brainstorming

So I began brainstorming for the final paper topic last week, and I started by thinking about what I've become interested in throughout the readings for the past couple of weeks. The first thing that popped into my head was to begin with a topic that brought out a lot of strong opinions, emotions, and new ideas, and run with it. That is when an especially sarcastic title came about (yes, a title first)... "A guide on how to master the art of selling things that do not matter"
After the title came the rush of ideas, NOT definite quite yet. I basically want to discuss the art that our market has created over the years in selling everything imaginable. I would like to do extensive research as to what techniques people use to sell certain products and how they get so deeply in the minds of consumers. I would really like to find out what people really are thinking when they feel a need to buy these items being advertised. Is it something that they feel unable to control? I'd like to discuss how this art of advertising and constant marketing has and will foreer manipulate our identities; from the time we are born till the end of our lives- it'll always be around. The market definitly has some control over class differences aswell and it will constantly be affected. I'm not completely sure if this is the idea I'm going to use, but tell me what you think!

Research paper topic

I'm pretty sure that I am going to use the Harry Potter series as the basis for my research paper. The series is HUGE in terms of popularity among both kids and adults, but it has also sparked a large amount of controversy in the realms of religion and morality.

Extremist Christian groups frequently claim that the novel are an avenue for spreading the values of witchcraft and satanism, evidenced by the obvious surface of the plot, but also within the tales, characters, and words used themselves (Hermes, Slytherin, etc. all being real demon names). Meanwhile, there is a huge push from the other spectrum of Christianity that sees the series as a retelling of the Biblical stories and moral ideals, like the obvious struggle between good and evil, and the focus on love being the saviour of all.

But how does this relate to class? Well, we've been dealing a lot with the public opinion and the methods used to sway public opinion. This paper will not be just an examination of the controversy, but I am also going to look at the different ways in which both sides of the debate frame their arguements and attempt to align public opinions with their own.

I am planning to use mostly internet sources for this paper, because of the vast majority's inclination to turn to the web for information, therefore, this is the stuff that will be the most useful in terms of how these groups are trying to persuade the public. So far it has been working out, I have found a couple of really great sites which have some articles that have been really useful.

~Amber~

Final Paper Ideas

For the final paper I am a little lost as to what I want to write about. Its amazing how we ask for freedom on paper topics and then when we are given the opportunity to "let loose" I am so lost and need guidance and strict guidelines..lol ( are we able to use lol? this blog is REAl informal)oh boy...well I have two very general ideas.
First I have been kicking around the idea of democracy. Post Ramage, we have read many papers dealing with public discourse and language. We learned about the tactics and strategies used. After reading all the assignments I am left wondering... Do we still have a democracy? If there are people who know how to manipulate and generate emotions in us, are we still in control of ourselves? I don't know. I don't believe Luntz, Lakoff, Bernays,etc. are trying to manipulate thought control but I do find it frightening that they have the ability to persuade our thoughts. Maybe I could look at a few rhetoricians that we have discussed and examine their roll in a democracy.
Secondly, and this idea is far-fetched, I am really interested in exploring language and public discourse within abusive relationships. It seems language and the tone of which the partner uses is very effective in either making the other partner feel degraded or that the abuse is okay. Its odd, I know, but I think I'm on to something. Abusive relationships definitely incorporate thought control, language and public discourse. I am going to print out stuff about each of my topics and maybe everyone can help me further ideas in class.

I am totally at a lost for what I want to do this paper on. I mean I really dont think that I can add anything new to this discussion, based on the readings because everything was pretty much self explanitory.... words effect how we think, act, vote and make purchases.

Maybe I can use luntz's word that work and Lakoff's book to discuss relationships between familes , friends, couples or ourselves, and how they may be based on these principles. I mean if words can effect the way we think of an issue, Im sure , no I know it effects how we feel on the inside about ourselves and others.

On another note I have always been an celebrity / fashion/ music junky so I am thinking on doing my paper around one of those topics and the results that they have on our society. How we dress, act and respond to issues that happen in our society.

This paper will not discuss how hip hop or rock music are the cause for teen violence but rather the role they play in how we as a society judge ourselves or how our society and culture have
changed overtime. Focusing primarily on language and advertising and the messeages that are conveyed through the media, through television programs, youtube and other mediems, and if there is a connection between them.

This will probably be based off of readings from Lipman and Bernays since they talked about public relations strategy's and how to persuade the public.

To me these topics are still very broad...and Im not very confident that they will make a great paper...so ill play aound with them and see where it takes me.

Paper Ideas

I have a few ideas for this paper that I'm considering. I'm really excited about the freedom we have with this paper. Is it weird I'm actually looking forward to writing it? I'm probably going to do it in narrative form. I have 2 or 3 ideas in my head right now.
I'm mainly concerned with the workings of the major media corporations and how this ultimately affects society. I was either going to look at propaganda and coercion within the larger media companies and how it impacts society - or how the media is possibly dumbing down society or molding our identities to fit their needs.
I was also interested in the examples Luntz put throughout his Words that Work piece about Robert Shapiro's use of words to make the judges feel uncomfortable and allow O.J. Simpson to appear innocent despite the incriminating evidence against him. I'd like to explore this a bit more in order to understand the integrity of our legal system.

it's common sense

I’ve thought a little about the conversation I want to join for my final paper, and though still very sketchy, I’m thinking about using this idea of “common sense”. It has been discussed by most of our authors, Luntz in particular wrote a lot about the norms of which a society follows. I want to take this conversation, look at how a belief achieves the title of “common sense”. I would also like to look into tradition as the ways one of these ideas being passed along through the generations. Some of the most influential beliefs have been carried generations through oral tradition, I might examine our countries holidays and write about the generalities between them to possibly find some bit of underlining common sense.

Spectrum?

My idea for the final project is still in the works, but well on it's way. I actually got the idea from the response paper. I was to compare rhetoric and public discourse. I will use the first page of the paper as a solid discription of rhetoric.. like it is the far side of a spectrum. The last page will end up to be a solid discription of public discourse, the other side of the spectrum. As I go further into the middle of the paper the two sides will blend and end in the middle with a complete comparison, or similarities of the two.

Like I said, it's still in the works. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Song and Spade

Ok so as I said in class, I plan on doing my project on the participation of the Kate Spade Corporation in the Song Airlines advertising strategy. I'm not exactly sure what I want to do yet, but I'm hoping it will be something a little more exciting than just a research paper. Maybe something a little more colorful....hmmmm....I don't know yet.

Song and Spade

Ok, So as I said in class on Tuesday, I plan on doing my project on the participation of Kate Spade Corporation in the Song Airline advertising. I hope to make it a bit more interesting than a research paper, but I'm not sure how yet. I was thinking maybe some sort of a business plan or something. Something colorful....hmmm....I don't know yet.

Autism Speaks Donation Info

I am participating in Walk Now for Autism to help find a cure for autism. Autism is the second most common developmental disorder in the United States affecting one in every 150 children born today. Despite some promising discoveries, the cause of autism is unknown and a cure does not exist. Research is crucial. Every 20 minutes another child is diagnosed with autism. Not only must we find ways to improve the quality of life for children and adults with autism, but we also must find a cure, and soon.
Walk Now for Autism is our chance to make a difference in the fight against autism by raising money for autism research and heightening public awareness. Please join me in my fight as I raise $200.00 to help fund essential research. I will be walking on April 12, 2008 and would like you to support those affected by autism. You can donate to Walk Now for Autism and join my team online through my webpage at www.walknowforautism.org. Donations can also be mailed to Autism Speaks using the donation form located on my page or send me a check made out to Autism Speaks. My team name is Braden's Bunch; please note this on your check and the donation form.
Please join me in my fight against autism. Thank you for making a difference in the lives of the more than 1 million Americans living with autism today.
Sincerely,

Erin McGee
Donations are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. 501 (C)(3) NUMBER: 20-2329938
MATCHING GIFT PROGRAM Many companies provide their employees with matching gifts. Please consult your employer on its matching gift guidelines and attach matching gift forms accordingly.

Link to my donor page...

https://www.kintera.org/faf/donorReg/donorPledge.asp?ievent=252496&lis=0&kntae252496=1281FB1C852C4D19999E8A274A375E43

Paper topics

As soon as Mahoney said we could write about anything that interests us and in any style my boyfriend Luntz immediatly came to mind. I am going to write a narrative in the voice of a woman who is engaged to Frank Luntz. This way I can write in an style that interests me, cover the material I like and fulfill my hidden desires to date him.
I just can't get over how much time this man takes to pick out particular words and their precise ordering so that he effectively communicate with the public. This got me thinking that if he takes this much time to talk to the public how does he interact in his personal relationships?

That's about all I have so far, I'm going to research more of his work and articles about him by next class.

Second Half of Don't Think of an Elephant

I remember when I first read the "From Theory to Action" half of Don't Think of an Elephant, I felt a little bitter toward Lakoff because it seemed that he just assumed that everyone besides himself was an idiot who needed to be enlightened. I felt he was especially shedding this impression on progressives. But looking over it again, I see the validity in his "back to basics" approach. I like how he lays out what conservatives believe and how they present it. It is good to be sure of your opposing side's viewpoints. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that aren't even sure of what it is they stand for, and this is a good thing to know. Laying out what progressives think also was a necessary move as well. I think he could have coated his descriptions with a little less of a biased attitude, but hey, he can do what he wants. It's his book. No one's forced to read it. Well, almost no one.
The frequently asked questions part seemed rudimentary at first, and I kind of disregarded its value. But thinking about it again, those are real questions that real people are wondering about. Not everyone knows what strategic initiative is. I know I didn't before we started going over these issues. But it is a major component of the overall scheme of politics.
The whole "how to respond to conservatives" section reminded me of a guide book for a womens' self defense class. I think his aim was greater than merely "and step one is STAND UP FOR YOUR VALUES!" and more about reinforcing things that people already know but may or may not be conscious of the actual effect of these actions. Addressing the fundamentals reminds a person of his or her reasons for being where they are, and strengthens and sharpens their mindsets. Heck, it's even a bit motivational. I can almost picture Lakoff in a cheerleading uniform shouting B-E_A-G-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E! I'm going to stop picturing that now.

He's not such a bad guy...

So, I couldn't find Luntz's "The Ten Rules of Effective Language" on E-Reserves, so I did a Google search, and hopefully I got the right thing.

Luntz's rules are very easy and simple, and they don't really seem like they are all that much geared towards trying to brainwash people, which is kind of the sense that I got from him before. I thought of him kind of as the guy that takes our feedback and uses it as a weapon against us, trying to group everyone into the same camp. While he does essentially use our feedback, it isn't so much for use in some evil scheme of his own, rather his rules paint it out more as though he is trying to cater to us, not control us.

For example, rules 1 and 2 are simplicity and brevity. There is absolutely nothing worse than some politician sitting on his high horse spitting paragraph after paragraph of his philosophy at you, using these big ass words that you know they themselves don't even understand, and then expecting you to vote for them. Luntz understands that it isn't about how long or how much you say, it is essentially what you are saying that matters, and if you want people to pay attention to what you are saying, the best way to do it is to be concise and to the point.

The other thing that Luntz gets is our need for entertainment. Rule number 8 is to visualize-describe something and make it become real for the listeners. The best books to read are the ones that have the most imagery, the ones that make you feel like you are right there in the novel, the same goes for speeches. If you really want me to pay attention to you, make it interesting, give me something to cling on to. Don't just babble all kinds of meaningless scenarios, make me feel like I am living whatever point you are trying to get across.

Overall, I dislike him less after reading this, because it doesn't seem as manipulative and one-sided as I originally thought it was going to be. I think that the rules he lays out are general rules which people can, and should, apply to all different areas, political or otherwise.

Democrat...Republican...What's the difference?

Ok, I must say that I did find Lakoff's book to be interesting. I do not, however, completely agree. It seems what Lakoff is saying is that republicans are the only ones who takes words and use them to their advantage. If this were so, then what would be the purpose of having more than one political party. I believe that all politicians, whether they are republicans or democrats, or whatever party Ross Perot was associated with, uses words to their advantage. As far as frames go, I completely agree. Frames are definitely used in every day society. The "don't think of an elephant" scenerio if completely on target. It's just like telling a little kid not to touch something, of course their going to touch it. By not making something out in the open or obvious, makes people oblivious to it. Lakoff seemed to really make democrats see dumb and humble, and made the republican party seem sly and powerful. In all actuality, however, the democratic party does the same thing that the republicans do. Politics is just a play on words. Just because a politician says they're going to do something if and when they are elected, does not mean that they will actually do it. There are alot of other people that they have to go through before any law is passed or tax is reduced. (by the way: not all of those people are republicans) This reminds me of elections in highschool where kids promised all sorts of things that they were at no liberty to promise just because it sounded "cool". (like better cafeteria food) Even though they were just talking "bs" in order to gain popularity and people knew it, they were usually still voted into office. It's pretty sad to me that the politicians that run our country, or try to, have no different morals or "truths" than a highschool kid who promises the student body better vending machines if elected.

Persuasion Gone MAD!

So, what do Bernays, Lippman, Luntz, etc.. all have in companion? Well, they would have persuaded me! Feeling easily confused, or suffocated by Rhetoric, or how about being persuaded into individuality? How about trying a low dose of an election year of being stuck between one candidate and another? Who is the better liar, or shall we just call them a crusader of persuasion. I think not! Your vote matters, your opinion counts, but how so? Its an age old question of who is an individual and how is not in our democracy. Well, according to Bernays, Lippman, Luntz, etc... we all have a point in which we are easily buy able or persuaded. I was walking in the mall the other day when I realized i just needed to put down the items in my hand. Yes, materialistic is what I was being, but was i being persuaded. The answer there involved much thinking over my purse and self proclaimed new watch all because the actresses on T.V. had them. Oh, shit, that's right I was just doped. My life was handed over to me in persuasion. When does the madness ends? How do I catch myself in the act? I can't because unfortunately I'm like most Americans a Consumer... Bernays, Lippman, and Luntz my mind has been persuaded, you've won this round!

don't persuade me, i've been framed officer

When writing about manipulating public interest, it’s best to be as discrete about it as possible while still conveying the desired hidden messages. As I read the two author’s confounding political ideals the more I feel I’m being framed with each passing page. Lakoff and Luntz, though totally different in political affiliation, are similar in that they write books emphasizing the importance of public awareness, but write with the intention of persuading their audience. What better way to capture public interest than in what Bernays would describe as a constructed persuasive motivator? Though not technically any type of organized event, writing books about the necessity of persuasion in democracy might really motivate somebody of the opposite party to change their voter affiliation. I don't honestly believe that these guys are completely out to persuade, in their own eyes I'm sure they feel their doing there civil duties in educating voters whether for either party.

Once in a while, I found both authors to be talking about similar concepts using different analogies, such as Lakoff’s apology compared to Luntz’s word labs, both give the one being persuaded what they're looking to hear. This whole learning about persuasion while being persuaded, is a little tricky to get around at first. But the more you’re exposed to this stuff the easier as a reader it is to differentiate from what’s practical truth and what’s persuasion. Anyway, both are interesting figureheads of each of their respected parties, and provide an interesting read.

We are ALL THE SAME

It is my humble opinion that both LUNTZ AND LAKOFF are the same type of people just on different spectrums. LAoff even mention this is his book on pg 5 when he says
“ these are strange people their positions make no sense, but then an embarrassing thought occurred to me. I have exactly the opposite position on every issue”

However I do feel as if Luntz’s word manipulation is a bit more harmful to the public because it becomes the basis of which every ignorant and uneducated (on the facts) person basis their argument. They hear the words illegals, and that they are going to take jobs and use up welfare. When in reality this has been over stated…NO body wants the jobs…and if they are truly illegals…there is no way they are collecting welfare. The paper work is really gruesome and requires a lot of paperwork and identification. But that is another story.

Sorry about the ranting,

Anyhow, I guess it is not Luntz’s fault that people are so easily moved by words, In his defense I guess it is just the way we have been trained to think….framed.

LAkoff describes framing as getting language that fits your worldview. This is why when ever I hear a view or opinion that does not relate to my world or things that relate to me, or should I say, don’t benefit my people…woman, African Americans, college students, poor, (I kinda fit here )but you get the picture… if it doesn’t fit my frame I am against it.
But that is exactly how everyone feels…its how we live our life. Lakoff even tells us that we vote based on identity which doesn’t have to coincide with our self interest. Which shows that we really think that we are making the best choice, based off how we view ourselves. And who want to think that they are wrong, or not the best choice…lol

Sadly, Americana have just now realized that the government has figured us out to a science and know knows how to pacify us, and gain our trust and have us believing that they have our best interest at heart. But then again so do advertisers, our parents when they want us to eat nasty peas, and sexy guys and girls that you meet at the bar, who want to take you home.
Every one has an agenda…its just up to you to not fall into the trap…REPEATEDLY because we all fall for it once.

I'm an Elephant!!

So...I'm a little offended at the introduction to this book.

I am a Republican, and I don't knock other people for not sharing my political views, nor do I run around trying to get people to believe what I believe. I get a little irritated, not with the fact that people do not agree with me, that's perfectly alright, in fact, very few people agree with me about anything. What bothers me is the way that Lakoff starts out his whole little book by talking about the foundations of the Republican belief system. In all fairness he does go through the basis of liberal beliefs as well, but the tone of voice in which he describes the basic reasoning behind each camp is dramatically different.

The whole time he talks about the conservatives, he uses a somewhat sarcastic and cynical tone, to the point where even I am questioning my own beliefs. He makes them out to be immoral people who put on this facade of morality through tricky language and veiled actions. So what if I don't believe in funding "social welfare" programs. The way I see it, all I'm doing is allowing people to live for free while I bust my ass to try and make a living for myself. Does that make me immoral for not believing in unlimited programs for people in the US? Why?

When he moves onto discussing the family values of the liberals, we switch from a patriarchal point of view to a "nurturing family" idea. Basically, he paints the Democrats as this peace-loving, socially concerned, family-oriented group of people, while us Republicans become the rotten apples.

I don't know, I may be reading far too much into it, but I think he should have been a little more conscious of the fact that many readers maybe turned off by his almost immediate bias, or at least what i perceived to be a bias. After that first section, I got pretty annoyed, and even though I tried to read what he was saying, I couldn't really focus, I was a little too annoyed.

~Amber~

Frame and Reframe

"Frame and re-frame" seem to be Lakoff's favorite phrase in his book, Don't think of an elephant. While there are some commonalities between Lakoff and Luntz ,I felt that the two were a little different. I feel like Lakoff isn't exactly manipulating public opinion but more so letting us be aware that it is happening. Luntz, on the other hand, makes his career off of manipulating words and phrases to appeal more to an audience. However the two are similar in the means of they are both framing and re-framing situations and concepts.



A part I enjoyed, that again showed the depths of language and linguistics, was Lakoff's discussion on the word "evil" on page 57. After reading Luntz I was aware that certain phrasing of words is more appealing but the appeal even goes into our unconscious mind. Lakoff talks of these connections we make, with words, as metaphors. After 9/11 the Bush administration used several words to describe the terrorists who took down the towers. They referred to them as rodents, swamp creatures, etc. Finally, Bush settled on the word evil. I'm sure Bush was unaware of the significance of using the word evil, never the less, he used it and America started making connections. When Lakoff showed the metaphor of evil and "the enemy of evil is good", I think us, as humans, can relate to that. If we consider ourselves good, then that means what our values and morals are good too. Ultimately, everyone wants to feel good and think that what they are doing in life is morally and culturally right. If a politician can make someone feel that emotion, while giving a speech or whatever, that politician can bank on that citizen's vote. It can be thought of as manipulation but I think, its nature. Why wouldn't I go with the candidate who relates the best to me and makes me feel safe and comfortable. It'd be foolish not too. Luntz and Lakoff both have many examples of how to re-frame an issue. Reframing is all part of rhetoric; being able to see things in a new or innovated way.

Both Lakoff and Luntz provide interesting insight on the world of politicians and public speaking. While the two differ, both relate to each other in some aspects. Through each other their writings we can learn and be aware of all our surrounds in attempts to make a well-round personal opinion on issues that are important.

Luntz & Lakoff: Don't Think.

American's are the most fickle human beings. We are persuaded by the simplest of words. Who would have thought that, just by bending a few truths, we would be so quick to conform? It is a very strange thing to think about. How many times in our lives have our minds been changed just by a simple word or phrase? Crazy, no?

Though I believe Luntz's article to be very interesting, I think he's a lunatic. For some reason he just comes off as a jerk to me. Why would you be proud to be able to persuade the masses by your simple intelligence? Oh, right.. because he's a crazy genius! I'm sure we would all be proud of that. He does fail, however, to go into any explanation on why he chooses certain words over others. This is where Lakoff's strength was. He was not only able to find ways to change certain words to appeal to certain people, but he also explained why he did what he did. He tells us about "framing" and the "two different models of a family." He shows us, he doesn't just brag. I think I like Lakoff more because of this.

The one thing that grabbed me in Lakoff’s book was how the world is based on one big metaphor. We, as the public, wrap our selves up in the idea that we can give human characteristics to just about anything. For example, the explanation that Lakoff's gives on page 53. We saw 9/11 as a metaphor. The towers were human, they fell, and therefore they are dead. Our country is human, it was betrayed, and therefore it is upset. It is the easiest way for us to identify and fit our feelings into the current situation.

Lakoff later goes on the explain how the government gets away with their lies, I'm sorry.. I mean their mere exaggerations. The numerous reasons for still being in Iraq are solid examples. Many people believe, as told by Lakoff, that, no matter if any statement is truly a lie, if the person telling it believes it and does not intend to deceive those he is telling it must not really be a lie. This is how our public is "trained." Well, of course if HE says it's true, if HE believes it's okay, then it must be. This is how our country is persuaded. We all fall for it. Scary, isn’t it?

I was looking back at previous blog entries from semesters before and noticed the comparison between “Don’t Think of an Elephant” and the band, Hanson. I must admit that I’m not sure how the author was able to fit MMMBop into Lakoff, but being a true and continuous Hanson fan myself, I must say BRAVO! (I just had to add this as a little side note.)

dear reader, if you care about social change...

part of your job is to continue this "virtual marketing" and help spread the ideas in this book. I found Lakoff's book to be really great. I thought he was easy to understand and his ideas were really different and quite genius. I found many interesting things in his book, but I found the most important thing that he touched on to be framing. I never realized what an impact framing has on people, even myself. When I hear a candidate from a different party then I support I tend to ignore them and don't give them the attention that I probably should. However, if it is a candidate that agrees with my values and beliefs then I will make time to hear what he has to say. This is a very strange concept. As college students people say these are the days to explore all other ideas that may be different from our own, but if we are trained to ignore the other ideas, how will any of us ever be able to change our opinions? Many people are guilty of doing this, and I agree with Lakoff that we need to spread the word for social change.
Although we are guilty of doing this, the candidates are guilty of doing this as well. They are framing what they tell us to keep our loyalty within their party. What they should be doing is making their policies more accessible to people who aren't sure what party they want to side with. These are the people who don't vote, and they could make all the difference. And even some people who vote don't even know the values and beliefs the party they are voting for stand for. It is our duty as Americans to educate ourselves on these important politics because it could really change things.
Going along with this I found that Lakoff did a great job in saying that truth isn't the answer, because for most people it just bounces off because they don't care to believe something negative about their party. I felt that Lakoff really made it clear that people vote for their values, and people they identify with. They don't vote in self- interest. I think that this is where Luntz comes in because I feel he is part of the manipulation process. Lakoff is trying to get people to see the truth in what they believe in, and Luntz is trying to find ways to mask that truth and manipulate the voter into thinking it's what they believe in.
All in all I really enjoyed Lakoff's book thus far. He had great ideas and really made me think not only as a student but as an active member of society and how I vote. Just remember next time you go to vote, are you voting for that person because of self- interest, or are you just voting for that person because that's the party you've always been loyal to?

A Battle For The Ages

Just picture it - - Luntz and Lakoff taking their own corners of the ring getting ready to pull out all the punches. Lakoff presents the idea of a frame, and if used correctly one is able to offer views that will stick with the audience. Just as in the title, everyone has a clear and defines example of what an elephant is and because of this there is a stable frame to go along with it. Lakoff presents the idea that the American public responds to the government in the frame of a family and I find this to be extremely true. When I look at my own family there are those subtle hints of democracy with the slight undertone of a dictatorship but family is something that everyone can relate to. Along with this idea, Lackoff describes that although we may feel we have a concrete idea on what views in politics you relate to the most, at the same time your life is run the opposite way. Once again I look at my family. My parents are both liberals and yet when looking at how my brother and I grew up, it was very much in the strict father view.
On the other hand, Luntz is a vocabulary teacher's dream. I have this image of giving Luntz a word and him flipping the pages in his mental thesaurus until he found a word that make everyone jump on board. To tell the truth I find what he does to be genius. There are few times that I am able to find the exact words for what I am trying to say and in doing so I usually follow up my description of things by saying, "you know what I mean?" Luntz would never have to use this phrase. His amunition is words and when he finds taht magic combination, everyone understands what he is saying. When watching The Persuaders we were able to see that by calling it a Death Tax, it reached more individuals. So who wins?

Luntz VS. Lakoff

As we have said numerous times in class, persuaders have made turned linguist framing into a science. Linguists such as Frank Luntz and George Lakoff can tell you exactly what words and combinations will make their party's ideas appeal to the public. Lakoff even says that "... Language use is a science. Like any science it can be used honestly or harmfully" (23) Both Lakoff and Luntz believe in their corresponding parties. In their opinions they are not lying to the public, they are just choosing how they communicate their ideas to their audience.
I think that a person would have to read both Luntz and Lakoff to get a more concrete idea on framing. Luntz focus's on what words the public wants to hear but he never really goes into why they want to hear them. Whereas in "Dont Think of an Elephant", Lakoff goes behind the meaning of each frame. For me it was a lot easier to understand Lakoff because he explained why each "words work."
The relationship between Luntz and the public reminds me of Lippman's idea of the executives. Lippman said that the common man would not have to worry about politics, he could go about his everyday life while the executives would tell the public who to vote for. In Luntz's opinion he is not lying to American citizens by manipulation words, he is merely "clarifying" government policies so that the public will know which way to vote. His relationship is that of a teacher and a student. Whereas Lakoff acknowledges that merely supplying one with the facts will not convince them that that is the truth. Lakoff's idea of a persuader reminds me of that of an actor and an audience. The persuader must act and tell the public what they want to hear if they want to believed.

Even though I find both men to be extremely interesting I did enjoy Lakoff's book a lot more. Not only did he tell democrats what they should say to the public, he explained why.

Lakoff and Luntz-off

It's not hard to deceive Americans. Honestly. You just tell them something that seems to fit one of their familiar "frames" with which they affiliate closely and they're good to go. Even if you tell them the demoralizing facts about the something you told them about which fits in their frame, they won't listen because they're comfortable where they are. People don't like to think more than they need to; not many people find that it is worth it to get worked up over an issue they feel powerless to affect. So, as Frank Luntz and George Lakoff have discovered, persuading according to public frames are the key to success.
Frank Luntz is not only concerned with words, as some might think, but more so with ideas. Ideas are what drive frames. Putting people at ease and using positive words not only make your audience feel more morally connected with your argument, but also make a persuader look like a good guy who doesn't attack his opponent. To Luntz, "perception is more real than reality", and changing people's perceptions about certain issues, can also change the issues themselves. If turn inheritance or estate tax into death tax, and make out to be this horrible scheme to rob people of their hard earned estates, it is no longer a good thing. And once the frame is set enough, it will be nearly impossible to think of it as a good thing, thus the perception has become reality. Audience feedback is essential to Luntz, and finding out what voters want and how to talk to them is a central component to the success of a politician. Lakoff rants about this in his book, that the right side is smart, they know how to present ideas. The difference between framing and non-framing is crucial to the success of an argument. Lakoff discusses this,
"When you think you just lack words, what you really lack are ideas. Ideas come in the form of frames. When the frames are there, the words come readily. There's a phenomenon you have probably noticed. A conservative on TV uses two words, like tax relief. And the progressive has to go into a paragraph-long discussion of his own view. The conservative can appeal to an established frame, that taxation is an affliction or burden, which allows for the two-word phrase tax-relief. But there is no established frame on the other side. You can talk about it, but it takes some doing because there is no established frame, no fixed idea already out there (24)".

The approach Luntz is adhering to is the conservative "strict-father" role, as Lakoff speaks so frequently about. Because the public is essentially a bad child who can't think for themselves and needs to be taught to be good, affecting and determining their frames can only help them.
The nurturing parental figure identity that Lakoff emphasizes that progressives assume does not imply weakness, it implies strength. He speaks frequently about how the nurturing parent figure assumes responsibility and empathy. Rather than dictate to the public how and what they should think, instead the nurturing parent tries to address each individual concern and help as many people as possible. This creates complication, because it encompasses several different perspectives, but it also helps people. However, Lakoff pays his dues to the successful conservatives, and scolds his fellow progressivists for not catching on to their smart tactics. He discusses how the conservatives consider words and ideas, and consider bigger, more general issues on which they can collaborate as a whole instead of disputing over every reputable fact that they can get their hands on, as do the progressivists. He instructs the progressivists that they need never to allude to, or use the language or framing of the other side, because, even when you refer to it in a negative manner, you are still indirectly reinforcing their frame. Just naming facts doesn't work. Frames need to be created for the public to adhere to your idea. Stick to your guns. Know what you stand for, and why you stand for it, not just what you don't agree with. Anticipate what the other side will say. Consider identity. Collaborate with one another as an offensive offender rather than a defensive one. You can't drive the car from the passenger seat. Above all else, Lakoff emphasizes awareness. Awareness is key to gaining a unified, prosperous, proactive public.

Comparing Lakoff to Luntz

Lakoff and Luntz both agree that the language you use to talk about something can make or break your argument, and they both know very well that entering a debate and using the language of your opponent is a spiritual and idealistic defeat, that will very probably lead to technical defeat as well. However, Lakoff is the one who gives more thought to why that might be. Luntz seems to believe that the words and phrases he urges politicians to use persuade people simply because they are true. Lakoff acknowledges that there are things called ‘frames’ that we use to make sense of reality, and that any information that does not fit in those frames is rationalized, ignored, or not even noticed. (For example, even good, kind, ethical white people were able to watch Africans enduring slavery and torture in the Deep South because those would be terrible things to do to people, and Africans did not fit in the frame of “people” held by those good, kind, ethical whites.) I believe that Lakoff’s point on frames is that people vote for Republicans, even knowing that they are going against their own self-interest, because something even more important to them than their health, prosperity or overall quality of life is that they be able to tell their friends tomorrow that they voted Republican. In other words, the most important thing to a person who votes Republican, whether they know it or not, is to be seen as the kind of person who votes Republican.

Luntz seems to believe that his relationship to the people is that of a knowing, benevolent teacher, given charge over a large group of students who do not want to think. His job is not to encourage them to think, but simply to guide them gently and cheerfully to the proper actions. In Luntz’s democracy, the people are stubborn children, and the government is the overworked parent that needs to know the right way to get the children to take their medicine. It is not the children’s job to ask why they have to pick up their toys and go to bed at 8:30, and it is not the parents’ job to tell them. The children should just trust that their parents know what is best for them, and obey without question or complaint. The government in this democracy should also work to ensure America’s financial, military, and moral superiority over all other nations.

Lakoff seems to think that his job is to show the American people how the present government deceives them, or at least does not tell the whole story. He believes that if Democrats would stop using the Republicans’ language and come up with an independent, proactive mission their own, they would find ways to tell the American people their point of view, thus presenting a whole truth. He acknowledges that people do things that very often do not seem rational, but manages to avoid insulting their intelligence. Instead of saying, “Most people don’t think because they’re lazy, so here’s how you can exploit that,” he says, “Most people have firm opinions that won’t change because that’s how human beings are, so here’s how you can challenge them to change.” In Lakoff’s democracy, the government is an institution, elected by the people to serve the interests of all people. The government’s primary job is to ensure that American citizens enjoy high quality of life, and its secondary job is to ensure that it does not infringe on other nations’ rights. If possible, it should extend help to other nations, ideally in the form of education and financial aid. Rather than punish other nations for daring to become our enemies, Lakoff envisions a government that would keep them from becoming our enemies in the first place.

--Laura W.

Luntz and Lakeoff

Ideas stick in people's minds when there is something sincere and refreshing to the public. Our brains have an interesting way of collecting language and concepts that make sense in our heads. People want things that they can frame. As Lakeoff said, these concepts have to fit "in the synopses of our brains." If not, they are not acknowledged as meaningful or memorable. These ideas are ones that connect with a person's particular identity and the values that they hold.

First of all, Lakeoff is assuming a kind of democracy that takes charege, and wins the hearts and minds of the people. Lakeoff suggests that what we need is a democracy that goes beyond the tactics of providing overwhelming "facts and statistics, debate victories, and proffered new policies." Well, he certainly wants to keep these methods for democracy, but they need more. However, is is hard to top the huge tactics of republicans and conservatives (considering the fact that half of their propositions are exaggerations and fabrications of help to the world). Also, conservatives have figured out the idea of framing and have used it to their advantage. This idea makes sense to me, since people think in frames, and that is no surprise. TALK to people in the manner where you yourself would want to listen. Progressives hear only the concepts that make sense and connect with their personal frame. The kind of democracy that Lakeoff is suggesting is helpful is the kind that truly listens to people and presents solutions to the public's problems and concerns in a reasonable way. The kind of democracy they are assuming is one that appeals to all people- especcially "the middle class."

Meg Campbell

Bernays & Lippman: Sounds like a law firm.

But at least we don't have to worry about what is happening in their law firm. We can sit back and be given information, take that information, form our beliefs and then vote for whatever choice we chose, which will ultimately lead to us voting for whatever it was that they wanted in the first place.

I believe that Bernays and Lippman's ideas work together and it is evident in everything we see around us. Bernays is in favor of swaying the public opinion for the good of the public and to introduce new ideas to keep society moving forward and preventing it from becoming stagnant.

"New ideas, new precedents, are continually striving for a place in the scheme of things...these ideas are socially sound and constructive and put an end to worn-out notions...they are minority ideas, for naturally, but regretably, majority ideas are most often old ones."

The public does not take well to new ideas. New ideas "threaten" what the public is used to. They scare the public. New ideas help to foster development in a society, though, and they must be heard and pushed forward when they can help a society to grow. I believe that this is how Bernays views persuasion. As a tool useful for advancing the human race as a whole by "manipulating" public opinion.

Lippmann addresses the fact that we, the public, can't be bothered with most of the decisions that need to be made in a society and we don't let ourselves become bothered. Our decisions are made by those people we deem responsible enough to make them. Whether we have an actual hand in choosing those people or not is a complete other topic.

Lippmann makes some great points. He mentions that the individual lives in a world which he cannot see, does not understand and is unable to direct. I would have to agree. He also includes a great quote from Robert Michels, "...the majority is permanently incapable of self-government," and another from Gustaf F. Steffan, "even after the victory there will always reamain in political life the leaders and the led."

We as the public chose to be led, whether consciously or unconsciously. Would any one of us step up to the plate and make a decisions about going to war? Half of us cannot even carry out the simple task of voting, a constitutional right given to us by our leaders. We remain to be led by those in charge and we remain to live in a world where we cannot see everything that happens behind the curtains. Would half of us even care what happens behind the curtains if we could see?

Bernays and Lippmann on issues seemingly beyond our control...

The first sentence of Bernays' article "Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and the How", defines framing as we know it: "Public opinion is subject to a variety of influences that develop and alter its views on nearly every phase of life today (51)." However, he goes on to discuss the idea that societal opinion is actually based more so on tradition than what it is exposed to in present day. "Public opinion is slow and reactionary, and does not easily accept new ideas." He asserts that education and honest propaganda are almost one in the same, with the exception that education is unbiased (or as he puts it-"disinterested") and propaganda is partisan. Even in his description of education and propaganda, he demonstrates framing of his audience--he could have easily used the words unbiased and biased to persuade the audience toward a negative perception of propaganda, yet instead he uses words that support his claim. Sneaky, sneaky Bernays.
He believes the first step in persuading an audience is analysis. This is reflected in Ramage's Rhetoric, in that the persuader must be thoroughly acquainted with the audience and the audience's views before they even attempt to state their argument. What makes the audience react toward the topic in question the way that they do? How can one achieve the same effect of the audience toward his topic in question? How can you make people care about what you have to say?
Thus the next step says Bernays, is deciding how to make the argument most effective. Pinpointing the most effective location, and the most effective venue through which the public can be reached is vital.
The third step is to "surround the conference (his example was the fight against lynching) with people who were stereotypes for ideas that carried weight all over the country (53)." Allow the people to feel as though they can relate to the people to which they are listening.
His entire aim was submerged in the idea that group adherence to an idea you are proposing to the public is key, thus propaganda is also key as the informant of the public so that the group can know what they are adhering to. An aspect of propaganda that he addresses is the use of cliches, which greatly reflects Frank Luntz' work in the "Word Lab" (he works to generate phrases and rhetorical strategies that will be politically effective in gaining the desired aims of political candidates and the like). Make the people think positively of the idea they've associated with negativity, and you're golden.
Unlike Bernays' seemingly persuasive approach, Lippmann, in his essay "The Disenchanted Man", does not hold such an optimistic, picture perfect, formulaic view as does Bernays, as his approach takes a more coercive, wake-up-and-realize-that-this-is-true-dummy approach. His article basically asserts that no matter how much information you throw at an everyday member of the general public, they will continually be driven by their self-interest and that which affects them first hand. Regardless of how honest and extensively informative propaganda may claim to be, "modern society is not visible to anybody, nor intelligible continuously and as a whole One section is visible to another section, one series of acts is intelligible to this group and another to that (39)." He describes the idea that even persuaders themselves can be categorized as self-interested, and rightly so. Nothing would get done if everyone were constantly concerning themselves with the concerns of others and trying to develop an opinion or stance on every novel thought or subject. In essence, let those who are in power run things like they do anyway, and don't bother trying to change things with propaganda. Specific opinions will always be driven by self-interest. If you want to get through to someone, "the genius of any illuminating public discussion is not to obscure and censor private interest, but to help it to sail and to make it sail under its own colors (41)." Trying to persuade the self-interested group to become otherwise is futile; the only way to do it is to create a perfect society in which there are no self-interested groups. This, however, will never be. Thus Lippmann asserts, "No ordinary bystander is equipped to analyze the propaganda by which a private interest seeks to associate itself with the disinterested public (41)".

Hooray for propaganda.

Bernays and Lippmann

For starters Lippmann bored the crap out of me. I had to read the article multiple times just to comprehend it. The first few tries my mind wandered so much that I read whole pages without processing more than a sentence. Eventually I suffered through, but it was blah as all heck. On the other hand I found Bernays' article to be very interesting and easy to read. I also found Bernays' article to be more relevant. I agree with all the other people who categorized Bernays as persuasive and Lippmann as coercive. I definitely got a sense of forceful compliance with Lippmann. I feel that Lippmann's article was more of an attack. Lippmann seemed more interested in scare tactics while Bernays seemed more interested in informing and educating. I also felt a sense of hope while reading Bernays, whereas Lippmann made me feel like there is none and we might as well just accept that life sucks, we suck and everything sucks. I am not trying to say that Lippmann did not have a point. Hey I am all for the truth no matter how bleak it is, but I felt that he was doing a lot of stating the obvious and harping on things that everyone knows sucks. I mean it just seemed like a 7 page bitch session and it got on my nerves after a while. Kudos to Bernays and Boo to Lippmann.

Jamie Himmelreich

thoughts on Bernays & Lippmann

There are many approaches towards manipulating a society’s attitude in favor of any given agenda. According to Bernays “It is one of the manifestations of democracy that anyone may try to convince others and to assume leadership on behalf of his own thesis.” So whether you’re trying to gain American support for a velvet hat popular in France, or taking on the Jim Crow laws down south, Bernays believes that we are all entitled to persuade public consensus how we see fit. The author of the first article believes propaganda as a “necessary intervention in the communicative chaos of modern life, a service to the public that helps them interpret and act in a confusing world.” Whereas the author of the second article Lippmann, sees this same propaganda as a regressive service to society. He agrees with Bernays that this “public opinion” is vital towards the advancement of any society, but unlike his counterpart views this type of media as unrealistic. Lippmann sees this type of propaganda as a means of disconnecting society’s bystander citizens from important issues, placing emphasis off of the majority and onto the “experts and decision makers.”

Both authors write in the same persuasive language, but do so using different methods. Bernays confident tone of speech is very noticeable throughout his work, personally making it more easily to reject as a reader. Lippmann’s opposing argument is intended to relate with his audience’s pre existing biases against coercion. By telling his story of the “disenchanted man” he tries to relate to his audience on a more personal level, reflecting readers past experiences of media bombardment, and strengthening these already existing biases through creating the general analogy of an average citizen. Lippmann and Bernays may both hold extremely different views towards propaganda’s influence on public opinion, but both share many common traits of rhetoric throughout their writings. Audience persuasion clearly the most obvious goal within both authors work makes me surer of rhetoric’s involvement within our daily lives, and persuasion that surrounds us everywhere.

Bernays and Lippmann

Bernay has this way of making Propaganda seem necessary in life in order to understand this confusing world. He is confident, and backs up all of the positives of Propaganda. This action of his made me, at first, believable of what he was preaching. That is when it occurred to me. Bernay acts upon the rhetorical situation in discussing propaganda- he IS propaganda. But I did not completely dismiss Bernays’ idea at first about propaganda itself because he uses encouraging wordplay for it- “manipulating public opinion” or “mass distribution of ideas.” Diagnostic ability and sociology is apart of Bernay’s techniques. Lippmann, on the other hand, seems to read the rhetorical situation as corruptive, and sees politics and society as unitertersting in public opinion compared to previous years, or even decades. Even something like voting does not seem desirable to the public, as much as it is expressed as something people want to do.

Bernay’s approach to rhetoric included very persuasive methods. However, I think that he is not directly coercive; but eventually reaches the goal of getting the public to believe what he is trying to say. He uses the resources he has that he knows will eventually persuade the public, and he is persistent, but not so much forceful. Propaganda, I feel, is both persuasive and coercive.
Lippmann’s approach in explaining why voters do not have the basic desire to vote makes a lot of sense. He brings in factors that the citizen may be thinking or feeling when involved in the voting situation. He explains the tactics of agencies and how the public is uninterested.

It seems as though Bernays follows certain methods or general approaches with steps. He has the diagnostic ability and brings sociology into his experimentation with manipulating the public opinion. I don’t know how to characterize his approaches, but I do think that he believes that in order to have a mass production of ideas to be accepted to the public, every part of the public has to be informed of the public speaker’s ideas in multiple ways. He targets every group of people and every kind of idea- strengthening weak ones or making an old principle apply to people in the present. Bernays says that a prapagandist’s approach to the audience is also creating an even that will arouse attention in the public.

In the Frame

Well, this came out a little longer than I had planned, but I'm sure no one will read it anyway, so oh well.

Frames are an inevitable part of life. People need constants for their worlds to make any sort of sense at all, and it’s unrealistic to expect people to live for 30, 20 or even ten years without accumulating some sort of experience. It’s just when frames become set and rigid, and people refuse to change them to accommodate new information, that problems arise. This changes frames from definitions and expectations to prejudices and stereotypes.

There is also nothing wrong with carefully selecting the language you use to influence how people will see you. If you really believe that the message you have is right, correct, and true, then it only makes sense to make that truth look as good as possible. However, if your rhetoric actually works to obscure the truth (by using misleading words and phrases, omitting important information, or presenting opinions or prejudices as facts), then you are walking a fine ethical line.

Few people walk this line with the jaunty roguishness of Frank Luntz. Luntz himself seems to believe that he is not distorting or hiding the truth, just finding the proper light in which to reveal the truth. Some of his advice seems to bear this out. In his recommendations on how to talk about the problem of illegal immigration, he takes care to highlight the need for compassion, and also to emphasize the need for tightened border security since 9/11 exposed the holes in border security. Indeed, many of the things Luntz says seem like plain common sense.

However, other things he advises seem a little more objectionable. He takes care to cultivate in his target audience the conviction that they are right, they are special, they deserve to have their needs looked after. This is a very good way to make people believe that you know what is best for them and work to see that they get it. It is also a good way to make different demographics pull away from each other, blocking any sense of solidarity. Advertisers and propagandists have used this technique for centuries to turn whites against blacks, men against women, old against young, upstanding citizens against single mothers, Christians against Muslims, jocks against nerds, and so forth. Now Luntz uses this technique to turn “law-abiding American citizens” against illegal immigrants. Even Hispanic immigrants will be subtly turned against the illegals, who did not come to the U.S. “the right way.”

Another questionable part of Luntz’s tactics is the fact that he talks a lot more about appearing a certain way than actually being that way. More space is devoted to the need to promise this or that than to the need to follow through on those promises. Either he is taking it as a given that what he is saying is true and that his clients will follow through on what they say, but on the other hand, he may be telling them what to say that will get people off their backs so they can do what they wanted to without interference.

Much of what Luntz tells his focus groups is vague and not backed up with statistics, much less with undeniable fact. Luntz blatantly plays to his audiences’ perceptions, telling him what he thinks they want to hear. He tells his clients to say, “Fix the immigration problem and we begin to fix the economy. Fix the immigration problem. Fix the immigration problem and taxpayers get the break they deserve,” but not because his data shows that illegal immigrants significantly hurt the U.S. economy. He tells them to say this because “60% of those polled believe that illegal immigrants … “are partially responsible for the deficit.”

In some cases, he tells politicians to completely reverse their meaning depending on who they are talking to. For instance, he instructs his readers to tell voters that illegal immigrants are “more likely to be involved in anti-social behavior” because they have learned they can break the law and get away with it, and that they will have a negative impact on American society and fill up American prisons. However, if his readers happen to be talking to Hispanics, they are instructed to say that yes, illegal immigrants certainly do commit crimes, but no more than the average legal immigrant or native-born.

Frank Luntz sees himself as separate and above the issues of ordinary people. He observes them like a scientist observing rats in a cage, and takes the same delight as the scientist in manipulating his subjects’ instincts and reactions. Watching him crow with delight as one of his predictions comes true, or gloat over how “amazing” it is that certain words always produce the responses they do, or casually spin new political catchphrases around mouthfuls of candy bar, one can hardly avoid the impression that he revels in the feeling of puppet-master power that his abilities give him. It seems only fitting that as Luntz sees himself as separate from the great mass of people who prefer “music” to “substance,” he then plays on people’s prejudice, paranoia and pride to systematically separate everyone from everyone else.

The Reign of Ramage

Unable to print this paper out on my computer being out of ink, I go for the USB flash drive, but thats lost amongst other things within my trashed dorm room requiring serious cleaning after last weekends excursions. I guess theres no easy way of putting this...class is in twenty minutes, its a fifteen minute walk to Lietal. I don't have time to print out a hard copy of my paper, so I'll post it on here.

The Reign of Ramage:

Journal Entry 1

Introduction

“During my travels outside, I have seen and done things unbelievable by the standards of my people. Very few have undertaken this holy pilgrimage, and far fewer have managed to survive. The journey is one of self discovery, having changed me in ways thought unimaginable. An ancient trek reserved for the privileged and zealous within our society, known only as Rhetopia. You see this is the first step towards the new beginning. A rebirth if you will. But you the serious individual would not know what I’m talking about. No worries, I will do my best to answer any questions you might have, but first let me tell you more about where I am from. You see I am unaccustomed to your kind, having lived within Rhetopia until recently. I have never encountered anyone believed to be authentically serious, my apologies. Fortunately, my time spent studying the holy doctrine of Ramage will help us both come to some sort of understanding. We must both do our best to suppress any cultural biases against one another. I will do my best to explain myself without the use of rhetoric or coercion, I am not here to persuade you. But first, in order to describe my journeys to the serious person such as yourself, I must ask you to shed of all personal identity, and from everything you have ever known”.

Journal Entry 2

My History

“Born amongst all other citizens within a childcare facility, we are assorted by our given identities into categories fitting to our physical build. Quickly adapting to my surroundings, I was quickly placed outside of labor training, and into an elite rhetoric academy. Throughout my life, I have fought to the top of crop, earning more and more respect from my educators. Until one day as a teenager, I was selected a family of which to live with, and so began my life as a leading class”.

“Long after Rome’s collapse, the steady deterioration of the British empire, and more recent of the fall of the United States, you would have expected humanity to have adapted outside of its instinctual animosities. Where there are humans there is disputation and shadowing the pair there is rhetoric. If the fall of our past world’s civilization has shown us anything, it’s that we are not becoming an any more peaceful species any sooner, so we must correct the problem ourselves at the very source.”

Rhetopia is a place of flawless order, where law is set in stone by those in charge and tradition has governed our people since the beginning. The foundations of our community held in place by strict regulations governing all within its borders. The past is kept national secret by families of absolute power. But even this power is of no comparison with that of the unquestionable power given to those few Rhetoricians.”

Journal Entry 3

Rhetorical Rebirth

“A once thought impossible medical procedure, my Rhetopian society has developed rhetoric at its purest form. Through the use of neuroscience we have allowed those chosen for the operation, the ability to transcend the restrictions of traditional language. Placed into this enlightened state, a person is little more considered human than instrument. Instead a tool, whose sole purpose the ability to differentiate truths from falsities, becoming something other than the traditional judge and jury. The highest form of judgment on the planet. After undergoing rhetorical rebirth, the individual has become the highest power, and is unable to ever return to what they once knew. Having willingly sacrificed all experiences and everything making up our constructed readymade the converted have transformed into an exterior body of what can only be described as a perfect judicial system. Only when one is able to leave behind all that they know and cherish. Friends, possessions, family, career, hobbies, loves, and experiences can one begin categorize them self as a provisional essence. Without this “gist” ones humanity becomes questionable, sketchy at best. An entity of singular purpose, master of all moral judgments, endowed with the gift of divine persuasion and coercion. This is spoken language believed to be in its purest. Whose meaning not distorted by translation, but of flawless interpretation. Once willing to leave behind everything that is you, then and only then can you begin to relate to my people.”

Journal Entry 4

New Beginning

“Since birth, I have been obsessed in the way of rhetoric, the most valued quality of any person in Rhetopia. Few are chosen by the holy council of Rhetoricians, and even fewer have come from the labor facilities. To even be considered for this sacred transformation known as a rhetorical rebirth, one must first be shown outside our walls, forbidden to all except those pursuing status of Rhetorician. This is the ultimate submission to our faith, and test of absolute loyalty. The willing sacrifice for all that is considered pure within our society’s structure. By leaving behind all that is known within our perfect community. The once isolated individual, returns to Rhetopia changed, uncorrupted by the burdens of experience. Tabula Rasa as the Greeks had described. A blank slate, whose impartial readymade an improved state of being and the ideal preface for the second phase of the process.”

“I once believed rhetoric had shown me the only way. Through the coercion and manipulation of those around me, I had succeeded at nearly everything I have ever tried, ascending through the social fabrics of a flawed class system. Society stratified and believed to be perfect. I once believed to have been shown all essential truths, the customary steps towards my life’s predestined purpose in rhetoric, but my once anxiously awaited rebirth went horribly askew after discovering an ancient library and within it the sacred text translated to ‘Rhetoric: a users guide’ written by the one called John D. Ramage”

Journal Entry 5

Alone

“I am unable to recall exactly how long I have been on the outside. The fact is I remember very little of my previous life. All that flourished within my thoughts now are the disoriented images of those expelling my memories, and the enormous spider like chandelier hanging dangerously above me on the operation table. The unfamiliar sensation of amnesia feeling painful. Stripped of my constructed identity and separated from everybody I have ever known. All that remains of my humanity is a language heard by only myself, and the logic that was given at birth. Lost and confused, I am doomed to search the barren landscape occupied by all types of metal and concrete debris for the final truth.”

“After unraveling the bandages so tightly bound around my fore arm, could I see the brand on my arm, that of a placid face looking back at me, a zigzagged line, and a column whiter than skin could ever have naturally looked. The square mark consisting of these three elements very familiar, but no matter how hard I tried to remember, I could not remember from where. An echo of a different lifetime looming everywhere I went. Proof of the second life I once shared, before having chosen the path of a Rhetorician.”

Journal Entry 6

The Awakening

“What seemed like decades, I have traveled across this desolate range from city of ruble to the next, in the search of new food supplies. Until one day, cultivating water satchels at the bottom of concrete ravine I saw the outline of the letter L engraved in marble along a grassy hill. For the next several days I began excavating the building of which I learned was a library. The past is strictly denounced, and the uncovering of sacred relics a capital offense by the laws and practices within Rhetopia, but this no longer applied to me. Once entering the library I was quickly consumed with all its contents, exploring every section relearning all that had once been known. As I crept the preserved tombs engulfed in dust, the severity of my situation sank in, and I felt more alone than I had ever been. Having grown used to the silence on the outside, it did not prepare me for the absolute solitude ever present within these mute halls, whose only occupants myself, and the sounds of my feet reverberating off the wooden floors.”

“Slowly I uncovered each room of the enormous library, skimming each isle row by row, until one text caught my eye. Laying on its side, its blue and tan cover extruding through the others who still stood vertical. I ran my fingers over the aged rugged paper mesmerized for what it felt like an eternity. Entitle Rhetoric: a user’s guide was written in English across its front. Below the title, the same haunting face and familiar pedestal was exposed through the dust surrounding me. I then looked further down to arm to the mark which bore the same very symbols. Then recognized in one flash of an instant, fore I had seen this same banner thousands of times. Immediately the memories of my life once forgotten, paraded through the barrier that once restricted them, and all past memory restored. Frozen in the same very spot for what seemed like an eternity. Did I then finally stand, and begin retracing my past lifetime. My brain due to the overburden was unable to handle the express streaming of my forgotten memories and required sleep. For the next day I slept on a preserved plastic bench inside the musty underground library. When I woke rhetoric once again consumed my life, reading the extraordinary book cover to cover, not allowing its separation from my side.”

Journal Entry 7

The Newcomer

“After one mornings reading, I emerged from the catacombs for a breath of fresh air. The air cold and refreshing against my dust infused lungs. Breathing steadily I began gathering firewood, for my much needed meal. Crouching down to tie my shoes I was confronted with what sounded like a human grunt. Taken aback, I paused awaiting a second sound to help point me in the right direction. Then for the first time in what was years, I heard the gentle sound of voice coming from just over the other side of the hill. I nearly leapt into a sprint, but retaining my composure I managed to hold a steady pace. On the other side stood a figure whose entire body concealed by an enormous hooded cloak. Approaching hesitantly, I slowly watched the figure for several minutes, but he did not move or speak. I intuitively picked up a stick preparing to prod the figure, utterly lost for words. Before I could even react I was surrounded by others, all dressed in the same long cloak. Attempting escape I found my legs incapable of movement. Subject to the mercy of my captures, I was tied up, and head bagged.”

“Coughing and blinded by the intense light over head I gasped for fresh breathe of air. Slowly I began piecing together my visible surroundings. The ceiling nearly fifty feet high, I was in the center of an enormous circular chamber. Shadowy faces gazed at me along the distant bordering walls. Standing in the center of what looked like a giant arena and I the main attraction of, an uneasy feeling grew swelling from the bottom of my stomach. A deafeningly voice sounded from above me, shooting boisterously through the giant room. Looking up into the blinding light, my eyes began to squint tightly and water”.

“What is your purpose in front of the council of Rhetoricians!”

“”

Shows council the book

Booming voice is revealed as Ramage.

Realizes that rhetoric is a means of controlling society

Is asked to join the higher society

Never rejects or joins but ends with the quote

“No matter how secure people may be in their faith that their particular system is absolute an universal, no matter how strongly they believe that everyone ought to join them in subscribing to their particular doctrine, getting others who do not share their beliefs to cooperate with them and some form of cooperation is always required or to adopt their beliefs means they must either use force or persuasion.”- John D. Ramage

People

I was trying to read the articles, but people have no respect for the purpose of a library and refuse to shut their pie holes. So....I cannot concentrate on Bernays' article. Anyway...I tried to read Lippmann's if I had to I think that I would categorize his article as coercive. Even though Lippmann did not threaten directly, I got semi-threatening vibes from the article. He says that he will not denounce the private citizen further, after he already kind of does. He also, to me, has a menacing tone about his piece. Even though he states that he does not blame people for their disenchantment, I have the feeling he does to a degree. I swear I will post again when I am able to really give the articles the attention they deserve, like after class tonight.

Bernays sees rhetoric as an instrument of progress, a way for people to move closer to True Enlightenment. "Prejudices," he says, "are often the application of old taboos to new conditions. They are illogical, emotional, and hampering to progress." Very much a turn of the century idea--out with the folksy superstition, in with firm, inescapable logic. Naturally, rhetoric can be scientifically formulated to produce the desired result. Just three easy steps, stir occasionally, and voila! People start buying panatropes.

He seems to feel people are extremely persuaded by sense, and that if you just point people in the right way, that way will they go. He doesn't even really seem to see it as persuasion, just that there is a truth that is perfectly obvious to some people, and they just have to present it in the right way to make other people agree. It does not seem to occur to him that someone could present a truth in exactly the right way and still be disbelieved.

Bernays very readily separates his audience into cultural readymades such as scientists, enthusiasts, critics, experts, laymen, beautiful young women, and so on.

Lipmann, on the other hand, seems to see rhetoric as the dropping of small stones into a wide river: they might have some effect, but it's so small as to be negligible. He seems to believe either that politics has become criminally complicated and divorced from real life, or he believes that the people is a beast. Or both. He most likely believes that government and the public are both caught up in an unstoppable inertia. Nothing is new under the sun, all politicians are the same no matter what they call themselves, and the public are too numerous and fickle to ever unite for any cause.

He sees persuasion of the people as a waste of time, since most of the time they're too wrapped up in their own plebeian lives to hear what you're trying to tell them. Although he never comes right out and says it, he seems to feel that coercion is the only language the average American understands. It is hard to figure out whether he thinks this is bad or not. Does he admire rhetoricians' ability to highlight or obscure issues, or does he Seriously resent their meddling?

Unlike Bernays, Lipmann believes that men are almost completely unpredictable--that the only thing you can depend on them doing most of the time is nothing.

Lippman + Bernays = Love

After reading the material I, of course, promptly signed online to write a response (Promptly as in last minute). I then realized that everyone who has posted already had bascially summed up my thoughts as well. I will, nevertheless, give my opinion.

I see Lippman as being the weaker of the two. His reading was not as interesting and I found it hard to keep reading. I'm still not sure if that was due to the fact that I was in fact bored, or if I just didn't get what he was saying. Something tells me that it was a combonation of both. His opinions on voting were reasonable, but I didn't like the way he approached them. There wasn't really any persuasion at all. Like someone else mentioned, he was just trying to use scare tactics. That doesn't make me want to listen to him, it makes me want to prove him wrong!!

Bernays, on the other hand, did a very good job of keeping my interest. His views on rhetoric in society were very intersting and really got me thinking. What IF there was absolutely no rhetoric in the world? It would become completely chaotic! Our views of what is right and wrong would be completely distorted. Who knows what might become of us.

I would characterize Lippman as being coercive and Bernays as being persuasive. I believe both used their facts well and were very knowledgeable, but Bernays won as far as actually persuading me goes.

Persuasion and Manipulating Public Opinion

I'm just going to mush my response to The Persuaders and my thoughts on the Bernays and Lippman articles into one post.

So firstly, the Persuaders. I thought this documentary was really interesting. Companies really have advertising down to a science, and because of their knowledge concerning what people want, getting people to think that they need a product, etc. they can easily get people to buy their product using a variety of different tactics and tools.
Some of it is kind of scary how easily we are manipulated and influenced by advertising. But it is also kind of funny how seriously advertisers take it. The portion of the film where the advertiser was asking a man what he though when he was drinking a soda (I believe that's what it was) and how he felt whenever he did so. The interviewee looked amazed that anyone would consider that he'd feel lonely while he was sipping a coke.

And now, onto the Bernays/Lippmann articles! I don't think that either piece was explicitly coercive. The Bernays piece was more for rhetoric and it's use in swaying public opinion among large groups of people for the benefit of a culture as whole. He did admit that it can be used for bad (his examples being the KKK and Mussolini), but then he also gave ample evidence that it could also be utilized for positive intent. I mainly agreed with his argument. Rhetoric has the ability to manipulate and force conformity on people, but it can also be used to get ideas out there to a large number of people and persuade them to accept ways of thinking that were once totally unconsidered (for example, Bernays explains a post-civil war convention that helped with the integration of African Americans as citizens).

As for the Lippmann article, he seemed more concerned about the narcissistic side of Rhetoric. He warned against the dangers of self-interested groups and their use of propaganda. He tries to get people to understand the advantages of open discussion and compromise. I think that his article was probably more coercive than the Bernays if I had to choose between the two.

Final Draft: The Longest Day in the World (I hate this title)

It had been a long day. One of those days when you just want to go home, curl up with a blanket and a hot cup of tea, and watch your favorite movie until your eyelids fall heavy with sleep. Work was difficult. What else is new? I was walking my normal path down Broad Street, becoming ever closer to the comfortable haven I call home. It was a nice evening; the air was cool, crisp. I hugged my jacket a little tighter as the breeze blew by and glanced to my far right. Something had caught my eye. A large group of people, some holding multi colored signs with pictures of Plato on them, had gathered in front of a building. Subconsciously, my feet turned toward the direction of the group; I wanted to take a closer look.

The building they marched in front of seemed never ending. The architecture was long and strange with thick stained glass windows that were almost impossible to see through. I glanced over a few heads to try and make out the name that was etched over the front door of the wondrous masterpiece.

“Ramage’s Rhetorical Reasoning, Inc.” I read aloud, “I’ve heard of this place.”
“And destroy it we must!” a strange character obnoxiously hissed in my face. I had gotten dangerously close to the group, without noticing, and had finally realized what was going on; it was a protest.

“Speak from the heart! Never compromise!” Another shouted hastily, grabbing my arm and dragging me further into the crowd. People began swarming in my direction. The next thing I knew I had a sign in my hand and was following the crowd in the earnest protest they had formed.

“They are like actors reading from scripts. Some read their lines more persuasively than others,” a man dressed in all black preached as he stood tall in the front of the crowd, “but all of them manifest a public self, a persona, whose resemblance to the private person is never totally clear.” He continued his sermon as another group formed close by. Another preacher stood tall, yelling similar words into the crowd.

“This uncertain relationship between the mask and the face of Rhetorical People results in an uncertain relationship between audiences and actors, between words and meaning. Such uncertainty does no confound the communication of Serious People, who wear no masks and speak from the heart rather than from some script.” The small group cheered loudly as the preacher continued. His words were muffled in my head as my mind began to fill with questions and, certainly, concerns.

“What is this all about?” I asked the person next to me nervously. I wanted very much to leave but was too intimidated and remained in my place.

“These rhetorical scum bags are trying to convince people that what we say is too serious. Every time we are able to get people to follow our ways they are taken by the Rhetoricians and convinced that there are many other options. They think they know everything, they know nothing! GRAVITAS, GRAVITAS!” he continued shouting, a few others joined in.

“Conform to us, we will win!” a women whispered in my ear. “It is time. We know the way. You will be happy with us. You will be pleased.”

Unsure and belittled, I stumbled along. I closed my eyes as another strange hand grasped onto my arm. This had to be a bad dream. I was being pulled in two different directions but did not resist either of them. Sooner than I knew I was pushed, shoved almost, by a strange presence that overwhelmed the protestors. The shouting became louder and I could feel bodies closing in on me. I opened my eyes. It was almost as if I was being sucked into a black hole becoming ever so close to my inevitable death. I closed my eyes once more and fell to the ground.

All was quiet as I stirred back into consciousness. I sat up groggily, rubbing my head and focusing on my surroundings; I was in a dimly lit room. The walls were papered with bizarre patterns that almost came to life when the light slowly seeped through the stained glass windows. I must have somehow gotten into the Rhetorician’s building. I stood, cautiously, noticing that there was not a single piece of furniture in the room. There were, however, at least a dozen doors, all labeled and colored differently.

Suddenly, one of the doors closed behind me. I jumped and spun around, nearly crashing into another person.

“Hello,” a man said, smirking, as I stumbled back, regaining my footing. “My name is John Ramage. I’m sure you have a lot of questions.” He was a tall, average built man. His glasses were thinly rimmed and his eyes held a tremendous amount of thought behind them. His clothes were oddly matched, the patterns did not flow together at first glance, but somehow it all seemed to look alright.

“Yes. I do have a million questions. What is going on? Did you get me out of that mess? Thank you if you did. Wait, why did you? Who are those people?” I babbled then became silent and still once again. I studied the man’s face closely; he seemed calm, too calm. My head was still throbbing from the fall. It was hard to concentrate.

“In truth, our Anti-Rhetoric Spokespersons have scored more than a few valid points against Rhetorical People,” Ramage began promptly with his retort. “Then again, also in truth, our Anti-Rhetorical Spokespersons are actually Anti-Rhetoric Spokes personas, a mask we donned, a rhetorical device we employed to set up our arguments in support of rhetoric as a legitimate way of understand the world.” I looked at him curiously, almost bewildered.

“What?” I eventually asked. “Are you really talking about those protestors? You’re saying you paid them to be out there? Why would you do that? How does that prove anything about Rhetoric, or whatever you’re talking about?” I finished slightly out of breath.

“In setting them up like this, we were simply following the example of their hero, Plato, himself a master rhetorician not above using his Sophist foes like ventriloquist dummies to mouth his self-serving script. And that’s the first point to be made the in case for rhetoric’s significance—its ubiquity.” Again, he continued. I blinked with wide eyes.

“So, they don’t know they are being paid?” I asked. Ramage nodded. “It’s a kind of sick, twisted lesson to society? You are trying to show them that by protesting they are really just proving the idea of rhetoric?” He nodded again. “Right, so, what exactly IS the idea of rhetoric?” I asked, dumbfounded. Ramage began to walk and I followed. Something about this man made me trust him, I’m still not sure why.

He led us into a small office and took a seat behind his small, very organized desk. I allowed myself to sit across from him. The light was a little brighter in this room.

“Rhetoric rejects the idea that the world consists entirely of true things that are real and untrue things that are illusory and that reason is the process by which we sort them out and rid the world of error and illusion. For rhetoric, the world is full of overlapping partial truths and the task of reason is to figure out which is truest—most meaningful, most effective—in a given situation…” he was going to continue but I cut him off; my nerves had calmed down and I supposed I understood all that I could.

“I suppose it’s just like the decision making processes that we use everyday,” I stood, pacing slowly, trying to grasp all the information I could. “We don’t always come up with just one conclusion. There could be many to any given situation. That’s why the protestors aren’t exactly correct. There is never just one way to solve anything!” Ramage smiled and so did I. He stood.

“Any other questions?” he asked, still smirking.

“Yes, as a matter of fact,” I began, crossing my arms in front of my chest. “I do have another question. Why haven’t you asked who I am? Aren’t you at all interested in my name?” Ramage chuckled and walked to the door. He opened it, gesturing me to go through. I did.

“Ah, yes. But giving me your name would give me no idea as to who you actually are.” He informed me as he followed behind. I yielded for a moment, letting him take the lead as we walked through yet another door into a larger room. It was inexplicable inside. The walls were very tall and very obscure. There were three stations set up in the middle of the room with people lined up chaotically at each one.

“Now what?” I groaned. I had to admit that I was intrigued but I had just remembered my cozy plans for the evening and was getting tired of hazed answers.

“This is one’s identity, in a gist anyway.” Ramage stopped and glanced over the production in front of us. He crossed his arms and smiled to himself. “Many times, identity is divided into three parts. For example, Freud claimed that the human psyche, or the soul, consisted of the id, ego and superego. So our own tripartite division of identity into the given, or what we inherit, the readymade, what others construct for us, and the constructed, what we construct from that which is available to us, have some rough precedent, though our own divisions are less neat than its predecessors.”

“I’d say.” I laughed as a pile of papers fell from one station nearby. The pieces fell everywhere while people just walked over them and into each other.

“To explain each of the divisions specifically would cause us to get in the way of what’s already going on, I’m afraid,” Ramage chuckled and began to walk away. I, once more, followed. I wanted to keep close for it was difficult to hear over all of the commotion. “However, I hope you understand that your identity is created over a life time and cannot be fully expressed to others.” I nodded as we made our way back into the main room. I made my way towards the window, noticing that the shadows of the protestors had long since left.

“There are gone,” Ramage answered for me. “You may leave if you wish.”

“Thank you,” I replied. “Thanks for everything. I really do appreciate all you taught me. I would have liked a better way of approaching it though.” My face contorted as I rubbed the raw spot on my head. Ramage smirked once again.

Nothing else was said again between Ramage and I. I left with a thirst for more knowledge but also with exhaustion from life. As I continued on my routine walk home that evening I looked more closely to my surroundings. Suddenly, I decided to step off of the familiar path and turned onto an unfamiliar street. Maybe I was delusional, maybe I was lost. I’m still not sure. I do believe, however, that I had become one of those crazy Rhetoricians that day and wanted to see if a different path would really take me to the destination I longed for.