Yeah, we're talking about Robin Lakoff...As Kim says, the OTHER Lakoff. No, not our pal George, even though George is a Curious one, now isn't he?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
This is not a real blog, it's a virtual blog...well, that maks it a blog, now doesn't it?
Yeah, we're talking about Robin Lakoff...As Kim says, the OTHER Lakoff. No, not our pal George, even though George is a Curious one, now isn't he?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The OTHER Lakoff
I thought the first 85 pages of "The Language War" put an interesting perspective on language. Lakoff made me think about why certain words or phrases hold the meaning or value that they do compared to other words or phrases.
On page 40, I thought Lakoff's dicussion of The Jewish Holocaust tied into Luntz and (the first) Lakoff's idea of "framing." Lakoff wrote, "There is an analogous dispute about the use of the word 'Holocaust.' Must it refer only to the Nais' killing of six million Jews? Or can it be applied to other cases of mass murder or mass mistreatment of one group by another? Can AFrican Americans appropriate the term to refer to slavery? Does any group have the right to appropriate a word for themselves or their own experience?"
In the human experience, certain generic words become specific terms to frame specific experiences. These words become "loade" and hold immense meaning for millions of people.
I also thought it was interesting when Lakoff tells the two stories: "The baby cried. The mother picked it up." and "The baby cried. The mother ate a salami sandwich." The first story seems so normal that it isn't worth telling, but the second set of statements is considered so culturally abnormal, that we immediately wonder what is wrong with the mother.
I read that set of statements to a few of my residents, and they said that exact thing: What is wrong with that mother?!
See everyone in class today!
-Kim
On page 40, I thought Lakoff's dicussion of The Jewish Holocaust tied into Luntz and (the first) Lakoff's idea of "framing." Lakoff wrote, "There is an analogous dispute about the use of the word 'Holocaust.' Must it refer only to the Nais' killing of six million Jews? Or can it be applied to other cases of mass murder or mass mistreatment of one group by another? Can AFrican Americans appropriate the term to refer to slavery? Does any group have the right to appropriate a word for themselves or their own experience?"
In the human experience, certain generic words become specific terms to frame specific experiences. These words become "loade" and hold immense meaning for millions of people.
I also thought it was interesting when Lakoff tells the two stories: "The baby cried. The mother picked it up." and "The baby cried. The mother ate a salami sandwich." The first story seems so normal that it isn't worth telling, but the second set of statements is considered so culturally abnormal, that we immediately wonder what is wrong with the mother.
I read that set of statements to a few of my residents, and they said that exact thing: What is wrong with that mother?!
See everyone in class today!
-Kim
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
bloggy blog blogg
Well it is pretty apparent that the majority of you who've read about Luntz do not seem to like him, but setting him aside, the actual work he has done in the field of semantics is applaudable. Reading this article has sparked my interest in this whole "psycho-collection" of words into a certain puzzle of meaning, and his work with Word Labs is pretty cool if I say so. So I do... haha. I really enjoyed the article actually, it made a lot of sense showing how people draw from words these mental pictures, and how the way words are presented, even the order in which they are presented can affect an audiences view on something said. Personally I didn't take Luntz's demeanor in a horrible way, it takes a brilliant mind to unearth some of the things that he's discovered within the human brain; him being pompous or not.
Lakoff's article was also a breath of fresh air. How good it was to finally see how negative connotations bestowed upon people who escaped a country that has given nothing for them but misery and grief. I liked how he addressed the problem, yet also showed how without immigants in this company the low-cost products would not be available. I know a handful of people who fought their way into this country as "illegal immigrants," and truthfully they are hardworking, and well spoken people. They work harder than half of the "real" citizens whom I know whose Mommys and Daddys give them their money on a silver platter. Enough of my bitterness though, I thought both articles were well written, and thoughtfully pieced together as well.
Writing this, I will not be in class today. I have a nasty case of pink-eye and I will e-mail you (Dr. Mahoney) my paper later today. Have a nice evening everyone!
Lakoff's article was also a breath of fresh air. How good it was to finally see how negative connotations bestowed upon people who escaped a country that has given nothing for them but misery and grief. I liked how he addressed the problem, yet also showed how without immigants in this company the low-cost products would not be available. I know a handful of people who fought their way into this country as "illegal immigrants," and truthfully they are hardworking, and well spoken people. They work harder than half of the "real" citizens whom I know whose Mommys and Daddys give them their money on a silver platter. Enough of my bitterness though, I thought both articles were well written, and thoughtfully pieced together as well.
Writing this, I will not be in class today. I have a nasty case of pink-eye and I will e-mail you (Dr. Mahoney) my paper later today. Have a nice evening everyone!
Monday, October 09, 2006
Luntz makes me twitch....and not the good kind either
To start off, the first article that I read was the one by Lakoff, The Framing of Immigration. I really enjoyed this because he puts reasoning behind why the problem exhists and that the people are like anyone else in this country. Lakoff puts this whole situation in a way that would hit the emotional spot of the reader.
As for Luntz, after the first few sentences I had my hands in fists and struggled to keep reading. When I got to the heading, English as THE first language, I knew I was going to laugh at the stupidity of what he had to say. Maybe this is because I'm in the Education field, but I'm going to assume that he's talking about paying extra for ESL classes in public schools because of the increase of non-english speakers.
The part where this guy lost his credibility was when I saw the quote,
“If immigrants are truly coming here to get a piece of the American Dream, they need to learn and speak the American language.” Obviously he needs to be kicked out for his ignorance to our LANGUAGE. We don't speak american, we speak ENGLISH. Well...enough on that, my brain is bleeding enough from the rest of his article.
And just when I thought I was done with him...what a great surprise it was to have to read even MORE about Luntz. Relating this to the video we watched, the author of THE WORD LAB showed the reader how politics is much like advertising. Politicians need to attract more voters just like advertisers need more buyers. I could've done without Luntz in this article because he seemed to resemble, job wise, of that french guy (*mind blank of his name*) that everyone paid to talk to about how to get more buyers. Luntz talks to the people and then reports back to politicians to help them win votes.
So maybe this last article showed a better side of Luntz. That still doesn't change the fact that he's a black and white guy and Lakoff is able to see the gray inbetween.
As for Luntz, after the first few sentences I had my hands in fists and struggled to keep reading. When I got to the heading, English as THE first language, I knew I was going to laugh at the stupidity of what he had to say. Maybe this is because I'm in the Education field, but I'm going to assume that he's talking about paying extra for ESL classes in public schools because of the increase of non-english speakers.
The part where this guy lost his credibility was when I saw the quote,
“If immigrants are truly coming here to get a piece of the American Dream, they need to learn and speak the American language.” Obviously he needs to be kicked out for his ignorance to our LANGUAGE. We don't speak american, we speak ENGLISH. Well...enough on that, my brain is bleeding enough from the rest of his article.
And just when I thought I was done with him...what a great surprise it was to have to read even MORE about Luntz. Relating this to the video we watched, the author of THE WORD LAB showed the reader how politics is much like advertising. Politicians need to attract more voters just like advertisers need more buyers. I could've done without Luntz in this article because he seemed to resemble, job wise, of that french guy (*mind blank of his name*) that everyone paid to talk to about how to get more buyers. Luntz talks to the people and then reports back to politicians to help them win votes.
So maybe this last article showed a better side of Luntz. That still doesn't change the fact that he's a black and white guy and Lakoff is able to see the gray inbetween.
Framework; oh, and look, it's a lab--full of words!
Lakoff's article, The Framing of Immigration, shed alot of information on the problems of terms like "reform", "illegal alien" and "undocumented workers." He said that these terms have many problems with them, and because of this fact, they should basically be abolished from our political language. But what would be have without them? What should "illegal immigrant" be changed to? He not only understands the problems of this language, but he also understands this very question. It's a no win situation.
I believe his points against the problems of these terms are valid. "Illegal Immigrant" does send the notion of criminality. The vast majority of these people aren't criminals. They are just workers who are trying to raise their families, get their children education and who do the jobs that no one else is willing to do in our country. They aren't murderers, or rapists.
"'Undocumented workers' come to America for a short time, work for low wages, do not vote, have few rights and services, and then go home so that a new wave of workers without rights, or the possibility of citizienship and voting, can come in."
Where is the democracy in that? Why aren't they given the same types of rights that we have as workers? This kind of attitude feeds the wrong kind of idea.
I'm going to switch topics to another article, Word Lab, which was like no other article that we have read so far in this class. It was informative, but at the same time, it was an interesting character study on Luntz. The author humanized Luntz by detailing his sleep habits, his unrelenting desire for more information and knowledge, and his likable type of personality. So basically, I'm saying it was an easy read.
I don't think Luntz is a bad guy. Yeah, he may be pompous, but he's just doing his job--a job he's brilliant at. His ability to find important cognitive feelings out of regular joe-schmoe type people is invaluable to the political environment that he is working around. He absorbs all the positive language and trys to rid away all the negative language that could potentially end up hurting his client. He sways the "swing" voters by studying their wants and feelings and by showing compassion. I think it's incredible what he does. While it does hinder the public discourse with language such as "death tax" "department of defense" and "climate change", it does make the population choose, rather directly, what they want. Do you want death tax, or don't you? Whereas they might be undecided on estate tax, death tax will elicit the better response.
I believe his points against the problems of these terms are valid. "Illegal Immigrant" does send the notion of criminality. The vast majority of these people aren't criminals. They are just workers who are trying to raise their families, get their children education and who do the jobs that no one else is willing to do in our country. They aren't murderers, or rapists.
"'Undocumented workers' come to America for a short time, work for low wages, do not vote, have few rights and services, and then go home so that a new wave of workers without rights, or the possibility of citizienship and voting, can come in."
Where is the democracy in that? Why aren't they given the same types of rights that we have as workers? This kind of attitude feeds the wrong kind of idea.
I'm going to switch topics to another article, Word Lab, which was like no other article that we have read so far in this class. It was informative, but at the same time, it was an interesting character study on Luntz. The author humanized Luntz by detailing his sleep habits, his unrelenting desire for more information and knowledge, and his likable type of personality. So basically, I'm saying it was an easy read.
I don't think Luntz is a bad guy. Yeah, he may be pompous, but he's just doing his job--a job he's brilliant at. His ability to find important cognitive feelings out of regular joe-schmoe type people is invaluable to the political environment that he is working around. He absorbs all the positive language and trys to rid away all the negative language that could potentially end up hurting his client. He sways the "swing" voters by studying their wants and feelings and by showing compassion. I think it's incredible what he does. While it does hinder the public discourse with language such as "death tax" "department of defense" and "climate change", it does make the population choose, rather directly, what they want. Do you want death tax, or don't you? Whereas they might be undecided on estate tax, death tax will elicit the better response.
Watch Your Damn Mouth!
First of all, I have to admit that I was genuinely interested in what I read... which kind of scares me because I usually hate everything that has anything to do with politics. But anyway, from what I understand after reading the three articles, apparently, nobody can say anything without pissing somebody else off.
Luntz's article makes him out to be a pompous ass. It seemed completely irrelevant for any ordinary "American citizen" to read. Instead, it was basically a guide for Politician X to use so that he doesn't get beat up when discussing the "Illegal Immigration 'Issue.'" A great portion of it was about using the "Words that Work" so someone can better sway their audience and not offend them. It lacked COMPASSION for illegal immigrants, which is in direct contradiction to what he writes. He even says on the first page, "Compassion: This is the component lacking in much of the Republican messaging on illegal immigration thus far." It's kind of ironic that he puts an emphasis on this, yet fails to follow his own rule when talking about immigration himself. Reading his "Guide to Immigration PREVENTION" makes me not want to believe or listen to anything he says. I think he failed with this one.
Lakoff's article was basically the complete opposite of Luntz's. He discusses how the "immigration issue" is not an issue, but a "complex melange of social, economic, cultural and security concerns." He also (intelligently) explains that pretty much doing anything that Luntz says is the "correct" thing to do will not solve the problem, but only lessen the debate of it. Lakoff showed a lot of compassion for illegal immigrants, and put a large emphasis on the fact that they are still people who are working toward the American Dream, just like we are.
One thing that Lakoff mentions in a much of the article is that there is pretty much no "right way" to address illegal immigrants. He says that calling them almost anything is unethical or wrong. The truth is, I don't think there is a nicer thing to call them than "illegal immigrants." Yes, they are here illegally as of right now. Also, they are immigrants from another country. While this term is better than saying "Temporary or Guest Worker," I think this is the best we can come up with.
And that kind of brings me to the Lemann article. This article had more to do with "The Persuaders" DVD we watched last week than with the other two articles assigned for today. Lemann spent a great deal of time WITH Luntz (who I now think is an idiot) learning about Luntz's strategies when having focus groups. Pretty much, Luntz just takes what people say and tells politicians that they should say the same thing to better connect with the voters. Luntz spends a great deal of time coming up with new words or phrases to use to help sway the audience and to make them agree with politicians more.
Honestly, I think Luntz is full of it. One man who helps prove that is Robert K. Merton, the man who invented focus groups. He says how Luntz's techniques don't prove that his strategy is effective. Merton explains that the purpose of a focus group was to basically do the opposite of what Luntz does. Instead of an audience giving effective words for a politician to use in a speech, the politicians speech should be given to an audience to see how effective his words are. Lemann puts the whole "Word Lab" process down by saying that it "leads to politicians' being shaped by, rather than shaping, public opinion."
The whole point of hearing a speech is not to listen to what we already think, but to listen to ways to solve current issues we have and help better society effectively.
Luntz's article makes him out to be a pompous ass. It seemed completely irrelevant for any ordinary "American citizen" to read. Instead, it was basically a guide for Politician X to use so that he doesn't get beat up when discussing the "Illegal Immigration 'Issue.'" A great portion of it was about using the "Words that Work" so someone can better sway their audience and not offend them. It lacked COMPASSION for illegal immigrants, which is in direct contradiction to what he writes. He even says on the first page, "Compassion: This is the component lacking in much of the Republican messaging on illegal immigration thus far." It's kind of ironic that he puts an emphasis on this, yet fails to follow his own rule when talking about immigration himself. Reading his "Guide to Immigration PREVENTION" makes me not want to believe or listen to anything he says. I think he failed with this one.
Lakoff's article was basically the complete opposite of Luntz's. He discusses how the "immigration issue" is not an issue, but a "complex melange of social, economic, cultural and security concerns." He also (intelligently) explains that pretty much doing anything that Luntz says is the "correct" thing to do will not solve the problem, but only lessen the debate of it. Lakoff showed a lot of compassion for illegal immigrants, and put a large emphasis on the fact that they are still people who are working toward the American Dream, just like we are.
One thing that Lakoff mentions in a much of the article is that there is pretty much no "right way" to address illegal immigrants. He says that calling them almost anything is unethical or wrong. The truth is, I don't think there is a nicer thing to call them than "illegal immigrants." Yes, they are here illegally as of right now. Also, they are immigrants from another country. While this term is better than saying "Temporary or Guest Worker," I think this is the best we can come up with.
And that kind of brings me to the Lemann article. This article had more to do with "The Persuaders" DVD we watched last week than with the other two articles assigned for today. Lemann spent a great deal of time WITH Luntz (who I now think is an idiot) learning about Luntz's strategies when having focus groups. Pretty much, Luntz just takes what people say and tells politicians that they should say the same thing to better connect with the voters. Luntz spends a great deal of time coming up with new words or phrases to use to help sway the audience and to make them agree with politicians more.
Honestly, I think Luntz is full of it. One man who helps prove that is Robert K. Merton, the man who invented focus groups. He says how Luntz's techniques don't prove that his strategy is effective. Merton explains that the purpose of a focus group was to basically do the opposite of what Luntz does. Instead of an audience giving effective words for a politician to use in a speech, the politicians speech should be given to an audience to see how effective his words are. Lemann puts the whole "Word Lab" process down by saying that it "leads to politicians' being shaped by, rather than shaping, public opinion."
The whole point of hearing a speech is not to listen to what we already think, but to listen to ways to solve current issues we have and help better society effectively.
last week
I wanted to apologize for not posting for last week.. As most of you know i've been sick and i still am currently sick. I am catching up on all my work and i will be witthin this week posting on these two articles ..
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Don't waste your time reading this
I am posting this entry as a confession, an escape from Ramage Land (I don’t want to go back), and an apology. I have not finished reading the two assigned e-reserve articles. That feels better. I plan on getting through them after class, and I will hopefully have an insightful response for the blog soon.
Professor Mahoney, if you would like me to delete this entry because it is a waste of space (though I could not even think of that much to bs about—I am drained from the paper) just let me know either in class or on the useful comment section of the blog.
Professor Mahoney, if you would like me to delete this entry because it is a waste of space (though I could not even think of that much to bs about—I am drained from the paper) just let me know either in class or on the useful comment section of the blog.
Manipulating the Public Opinion
I'm going to follow the train of apologies recently and ask for the same type of forgiveness from all of you. I originally planned to blog before the last class, but time did not prove to be on my side and ulitmately got the best of me--and then procrastination got the better of me before I finally posted this. I'm sorry. Here are my thoughts to the articles that we were supposed to read for last class--The Disenchantment Man and Manipulation the Public Opinion. We didn't discuss them in too much detail, though, so these thoughts should still prove to be relevant.
Anyway, getting to the two articles. I don't think I can thoroughly explain what I read, but I did, however, highlight some material that I think can add to the debate.
In the Disenchanted Man I hightlighted text that hits hard. "To the realm of executive acts, each of us, as a member of the public, reamains always external. Our public opinions are always and forever, by their very nature, an attempt to control the actions of others from the outside. If we can grasp the full significance of that conclusion we shall, I think, have found a way of fixing the role of public opinion in its true perspective; we shall know how to account for the disenchantment of democracy, and we shall begin to see the outline of an ideal of public opinion which, unlike that accepted in the dogma of democracy, may be really attainable." (pg. 41)
If our we can grasp our public opinions, thereby controlling the actions of others, then we can attain a purity that had not been shown in some time--I'm not sure how long that time goes back to, but I'm assuming that it's a very, very, very, very, long time.
In Bernays Manipulating the Public Opinion, there were also a few things that I believed to be important in the discussion.
"One method of changing people's ideas has been often used, and that is to substitute new ideas for old by changing cliches." (pg. 57)
By switching old representations, like the evacuation hospital example, to lesser expected responsibility type representations, evacuation post, then the public opinion can be switched to believe a mask of what once was. Euphamistic language is usually looked upon negatively, so this concept of ridding new cliches for old ones, is just another hinderance on the public opinion. We've been fooled before, so this isn't any different. What can we do to stop this? How about saying what we really mean?
"Occasionally, the manipulation of the public mind entails the removal of prejudice. Prejudices are often the application of old taboos to new conditions. They are illogical, emotional, and hampering to progress." (pg. 57)
Prejudice can hinder a person's opinion even if not justified. It carrys with a population, and can ultimately bury the subject if not properly cared for--sometimes it can't even stop that. (see margarine example.)
Anyway, getting to the two articles. I don't think I can thoroughly explain what I read, but I did, however, highlight some material that I think can add to the debate.
In the Disenchanted Man I hightlighted text that hits hard. "To the realm of executive acts, each of us, as a member of the public, reamains always external. Our public opinions are always and forever, by their very nature, an attempt to control the actions of others from the outside. If we can grasp the full significance of that conclusion we shall, I think, have found a way of fixing the role of public opinion in its true perspective; we shall know how to account for the disenchantment of democracy, and we shall begin to see the outline of an ideal of public opinion which, unlike that accepted in the dogma of democracy, may be really attainable." (pg. 41)
If our we can grasp our public opinions, thereby controlling the actions of others, then we can attain a purity that had not been shown in some time--I'm not sure how long that time goes back to, but I'm assuming that it's a very, very, very, very, long time.
In Bernays Manipulating the Public Opinion, there were also a few things that I believed to be important in the discussion.
"One method of changing people's ideas has been often used, and that is to substitute new ideas for old by changing cliches." (pg. 57)
By switching old representations, like the evacuation hospital example, to lesser expected responsibility type representations, evacuation post, then the public opinion can be switched to believe a mask of what once was. Euphamistic language is usually looked upon negatively, so this concept of ridding new cliches for old ones, is just another hinderance on the public opinion. We've been fooled before, so this isn't any different. What can we do to stop this? How about saying what we really mean?
"Occasionally, the manipulation of the public mind entails the removal of prejudice. Prejudices are often the application of old taboos to new conditions. They are illogical, emotional, and hampering to progress." (pg. 57)
Prejudice can hinder a person's opinion even if not justified. It carrys with a population, and can ultimately bury the subject if not properly cared for--sometimes it can't even stop that. (see margarine example.)
Lippmann vs Bernays
Hello Everyone,
I'd like to apologize ahead of time. I feel like I didn't really give these readings my full attention because I was still working on my paper.
The Lippmann reading: Lippmann uses sarcasm/cynicism to push his point across to the reader about the state of affairs (that most people don't vote, and make up crappy excuses for why not, if they even try at all, etc). I enjoyed this reading for the style of it, but I'd have to say that his was the more coersive of the two: Lippmann didn't provide much information, then let you choose. It was more like Ramage's definition of propaganda, where he played off of our upset at the status quo, to steer us to his conclusion.
I felt like Bernays' reading was much more laid-back, having a discussion with me, rather than telling me how things were.
This is all I have for now. I am very mentally drained from writing this Ramage paper.
-Kim
I'd like to apologize ahead of time. I feel like I didn't really give these readings my full attention because I was still working on my paper.
The Lippmann reading: Lippmann uses sarcasm/cynicism to push his point across to the reader about the state of affairs (that most people don't vote, and make up crappy excuses for why not, if they even try at all, etc). I enjoyed this reading for the style of it, but I'd have to say that his was the more coersive of the two: Lippmann didn't provide much information, then let you choose. It was more like Ramage's definition of propaganda, where he played off of our upset at the status quo, to steer us to his conclusion.
I felt like Bernays' reading was much more laid-back, having a discussion with me, rather than telling me how things were.
This is all I have for now. I am very mentally drained from writing this Ramage paper.
-Kim
Thoughts on Bernays & Lippmann
My impressions from the two articles are as such: Bernays saw propaganda as a means for business growth not a way to impose his will and cause others to suffer. Rhetoric was a powerful tool in the hands of Bernays and in his mind of great benefit to all. Bernays probably thought of the public as a means to convey whatever intended message he desired. Bernays was fully aware of his manipulation strategies but saw them as secondary to the goal of getting a point across. Lippmann is wary of the information distributed to the public and he feels it is tailored to the sources desire. Lippmann probably found rhetoric to be useful but disturbing if used in a destructive manner. The "public" can actually be shaped to the liking of the propagandist based on their influence and authority. The public is probably unaware of this occurence but slowly over time as history has told us unspeakable acts have been the result of a slow burning propaganda filled plan.
Lippmann's characterization of the public is depressingly accurate. Or so it strikes me, at any rate. And it is made even more depressing by the fact that it is over 75 years old, and yet I can see no change. Lippmann does not blame the public for their apathy, and I don't feel that anyone truly could, or should, rather. After all, he lays out the problem quite clearly. "In the cold light of experiance he knows that his sovreignty is a fiction." The average man really has no control over government. "The general opinions of large numbers of persons are almost certain to be a vague and confusing melody." It is difficult for individual voices to come to a democratic decision, because the blend will only be disorienting. Therefore it is unavoidable that some, or many, perspectives will simply be left out. Lippmann also discusses the abundence of research, statistics; the general information overload that is available, and that it seems one must intake to even have an opinion on an issue. It is overwhelming, and only becomes moreso as information flies more easily to and fro. Although Lippmann does mention the value of debate, as a means of clarifying the public opinion from private opinions, so that action can be taken. Overall, it seems that the rhetorical situation, for Lippmann, is one that few actually may take part in, and is mainly an issue of drawing attention to, and agreement upon, an idea, in the midst of a sea of apathy.
Perhaps it is because Bernays seems to focus on issues that are not only political, but it seems that his view of the rhetocial situation is one that is more open to different players.The last series of statements in his essay is, "Public opinion can be moved, directed, and formed by such a technique. But at the core of this great heterogeneous body of public opinion is a tenacious will to live, to progress, to move in the direction of ultimate social and individual benefit. He who seeks to manipulate public opinion must always heed it." Simply the way he writes of it makes public opinion seem relatively bendable, particularly in contrast to Lippmann's perspective. It is also interesting that he characterizes the public opinion as being one that is generally interested in social benefit, that is, the benefit of everyone, as well as the invidivual benefit. This is not the distanced and disenchanted public opinion of Lippmann's essay. I think there is a truth to that, and I think in general people do want what is best for society as a whole. But I think the ease of slipping into apathy has a strong dose of truth to it as well.
And to go along with Dr. Mahoney's suggestion: If my rhetoric travels had a soundtrack, it would be Harrowdown Hill by Thom Yorke. But the competition was fierce, I assure you.
Perhaps it is because Bernays seems to focus on issues that are not only political, but it seems that his view of the rhetocial situation is one that is more open to different players.The last series of statements in his essay is, "Public opinion can be moved, directed, and formed by such a technique. But at the core of this great heterogeneous body of public opinion is a tenacious will to live, to progress, to move in the direction of ultimate social and individual benefit. He who seeks to manipulate public opinion must always heed it." Simply the way he writes of it makes public opinion seem relatively bendable, particularly in contrast to Lippmann's perspective. It is also interesting that he characterizes the public opinion as being one that is generally interested in social benefit, that is, the benefit of everyone, as well as the invidivual benefit. This is not the distanced and disenchanted public opinion of Lippmann's essay. I think there is a truth to that, and I think in general people do want what is best for society as a whole. But I think the ease of slipping into apathy has a strong dose of truth to it as well.
And to go along with Dr. Mahoney's suggestion: If my rhetoric travels had a soundtrack, it would be Harrowdown Hill by Thom Yorke. But the competition was fierce, I assure you.
Blah
So, I read the Lippmann and Bernays readings. When reading "The Disenchanted Man," I had no idea where Lippmann was going with the whole voting example. It didn't appear to have anything to do with rhetoric or what Ramage has ever said. Then again, I don't follow anything that has to do with politics or the like... I know, I'm horrible.
At one point though, Lippmann said something that completely agreed with Ramage's idea of "persuading the audience." On page 40, Lippmann writes, "Since the general opinions of large numbers of persons are almost certain to be a vague and confusing medley, action cannot be taken until these opinions have been factored down, canalized, compressed and made uniform. The making of one general will out of a multitude of general wishes is not an Hegelian mystery, as so many social philosophers have imagined, but an art well known to leaders, politicians, and steering committees."
I think that statement alone agrees with most of what Ramage was talking about in Chapter 3 with persuasion and propaganda. It also ties in to what Lippmann was saying about voting--politicians constantly try to figure out ways of getting more people to vote for them, or to just vote in general. What better way to do that than to use the power of persuasion? I know I constantly persuade people and argue to get MY way.
Bernays' "Manipulating Public Opinion" also agrees with Ramage's idea of using propaganda as rhetoric to persuade an audience. Bernays' opening paragraph is very Ramage-esque: "Public opinion is subject to a variety of influences that develop and alter its views on nearly every phase of life today. Religion, science, art, commerce, industry are in a state of motion. The inertia of society and institutions is constantly combated by the activity of individuals with strong convictions and desires."
So, yay, everyone is like Ramage and thinks the way he does. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but all I know is I cannot wait to move AWAY from "Ramageland" completely. I have a headache.
At one point though, Lippmann said something that completely agreed with Ramage's idea of "persuading the audience." On page 40, Lippmann writes, "Since the general opinions of large numbers of persons are almost certain to be a vague and confusing medley, action cannot be taken until these opinions have been factored down, canalized, compressed and made uniform. The making of one general will out of a multitude of general wishes is not an Hegelian mystery, as so many social philosophers have imagined, but an art well known to leaders, politicians, and steering committees."
I think that statement alone agrees with most of what Ramage was talking about in Chapter 3 with persuasion and propaganda. It also ties in to what Lippmann was saying about voting--politicians constantly try to figure out ways of getting more people to vote for them, or to just vote in general. What better way to do that than to use the power of persuasion? I know I constantly persuade people and argue to get MY way.
Bernays' "Manipulating Public Opinion" also agrees with Ramage's idea of using propaganda as rhetoric to persuade an audience. Bernays' opening paragraph is very Ramage-esque: "Public opinion is subject to a variety of influences that develop and alter its views on nearly every phase of life today. Religion, science, art, commerce, industry are in a state of motion. The inertia of society and institutions is constantly combated by the activity of individuals with strong convictions and desires."
So, yay, everyone is like Ramage and thinks the way he does. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but all I know is I cannot wait to move AWAY from "Ramageland" completely. I have a headache.
Lippmann and Bernays -- Completely Different
These two essays differ greatly in many areas. The most obvious is style. I had a bit if a rough time reading Lippmann's piece. The language he used seems somewhat aloof and very cynical. I think he's trying to raise awareness amongst his audience that members of society are becoming more and more insignificant in the realm of The Great Society. Awareness may not be the correct word. The language he is using is more coercive and what he's trying to do is move people in large numbers to act on their opinions of how society is faring. He paints a bleak picture of how "self-interested" groups do what is necessary to gain control of certain parts of society, most often political. He says there really is only one recourse we, as the others in society, have against the self-interested group - DEBATE. BUT ... the only way debate will succeed in being fair is if all parties involved are fully informed about the debated issue.
I believe Lippmann meant to rile his readymade audience and get them to act on the injustices of the prevailing self-interested groups. If members of the audience are successful in making a societal change, they will have succeeded in creating their own constructed identities.
Bernays, on the other hand, was much easier to read. He seemed more down to earth and accessible. I consider his essay to be persuasive in that he is trying to simply convince his audience of the positive aspects of rhetoric, not necessarily to act as Lippmann was trying to do. He certainly is targeting an everyday, average member of society, male and female and of different races. The examples he uses of how rhetoric is used to "educate the public to new ideas" include the change of public opinion toward the "Negro" after the Civil War, the change in fashion trends to help American industry, the change in attitude toward President Coolidge and the acknowledgement of an unknown country, Lithuania. He obviously encompassed a broad range.
These two men do agree that society would be best off if members acted in groups in order to make major changes. Bernays says, "Group adherence is the fulcrum around which broad acceptance for new ideas can most rapidly be moved (56)."
Even though I didn't really enjoy reading Lippmann, it was great to read the contrasting essays truly casting light on each other to help me understand a little better.
Dawn
I believe Lippmann meant to rile his readymade audience and get them to act on the injustices of the prevailing self-interested groups. If members of the audience are successful in making a societal change, they will have succeeded in creating their own constructed identities.
Bernays, on the other hand, was much easier to read. He seemed more down to earth and accessible. I consider his essay to be persuasive in that he is trying to simply convince his audience of the positive aspects of rhetoric, not necessarily to act as Lippmann was trying to do. He certainly is targeting an everyday, average member of society, male and female and of different races. The examples he uses of how rhetoric is used to "educate the public to new ideas" include the change of public opinion toward the "Negro" after the Civil War, the change in fashion trends to help American industry, the change in attitude toward President Coolidge and the acknowledgement of an unknown country, Lithuania. He obviously encompassed a broad range.
These two men do agree that society would be best off if members acted in groups in order to make major changes. Bernays says, "Group adherence is the fulcrum around which broad acceptance for new ideas can most rapidly be moved (56)."
Even though I didn't really enjoy reading Lippmann, it was great to read the contrasting essays truly casting light on each other to help me understand a little better.
Dawn
Am I Being Persuaded or Coerced?
Reading the articles "Manipulating Public Opinion" and "The Disenchanted Man" made me really angry. First of all, in the Bernay's article, he says, "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." My problem with these sentences lie in the word manipulation. It's an ugly word and it makes me think of evil things. I understand that as a society, we should look to new ideas with an open mind. If we didn't do that this world would be in even worse shape than it is. My problem is that I don't need someone using manipulation to make me come around. If I want to open my mind to a new idea, I will. It's that simple. A ridiculous public relations campaign isn't going to make me think that President Bush is a smart man or that Tom Cruise isn't a nut bar. The fact of the matter is, what you see is what you get. If the President goes in front of the world and says something like "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me--can't get fooled again" the damage has been done. I'm not going to forget what he said and I should hope no one else would either (if only for the simple fact that it's pretty damn funny!). PR campaigns don't wash away memories.
The Lippman article disturbed me just as much as Bernay's did. The article says that "the ideal of a citizenry being well informed through the news was unrealistic." Well no shit! If I wanted to be more informed, I would find a way. Don't try to tell me that a ridiculous PR campaign is going to inform me with strictly truths. That's the biggest load of crap spewed forth since....well forever. The Lippman article goes on to say that, "Even this degree of responsible understanding is only attainable by the development of fact-finding agencies of great scope and complexity." And just as I'm starting to agree... "Their findings are too intricate for the casual reader." And we're back to being stupid!
I don't know who the hell these articles were aimed at. Probably PR people. It's a nice pat on the back to fellow PR men (and women). Hey man! Great job on that manipulation of thought! I couldn't have done it better myself! I can coerce and/or persuade my boyfriend into anything, but it doesn't mean I am right in doing so. I'm not helping the greater good, I'm merely getting what I want. In the case of Public Relations, people aren't out to make the world a better place, they are making a name for themselves and some money too. And lord help those who enter into the PR world to help. I fear that somewhere down the road, they will see it as a corrupt buisness, much the way I do.
The Lippman article disturbed me just as much as Bernay's did. The article says that "the ideal of a citizenry being well informed through the news was unrealistic." Well no shit! If I wanted to be more informed, I would find a way. Don't try to tell me that a ridiculous PR campaign is going to inform me with strictly truths. That's the biggest load of crap spewed forth since....well forever. The Lippman article goes on to say that, "Even this degree of responsible understanding is only attainable by the development of fact-finding agencies of great scope and complexity." And just as I'm starting to agree... "Their findings are too intricate for the casual reader." And we're back to being stupid!
I don't know who the hell these articles were aimed at. Probably PR people. It's a nice pat on the back to fellow PR men (and women). Hey man! Great job on that manipulation of thought! I couldn't have done it better myself! I can coerce and/or persuade my boyfriend into anything, but it doesn't mean I am right in doing so. I'm not helping the greater good, I'm merely getting what I want. In the case of Public Relations, people aren't out to make the world a better place, they are making a name for themselves and some money too. And lord help those who enter into the PR world to help. I fear that somewhere down the road, they will see it as a corrupt buisness, much the way I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)