detailed account of how they murdered Till, to a journalist. The murder and the trial horrified the nation and the world. Till's death was a spark that helped mobilize the civil rights movement. Three months after his body was pulled from the Tallahatchie River, the Montgomery bus boycott began." The film was so moving and emotional. Many students got up and decided to leave after the pictures of Emmett's body were shown. The strength in his mother's voice, after describing how badly her son's body was beaten was just amazing. She knew she had to be strong, and her son's death was not in vain. She talked about threats that were forwarded to her family and how she fought it all. When they showed the picture of Emmett lying in his casket...I couldn't help but shed tears. It was just horrible realizing how much one human can hate another. How could a fellow human do this to another especially a child. I felt empowered more than anything from this film. It helped me to realize how much our country has changed. As a whole because there are still people out there who would do this whether we want to believe it or not. Also the fact that this only happened 50 years ago! You never think about how short of a time period that our country was racists. The Civil rights Movement only ended about 40 some years ago! So it helped me to realize that there have been changes, there are laws to protect ALL Americans. But hearing the story of Emmett Till will help you realize why there was a need for change. It’ll help you see what some of the struggles for African American were, the way we were treated, and thought of. I believe that it doesn’t help ANYONE to hear that “Racism doesn’t exist anymore”, because it does, I experience it at this University, and anywhere I go. There will always be people who hate on the bases of race. So empower yourself by showing that you’re not what they think you are.

Ramage & SOUA

UGH! This chapter was extremely difficult to get through; so I stopped about 3/4 through and decided my brain was exhausted, my eyes were watering with strain, my mind kept drifitng to...name a topic and it probably hit it, I kept putting it down to get up and pee or get a drink or check my away message and none of it was really making much sense to me. After my frustration with Ramage I decided to read the State of the Union Address. Wow. Well, first of all I hate politics, I can't stand Bush and even when my mind is totally clear, the types of words, sentence structure, topic; I can't grasp it and my mind wanders once again. Especially in times when a lot of exciting things are going on in my life, as is happening right now, my attention cannot stay put on topics of politics, government, difficult sentences, big words, Ramage. Maybe I have A.D.D....actually I think that's quite possible. Anyways.
One quote from Ramage I did like though, and it also applies to nearly all of Bush's persuasion tactics. Here goes, "The function of the argument is to get us fixated on the cause and to ignore the possibility that there are multiple causes or many uncertain links between the putative cause and the putative effect." Well besids the confusion and failed act of looking up what putative means, I came to correlate a great deal of Bush's speech to this form. Bush produces a topic with such vehemence that the audience becomes completely embedded in his words, his idea. The audience becomes victims in his trap to manipulate minds, and they end up thinking that what Bush said is wonderful, the only way to go. Bush is uncertain about much of what he proposes (we all know it's true), yet the way he speaks, the tone he takes on, the words he uses, all convey sureness, allowing room for no other possibilities. This tactic apparently is working well for Bush, he knows it and implements it in every speech he gives.
Well, I have had enough on this topic, Ramage, these bits from past State of the Union Addresses. Apologies for not having a deep, meaningful post. Literally, there is not much else I can say on this assignment before I pull my hair out, so sorry.
!!

Words that were used

This originally was a neat graphic from the New York Times but in the archives it has been reduced. Kind of interesting to see what words Mr. Bush used and how frequently though.

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS
2003 JAN. 28
Compassion(ate): 4
Energy: 8
Health care: 6
Medicare: 5
Oil: --
Research: 2
Retirement(s): 1
Social Security: 2

2006 JAN. 31
Compassion(ate): 5
Energy: 8
Health care: 2
Medicare: 2
Oil: 3
Research: 7
Retirement(s): 3
Social Security: 3

TERRORISM AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
2003 JAN. 28
Afghanistan: 3
Al Qaeda: 8
Osama bin Laden: --
Democracy(ies): 1
Freedom: 5
Saddam (Hussein): 19
Iraq/Iraqi(s): 22
Sept. 11: 3
Terror/terrorist(s): 19
Weapons of mass destruction: 4

2006 JAN. 31
Afghanistan: 2
Al Qaeda: 3
Osama bin Laden: 2
Democracy(ies): 7
Freedom: 17
Saddam (Hussein): --
Iraq/Iraqi(s): 16
Sept. 11: 2
Terror/terrorist(s): 17
Weapons of mass destruction: 1

The wandering SOUA tribe

The opening remarks of the 2003 SOUA (the acronym reminds me of some long lost Indian tribe) are happy-go-lucky-cookie-cutter-look-what-we-did-pat-America-on-the-back statements.

(APPLAUSE)

That might be a good blog posting, I call it a good start.
Jobs, taxes, economy, health care, budget, energy independence, citizen service act, ect. are all serving as short buffers of the good will within the union before we get to the heavily analyzed Ramage passages dealing with WAR.

I must say my favorite part of the speech is the stirring:
"the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America."

Anytime, anything or anyone is bad they are instantly related to the ultimate icon of evil Mr. Hitler. The invoking of Hitler is really a ploy and throws me aback because it just doesn't fit. I wonder if Luntz choose the word because it strikes home with me, but not for the whole axis of evil analogy, but overused language that is loosing its meaning and power every time the word Nazi comes up. For a mass audience the catch-phrase of Hitler is like a Pavlov’s bell for a call to action against the evil of evils. As Ramage puts it "Hitlerism and communism were quite literally world threats while Iraq lacked the means to threaten any but the weakest of its immediate neighbors--he is guilty of exaggerating the case for war".

...

I scrolled to a random location in that long winded SOUA, then read a few paragraphs, and was confused. Does the President actually say anything? Granted, he does share his views on many things like abortion and cloning, but it reads like a motivational speaker. the whole time i was reading, i kept getting that same "the change is inside you" feel, and I was very uninterested. It seems like bush is using language that would motivate his audience. I hate motivational speakers, and now I am adamantly apathetic towards politics-maybe bush would further define his "identity" by living in a van down by the river.

Ramage vs. Bush

One of the first techniques or approaches Ramage speaks on is "stasis". This stasis is meant to bring light to a subject that has obvious divided opinions. The speakers job is to ask questions and unite that divide. One very common subject and concern for American's is the issue of taxes. In Bush's Sate of the Union speech, he addresses this issue. He says he will lower taxes, but he also puts the responsibility on the public. Saying that the economy must grow, and it can only grow by smaller businesses being created to provide more jobs.

The tool Toulmin's Schema is also evident in Bush's speech. This is evident when he speaks on the war on terrorism. It is obvious that the American people are not divided about being attacked by terrorists. No one wants that, where the divide lies is how it is handled. Bush does not attempt to persuade, but rather explains how his own tactics are working and helping.

I hate making titles

Yikes! Just for the record..I drank too much coffee just now. Uh-oh, you know what that means...I'm just spiralling downward on the path that leads to a life-long dependence on drugs. That was probably my favorite point of Ramage's chapter 4. On page 116 he digs into the concept of forbidding children from consuming caffeinated beverages because it could lead to more serious substance-abuse. I suppose I agree with the idea... it's definitely a legitimate point to make... I mean, I feel kind of silly right now... all talkative and whatnot because I consumed a little too much caffeine. A child is likely to notice that feeling and then look for further satisfaction once caffeine doesn't do it anymore...blah dee blah blah.. but, realistically..every situation seen through the eyes of a consequentialist...where's the excitement in that? More importantly, where is the reality in that? It's true, anything is possible.. and when you weigh the odds of a situation...it soon appears that certain situations are more likely than others-to take place... but how is that really living? I don't know, I don't think that it's a good idea to play it so safe that you're fixing things that aren't even broken. This whole viewpoint sort of seems like a big mask for fear, in my opinion. You can stop anything from happening if you take the right precautions...but why go to all that trouble and risk the chance of chaos erupting-when you don't really have to..from reading through Bush's 2003 State of the Union address...I just don't know... for one example-

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. "

What? If you ask me... I'd say that maybe there's a possibility that he was just preparing for when all hell breaks loose. Maybe he's just taking the defensive approach to things, and he wants to be prepared for when he's attacked. I mean, there is never just one possible answer to any situation. That's the most obnoxious aspect of Bush's persuasion, in my opinion. There were several points of this speech where Bush seemed so certain that what he said was right, and there was no way around it.

I'm crashing. I don't know, from where I'm sitting...the whole thing looks like one big game. This whole country is one big Monopoly gameboard and we're all just meaningless objects (shoes, thimbles, irons?) trying to buy out the whole establishment.

I am going to end this right here.

Ramage Makes Me Weepy

When I opened to the first page of Chapter 4, I was actually in emotional pain. Feeling weepy at the prospect of facing another thirty-some pages—albeit our last thirty-some pages—of Ramage, I armed myself with my blue pen (always blue) and set about underlining.

I felt that most of Bush’s arguments in his 2003 SOUA, especially regarding the war in Iraq, employed the Toulmin model of argument, a sort of working backward to justify a conclusion. A certain spot in Chapter 4 points this out rather well. Since, in my Ramage-weakened state, I’m not feeling particularly up to paraphrasing (which I am never very good at, anyway), I shall use direct quotes.

First, on page 126:...Blah, blah, blah...three elements...grounds, claim, warrant...

Then, on page 127, Bush uses the Toulmin model effectively: “Showing that the president may have started out with a conclusion (‘Let’s invade Iraq’) and worked his way back to the grounds justifying that conclusion (‘Iraq has WMD and links to terrorist organizations’) does not by itself constitute a fatal indictment…it’s a path many of us regularly follow from our beliefs to our understandings.

But, regardless of how he comes upon his argument (thank you, Ramage), the real questions remain to be answered: “How thoroughly were his original assumptions tested, how carefully were opposing arguments attended to, and to what extent were supportive conclusions coerced in the process of gathering evidence?”

And, on an unrelated note, I was pleased to find Swift’s “Modest Proposal” as an example of a “classic ‘consequentialist’ argument." I remember reading it in tenth grade; my heart said, “But eating babies is wrong!” but my brain said, “It’s just so logical!”

Ramage and Bush. My two favorite people.

"There are two ways of thinking about good. One can think of it as the opposite of bad, or one can think of it as the opposite of evil." Ooooh, good quote.
It doesn't have much to do with the State of the Union address and stases and Toulmin, but I liked this quote (p. 113). It and the following paragraph reminded me of another, funny, quote I had heard somewhere. "My mother's obsession with the good scissors always scared me a bit. It implied that somewhere in the house there lurked: the evil scissors."

Looking at Bush's speech, I see that he had a lot of grand statements- claims- and few "qualifiers". Those that were there were grand statements in and of themselves. His warrents were well-phrased, though shaky. I can imagine how they'd be motivating to someone that either shared his ideals, liked Bush, or was present at the address and caught up in the moment. The logistics he used were those that only supported his point. By that, I mean that he never really addressed any opposing viewpoints.
I feel like Ramage already said a lot about the State of the Union address in the context of stases and Toulmin. A lot of what I would say would just be reiterating Ramage. And I really don't want to do that.

I'm really sorry that this post probably makes no sense. I'm so out of it. I saw an internet advertisement that said, "Make Money" and I thought it said "Make Mahoney" and I was confused. I also left my New York Times in a police car.
It's been that sort of day.

Ok...

Ok, so ive been pretty sick for the past 5 days...seems my body is a wuss and cant kick the flu's ass. Anyway Im going to do my best to write about the Persuader's having watched it like a week ago. I really did enjoy this movie. It was a lot better than other movies/documentaries we have to watch in other classes. It really held my attention, partly by how much it stunned me to see what really goes on behind the scenes. Acxiom...yea not a fan of this place being able to sell this information about me to anyone. It really disturbed me to know that even my vote for a PRESIDENT is being tampered with. I am not voting on their true beliefs (most of the time) because they have this information about me they are much more likely to use that to their advantage and say what I want to hear. I feel that the evolution of advertising is almost hurting itself! With all "the clutter" they need to keep coming up with bigger and better ways to get and hold on to people's attention. In my paper I brought up another question that id like to post on here...when Ramage talks about gravitas (such a strong belief in something that people are almost willing to die for it) i wonder how this applies to advertisers. Its a sell-at-any-cost kind of market. Do they really believe in their product that much? Or are they willing to sell it no matter if its good for the customer or not because its their job? Just a few things that were running through my mind while watching this film. Overall though i did enjoy it!

The Persuaders

I found the movie "The Persuaders" very interesting. It is amazing how far advertisers will go in order to sell a product. I found it interesting how they showed Times Square in NYC, as an example of a place so profound with advertising. However, for myself, when I got to Times Square I do not look at the advertisement as an advertisement but rather cool, huge lights and posters. This made me realize, that I myself am a consumer who has become immune to ads. I am exactly the kind of consumer they are trying to reach. We see so many ads everywhere that it is very difficult not to ignore them, or block the true message of the ad from our minds. I also found myself considering the fact that in reality these so called persuaders, are really coercers, atleast by Ramage's spectrum.

Draft Discussion

This ones for you Dr. M!

Jenny Chris Jenny

The Persuaders

I will only comment on the first part of the movie I saw (I had a touch of Food poisoning from or lovely food company).

Personally I understand what the people in the movie were talking about. Now just because I understand what they're saying, doesn't mean I agree or think that they are correct. The guy who was asking silly questions like "Do you feel lonely when you eat white bread", who just full of BULL**** in my opinion. The way he degrades humans to reptiles and his beliefs are just bogus. As he talks about tricking people into feeling certain ways about certain products, I looked around his home and saw how "luxurious" it was. Filled with things that made up his image or at least suited his image. I believe that advertising is a great thing, but I don't believe in selling people things based on primal emotions. I believe in ethics.... I’m sorry I guess I'll never own a château filled with things I can't pronounce and charge companies THOUSANDS to ask if you feel lonely when you eat white bread.

the PERSUADERS

There are so many different ways for me to branch off on this subject. I'm not sure how long I've been sitting here working on this response, but my mind honestly changes every five minutes about what I could say in response to th is chaos. (I've watched about 10 episodes of Home Movies, listened to about 5 or 6 cds...I'm blinded!) That's what this is! It's craziness. The bullsht is just embedded in every little crevice it can find to manifest itself into. It's a lot like a disease! You are always being sold on some idea. It's true. I'm doing it to you right now by saying that, I think? Yeah, of course it's everywhere; because we are it. The very last line in the movie was "We are all persuaders." To me, that was the most significant point in the whole movie. I mean...I came away from that movie with a lot of different impressions. Part of me was infuriated because, who wouldn't be? We have no real sense of privacy. There was a point in time where interaction was a rare experience that you'd share with someone you'd never met before who was "just passing through" or something of that matter. I don't know... During the medieval times people knew what was going on in their lives and their lives only, for the most part. Communicating with people you weren't around daily wasn't the easiest thing to do, and I don't know.. did anyone care?

But another part of me is just totally thinking "No way, what is going on???" I'm baffled! It's amazing. We are all honestly just... climbing around this big tangled up web of stuff. Everything is just "stuff" after awhile. One of the first things said in the movie was "Every effort to break through the clutter is just more clutter." How true it is. I don't know how else to really explain it but to compare the whole situation to the over abundance of music that is accessible to everyone on this planet. Sure, that's a great thing! I think it's a really great thing! But a lot of it really means nothing. I think a lot of music is extremely amazing and a really important resource to the way that we communicate as a human race... beats, words, rhythms... But like anything else, it ends up becoming tainted somehow. At one point in time...communicating by writing was a reliable thing to do. You could trust what you read; someone very intellectual wrote that piece of literature or news story or whatever... it meant something. Now we're not just publishing stories about things that matter, or even things that are interesting...we publish media about celebrities' lives, like we're ever going to meet those people? I'm not sure, I'm starting to rant here. THe point is. It's all a lot of phoney balogne.

We feed off of all this crazy stuff, regardless if you listen to "good" music or wear "cool" clothes... If you're in fashion/out of fashion...You're still guided by the world around you. You are a product of someone else's idea somehow... And you try to convince people of otherwise, but let's face it, we're all just acting like something... we are all tangled up in this thing together, and if you realize that-you're almost safe. It's like we're all being brainwashed...well I think I know that I'm being brainwashed. That sort of justifies the whole thing to me. Because I sure love cartoons. And they're just as blinding as ...say a Star magazine. But the content appeals to me....as long as I know that my soul is being sucked out of me, I think I'm good to go.

We all have a different way of selling ourselves. Whether we use language as a tool, or physical appeal, or whatever methods we can...we are all persuading each other to believe that what we experience with each other is still very real. Consumerism....

Just to throw it out there

Real quick side note; there is this book called "Feed", by M.T. Anderson. The book is probably one of my favorites! It is about this group of friends and it is based in the future. Instead of having computers they have computer chips placed in their brains at birth. In the book it has been around for 50-100 years and the kids can't even imagine what it was like before all this technology. The computer chips know everything that you think and everything that you want. You can instant message people straight from your brain to theirs, commercial ads are sent straight to your brain based exactly on the things that you think about, and you can buy things while just sitting there. There is this chapter where things go wrong and for a little while the "feed" gets shut down. THey don't even know what to do with themselves. The main character gets so pissed because the only thing to do is look at this stupid picture on the wall. My only question is this; how far away are we from this?
I am letting Mahoney borrow it and after he finishes it anyone who would like may borrow it also. Just let me know. Have a good Thursday off!!

CLICK HERE NOW AND WIN

Watching the persuaders in class led me to alot of mixed emotions. I feel like I always kind of knew that what I was buying, or what I was reading was being considered by companies to sell me more of the same. And when you think about it, your friends know what kind of music you listen to, and you consider their advice when they tell you about a new cd or if a band you like is touring around your area, and you appreciate it. I personally dont know how, but I got an email last month telling me that chemlab was touring in phili and that they had a new cd out, but im sure as shit glad they did, because the show was awesome and the cd kicks ass. Just like everyone else, sure im scared of the privacy issues that arise, but by my current standing, if someone out there wants to know that i have $2.87 in my checking account, I really don't care. As long as they keep telling me about cool shit like chemlab, i can tolerate it for now.
Also, even though i had my suspicions before, having them confirmed felt a little wierd, like it was always something i wanted to be wrong about. With all the crap like this going on in the world, as soon as i see mechanical dogs chasing some guy down the street on tv (farenhieght 451 anyone? sccrew you i liked that book!) then I'll wait before i start sleeping with a shotgun next to my bed while my maddening insane paranoia sets in. On the other hand I will be waiting, i know this is going to backfire hard in a few years, so live it up.

Mixed Feelings

I understand that we can't stop advertising and that it is difficult, if not impossible to give into some, but I still can't help but be aggravated by the whole thing. They don't care about whether or not we enjoy their product! All they care about is if we buy it or not. If we are supportive consumers. They will tell us anything as long as we buy their item, vote their way, or check their box. They manipulate us everyday, but we are their greatest advertisers. In your classrooms just look around the room. American Eagle? Abercrombie and Fitch? Nike? Does the person sitting next to you have a bottle of Aquafina!? Although aggravated at the situation I still continue to buy their products, vote their way, but I refuse to check any damn box. I agreed very much with one of the previous blogs; we do feel the need to belong. Very much so. We wear the clothes we wear to fit in, drive the cars we drive to look cool, and buy the things we buy for our own individual reasons. So I guess the advertisers can't be completely hated for sounding so ridiculous for "connecting to our emotions."
Did anyone else notice taht during the Spade meeting, while discussing advertising, there were aquafina bottles everywhere? I wonder if Aquafina paid for that! The only thing about the entire movie that I couldn't possibly even begin to accept was the Acxiom corporation. It sort of makes me a little sick to my stomach to know they know so much about me.
And just so everyone knows, I rarely have the priveledge of eating white bread. My family is a bunch of health nuts so there is usually some sort of grain or wheat in my bread. SO when I eat wheat grainy nut bread with my sandwich I usually feel pissed off.

The Persuaders

I’ll confess: I like advertising. I like commercials and I like magazine ads. I think ads are interesting and a wild reflection of our culture. I like that advertising is so manipulative because it says so much about who we are as people and as a society and about how and in which ways we let ourselves be manipulated.

That’s right. We let ourselves be manipulated. People have an innate desire to find home, to belong, and to fit. If we feel like we don’t belong or are lost we try to “find ourselves,” something Ramage talked about. Advertising gives us that home. Me? I’m a Volvo driver. I’m a Cheerios eater. My mom has used Tide since I can remember. Something connected between them. Is it because Tide is more than a detergent—it’s an “enabler, a liberator?” I’ll have to ask her.

I’m really enjoying The Persuaders so far because of the insight it’s giving us into how the world of advertising works. From brainstorming how best to reach customers to formulating a “plan of attack,” we can see how this type of persuasion plays out—sometimes subtly and sometimes completely obviously. It’s a little ridiculous, but really interesting.

And you know what? When I eat white bread, I feel happy.

The Persuaders

I think the most important point made in the video is that people can build up a resistance to advertising. The advertisers have to try harder and harder to get people's attention that it becomes so integrated into everyday life that people start to ignore the advertisements. However, like crack, if the companies pull out altogether they will suffer from withdraw symptoms. Side effects may include low profits, lack of consumer confidence, and in some severe cases, going bankrupt. Companies should not advertise if they are pregnant or nursing...

Also, I can't post without mentioning the white bread thing. This also ties in with Song and the super secret matrix code to selling products. I think advertisers are getting away from analyzing product trends, unemployment rates, legislation on trade and wages, or anything else that actually determines why people buy a product. Advertising is not an abstract art form. I don't even know what some of the commercials are advertising anymore because they are so abstract. I can't wait to see the second half of this video. It's so Song!

Bernays/Lippman

Propaganda: necessary intervention in the communicative chaos of modern life, a service to the public that helps them interpret and act in a confusing world. Bernay's presentation of propaganda being a positive resource for the public is quite convincing. I think he appears very friendly and harmless to his audience, and this makes him seem trustworthy. His knowledge on the subject of propaganda is certainly useful while he uses it as a resource for communicating, himself. He approached the audience with a very knowledgable view point and is encouraging to the benefits of raising your voice and overcoming difficult situations. The way he broke everything down was well-thought and clearly explained. He explained the benefits of "group adherence" in a way that would make the audience feel interested not intimidated. On the other hand, Lippman's approach was much more in-your-face. He targetted his audience in the first paragraph, reminding them how "in the dark" they really are. His approach was somewhat dreary and sort of forceful. His essay was more coercive than persuasive, and could have been intimidating to the audience.

Chapter 3-I kind of hate you

I had a hard time getting into chapter three because it seemed as though there was just too much information being thrown in at one time. Not like the first two chapters weren't that way, but at least they were presented in a bit more visually. I'll do the best I can here, though I am somewhat confused. In response to Ramage's comment on dominant belief systems ignoring alternative belief systems and the high price they pay for intolerance... ignoring alternative options in any situation creates headway for negative results. In every situation in life it's important to remain open-minded. Everyone has the right to share their ideas and provide evidence for why their "ways" work for them, but it's never a good idea to try and push yourself and your "ways" on others. There is no truth in that..which is pretty much what propaganda is about. You can't trust it. (for the most part?) No one is going to trust you if you're trying to convince them why they must comply to what you say. Honest communication is the only communication worth communicating! This is why coercion is sometimes a dangerous thing. Rhetoric and persuasion are much more open-ended, and create room for discussion. There is room for possibile rejection in the context of rhetoric and persuasion. Coercion doesn't allow that. I don't know. I hated this chapter. The way I see it... on the continuum of persuasive practices, coercion is evil. I feel like if coercion and persuasion were two different people... coercion would be sucking the energy out of my -self- and not caring about my interests... while persuasion would be trying to bargain with me to steal my money or something..I'd at least know that I had a chance to run away from that situation. sigh I don't know.. I really don't.

i am who i am and it's all your fault!

Hello blog! Sorry I'm late!

Ramage's lovely book on rhetoric has left me at the edge of my seat, biting my fingernails, just sweating at the thought of what words will be found on the following pages. Psh. I really wish that was true. Yet, with as tedious as this reading can be at times...I must remind myself..it could be much worse. At least it's written in english, and I don't need a translator to decode the words.

I rather enjoyed his ideas of identity, because I feel like he really broke it down in a way that was easy to understand and to apply to real life. It made sense, and I liked that. We can only control certain aspects of our lives, and it would be foolish to think that we are to account for everything that we are. Unless you've held yourself in captivity in a hut in the woods somewhere (or something of that nature), you can't really take credit for all of your viewpoints.. would you really want to? I think life would be a lot less interesting if we all just sat in our little corners of the world contemplating ways to present ourselves to the public. Where's the fun in that? The energy exchange between people is what makes life interesting... whoa, I'm beginning to falter off topic here. I don't even feel like I've said anything here. Maybe I'm just dense, but I've never really thought of that point before, and, well, Thank you Ramage! Hooray for identity classification. I don't know... I think it helps to be able to view your own identity as well as the identities of others in the context of -given -readymade -constructed. It takes the weight off of the situation. Like, chill out, we're all messed up because of each other! Or how about, we're all GREAT because of each other! The one point that really grabbed me in this section of the book was "Indeed my motivation to modify or accept various of my given traits is largely determined by my time and place." I think that sentence really says it all, he probably could have eliminated a few paragraphs having just said that.

welcome change

After three chapters of Ramage, this reading assignment was a welcome change! That said, i'd like to point out that although Bernay and Lippmann were pretty much discussing the same thing, I preferred Bernay's article. I think that he effectively used the hat example to describe persuasion and manipulation, in fact, all of his examples were appropriate. I felt like Bernay had a good understanding of what propaganda/persuasion is and did a great job explaining that to the readers. His article was a fairly easy read without the complications of so many examples.
Lippman's article criticize the public much more than Bernay's. He felt the public is, in paraphrasing, stupid and does not care about the things going on in the world. I felt he underestimated the audience a bit too much, although there are many people who would prefer not to vote because 'it doesn't matter anyway,' there are still many people who actively engage in the political scene.
Of the two, I felt Bernay's article was clearer and used the examples more effectively, however, they were both a major step up from the readings of Ramage.

welcome change

After three chapters of Ramage, this reading assignment was a welcome change! That said, i'd like to point out that although Bernay and Lippmann were pretty much discussing the same thing, I preferred Bernay's article. I think that he effectively used the hat example to describe persuasion and manipulation, in fact, all of his examples were appropriate. I felt like Bernay had a good understanding of what propaganda/persuasion is and did a great job explaining that to the readers. His article was a fairly easy read without the complications of so many examples.
Lippman's article criticize the public much more than Bernay's. He felt the public is, in paraphrasing, stupid and does not care about the things going on in the world. I felt he underestimated the audience a bit too much, although there are many people who would prefer not to vote because 'it doesn't matter anyway,' there are still many people who actively engage in the political scene.
Of the two, I felt Bernay's article was clearer and used the examples more effectively, however, they were both a major step up from the readings of Ramage.