I'm going to follow the train of apologies recently and ask for the same type of forgiveness from all of you. I originally planned to blog before the last class, but time did not prove to be on my side and ulitmately got the best of me--and then procrastination got the better of me before I finally posted this. I'm sorry. Here are my thoughts to the articles that we were supposed to read for last class--The Disenchantment Man and Manipulation the Public Opinion. We didn't discuss them in too much detail, though, so these thoughts should still prove to be relevant.
Anyway, getting to the two articles. I don't think I can thoroughly explain what I read, but I did, however, highlight some material that I think can add to the debate.
In the Disenchanted Man I hightlighted text that hits hard. "To the realm of executive acts, each of us, as a member of the public, reamains always external. Our public opinions are always and forever, by their very nature, an attempt to control the actions of others from the outside. If we can grasp the full significance of that conclusion we shall, I think, have found a way of fixing the role of public opinion in its true perspective; we shall know how to account for the disenchantment of democracy, and we shall begin to see the outline of an ideal of public opinion which, unlike that accepted in the dogma of democracy, may be really attainable." (pg. 41)
If our we can grasp our public opinions, thereby controlling the actions of others, then we can attain a purity that had not been shown in some time--I'm not sure how long that time goes back to, but I'm assuming that it's a very, very, very, very, long time.
In Bernays Manipulating the Public Opinion, there were also a few things that I believed to be important in the discussion.
"One method of changing people's ideas has been often used, and that is to substitute new ideas for old by changing cliches." (pg. 57)
By switching old representations, like the evacuation hospital example, to lesser expected responsibility type representations, evacuation post, then the public opinion can be switched to believe a mask of what once was. Euphamistic language is usually looked upon negatively, so this concept of ridding new cliches for old ones, is just another hinderance on the public opinion. We've been fooled before, so this isn't any different. What can we do to stop this? How about saying what we really mean?
"Occasionally, the manipulation of the public mind entails the removal of prejudice. Prejudices are often the application of old taboos to new conditions. They are illogical, emotional, and hampering to progress." (pg. 57)
Prejudice can hinder a person's opinion even if not justified. It carrys with a population, and can ultimately bury the subject if not properly cared for--sometimes it can't even stop that. (see margarine example.)
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Lippmann vs Bernays
Hello Everyone,
I'd like to apologize ahead of time. I feel like I didn't really give these readings my full attention because I was still working on my paper.
The Lippmann reading: Lippmann uses sarcasm/cynicism to push his point across to the reader about the state of affairs (that most people don't vote, and make up crappy excuses for why not, if they even try at all, etc). I enjoyed this reading for the style of it, but I'd have to say that his was the more coersive of the two: Lippmann didn't provide much information, then let you choose. It was more like Ramage's definition of propaganda, where he played off of our upset at the status quo, to steer us to his conclusion.
I felt like Bernays' reading was much more laid-back, having a discussion with me, rather than telling me how things were.
This is all I have for now. I am very mentally drained from writing this Ramage paper.
-Kim
I'd like to apologize ahead of time. I feel like I didn't really give these readings my full attention because I was still working on my paper.
The Lippmann reading: Lippmann uses sarcasm/cynicism to push his point across to the reader about the state of affairs (that most people don't vote, and make up crappy excuses for why not, if they even try at all, etc). I enjoyed this reading for the style of it, but I'd have to say that his was the more coersive of the two: Lippmann didn't provide much information, then let you choose. It was more like Ramage's definition of propaganda, where he played off of our upset at the status quo, to steer us to his conclusion.
I felt like Bernays' reading was much more laid-back, having a discussion with me, rather than telling me how things were.
This is all I have for now. I am very mentally drained from writing this Ramage paper.
-Kim
Thoughts on Bernays & Lippmann
My impressions from the two articles are as such: Bernays saw propaganda as a means for business growth not a way to impose his will and cause others to suffer. Rhetoric was a powerful tool in the hands of Bernays and in his mind of great benefit to all. Bernays probably thought of the public as a means to convey whatever intended message he desired. Bernays was fully aware of his manipulation strategies but saw them as secondary to the goal of getting a point across. Lippmann is wary of the information distributed to the public and he feels it is tailored to the sources desire. Lippmann probably found rhetoric to be useful but disturbing if used in a destructive manner. The "public" can actually be shaped to the liking of the propagandist based on their influence and authority. The public is probably unaware of this occurence but slowly over time as history has told us unspeakable acts have been the result of a slow burning propaganda filled plan.
Lippmann's characterization of the public is depressingly accurate. Or so it strikes me, at any rate. And it is made even more depressing by the fact that it is over 75 years old, and yet I can see no change. Lippmann does not blame the public for their apathy, and I don't feel that anyone truly could, or should, rather. After all, he lays out the problem quite clearly. "In the cold light of experiance he knows that his sovreignty is a fiction." The average man really has no control over government. "The general opinions of large numbers of persons are almost certain to be a vague and confusing melody." It is difficult for individual voices to come to a democratic decision, because the blend will only be disorienting. Therefore it is unavoidable that some, or many, perspectives will simply be left out. Lippmann also discusses the abundence of research, statistics; the general information overload that is available, and that it seems one must intake to even have an opinion on an issue. It is overwhelming, and only becomes moreso as information flies more easily to and fro. Although Lippmann does mention the value of debate, as a means of clarifying the public opinion from private opinions, so that action can be taken. Overall, it seems that the rhetorical situation, for Lippmann, is one that few actually may take part in, and is mainly an issue of drawing attention to, and agreement upon, an idea, in the midst of a sea of apathy.
Perhaps it is because Bernays seems to focus on issues that are not only political, but it seems that his view of the rhetocial situation is one that is more open to different players.The last series of statements in his essay is, "Public opinion can be moved, directed, and formed by such a technique. But at the core of this great heterogeneous body of public opinion is a tenacious will to live, to progress, to move in the direction of ultimate social and individual benefit. He who seeks to manipulate public opinion must always heed it." Simply the way he writes of it makes public opinion seem relatively bendable, particularly in contrast to Lippmann's perspective. It is also interesting that he characterizes the public opinion as being one that is generally interested in social benefit, that is, the benefit of everyone, as well as the invidivual benefit. This is not the distanced and disenchanted public opinion of Lippmann's essay. I think there is a truth to that, and I think in general people do want what is best for society as a whole. But I think the ease of slipping into apathy has a strong dose of truth to it as well.
And to go along with Dr. Mahoney's suggestion: If my rhetoric travels had a soundtrack, it would be Harrowdown Hill by Thom Yorke. But the competition was fierce, I assure you.
Perhaps it is because Bernays seems to focus on issues that are not only political, but it seems that his view of the rhetocial situation is one that is more open to different players.The last series of statements in his essay is, "Public opinion can be moved, directed, and formed by such a technique. But at the core of this great heterogeneous body of public opinion is a tenacious will to live, to progress, to move in the direction of ultimate social and individual benefit. He who seeks to manipulate public opinion must always heed it." Simply the way he writes of it makes public opinion seem relatively bendable, particularly in contrast to Lippmann's perspective. It is also interesting that he characterizes the public opinion as being one that is generally interested in social benefit, that is, the benefit of everyone, as well as the invidivual benefit. This is not the distanced and disenchanted public opinion of Lippmann's essay. I think there is a truth to that, and I think in general people do want what is best for society as a whole. But I think the ease of slipping into apathy has a strong dose of truth to it as well.
And to go along with Dr. Mahoney's suggestion: If my rhetoric travels had a soundtrack, it would be Harrowdown Hill by Thom Yorke. But the competition was fierce, I assure you.
Blah
So, I read the Lippmann and Bernays readings. When reading "The Disenchanted Man," I had no idea where Lippmann was going with the whole voting example. It didn't appear to have anything to do with rhetoric or what Ramage has ever said. Then again, I don't follow anything that has to do with politics or the like... I know, I'm horrible.
At one point though, Lippmann said something that completely agreed with Ramage's idea of "persuading the audience." On page 40, Lippmann writes, "Since the general opinions of large numbers of persons are almost certain to be a vague and confusing medley, action cannot be taken until these opinions have been factored down, canalized, compressed and made uniform. The making of one general will out of a multitude of general wishes is not an Hegelian mystery, as so many social philosophers have imagined, but an art well known to leaders, politicians, and steering committees."
I think that statement alone agrees with most of what Ramage was talking about in Chapter 3 with persuasion and propaganda. It also ties in to what Lippmann was saying about voting--politicians constantly try to figure out ways of getting more people to vote for them, or to just vote in general. What better way to do that than to use the power of persuasion? I know I constantly persuade people and argue to get MY way.
Bernays' "Manipulating Public Opinion" also agrees with Ramage's idea of using propaganda as rhetoric to persuade an audience. Bernays' opening paragraph is very Ramage-esque: "Public opinion is subject to a variety of influences that develop and alter its views on nearly every phase of life today. Religion, science, art, commerce, industry are in a state of motion. The inertia of society and institutions is constantly combated by the activity of individuals with strong convictions and desires."
So, yay, everyone is like Ramage and thinks the way he does. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but all I know is I cannot wait to move AWAY from "Ramageland" completely. I have a headache.
At one point though, Lippmann said something that completely agreed with Ramage's idea of "persuading the audience." On page 40, Lippmann writes, "Since the general opinions of large numbers of persons are almost certain to be a vague and confusing medley, action cannot be taken until these opinions have been factored down, canalized, compressed and made uniform. The making of one general will out of a multitude of general wishes is not an Hegelian mystery, as so many social philosophers have imagined, but an art well known to leaders, politicians, and steering committees."
I think that statement alone agrees with most of what Ramage was talking about in Chapter 3 with persuasion and propaganda. It also ties in to what Lippmann was saying about voting--politicians constantly try to figure out ways of getting more people to vote for them, or to just vote in general. What better way to do that than to use the power of persuasion? I know I constantly persuade people and argue to get MY way.
Bernays' "Manipulating Public Opinion" also agrees with Ramage's idea of using propaganda as rhetoric to persuade an audience. Bernays' opening paragraph is very Ramage-esque: "Public opinion is subject to a variety of influences that develop and alter its views on nearly every phase of life today. Religion, science, art, commerce, industry are in a state of motion. The inertia of society and institutions is constantly combated by the activity of individuals with strong convictions and desires."
So, yay, everyone is like Ramage and thinks the way he does. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but all I know is I cannot wait to move AWAY from "Ramageland" completely. I have a headache.
Lippmann and Bernays -- Completely Different
These two essays differ greatly in many areas. The most obvious is style. I had a bit if a rough time reading Lippmann's piece. The language he used seems somewhat aloof and very cynical. I think he's trying to raise awareness amongst his audience that members of society are becoming more and more insignificant in the realm of The Great Society. Awareness may not be the correct word. The language he is using is more coercive and what he's trying to do is move people in large numbers to act on their opinions of how society is faring. He paints a bleak picture of how "self-interested" groups do what is necessary to gain control of certain parts of society, most often political. He says there really is only one recourse we, as the others in society, have against the self-interested group - DEBATE. BUT ... the only way debate will succeed in being fair is if all parties involved are fully informed about the debated issue.
I believe Lippmann meant to rile his readymade audience and get them to act on the injustices of the prevailing self-interested groups. If members of the audience are successful in making a societal change, they will have succeeded in creating their own constructed identities.
Bernays, on the other hand, was much easier to read. He seemed more down to earth and accessible. I consider his essay to be persuasive in that he is trying to simply convince his audience of the positive aspects of rhetoric, not necessarily to act as Lippmann was trying to do. He certainly is targeting an everyday, average member of society, male and female and of different races. The examples he uses of how rhetoric is used to "educate the public to new ideas" include the change of public opinion toward the "Negro" after the Civil War, the change in fashion trends to help American industry, the change in attitude toward President Coolidge and the acknowledgement of an unknown country, Lithuania. He obviously encompassed a broad range.
These two men do agree that society would be best off if members acted in groups in order to make major changes. Bernays says, "Group adherence is the fulcrum around which broad acceptance for new ideas can most rapidly be moved (56)."
Even though I didn't really enjoy reading Lippmann, it was great to read the contrasting essays truly casting light on each other to help me understand a little better.
Dawn
I believe Lippmann meant to rile his readymade audience and get them to act on the injustices of the prevailing self-interested groups. If members of the audience are successful in making a societal change, they will have succeeded in creating their own constructed identities.
Bernays, on the other hand, was much easier to read. He seemed more down to earth and accessible. I consider his essay to be persuasive in that he is trying to simply convince his audience of the positive aspects of rhetoric, not necessarily to act as Lippmann was trying to do. He certainly is targeting an everyday, average member of society, male and female and of different races. The examples he uses of how rhetoric is used to "educate the public to new ideas" include the change of public opinion toward the "Negro" after the Civil War, the change in fashion trends to help American industry, the change in attitude toward President Coolidge and the acknowledgement of an unknown country, Lithuania. He obviously encompassed a broad range.
These two men do agree that society would be best off if members acted in groups in order to make major changes. Bernays says, "Group adherence is the fulcrum around which broad acceptance for new ideas can most rapidly be moved (56)."
Even though I didn't really enjoy reading Lippmann, it was great to read the contrasting essays truly casting light on each other to help me understand a little better.
Dawn
Am I Being Persuaded or Coerced?
Reading the articles "Manipulating Public Opinion" and "The Disenchanted Man" made me really angry. First of all, in the Bernay's article, he says, "The manipulation of the public mind, which is so marked a characteristic of society today, serves a social purpose. This manipulation serves to gain acceptance for new ideas." My problem with these sentences lie in the word manipulation. It's an ugly word and it makes me think of evil things. I understand that as a society, we should look to new ideas with an open mind. If we didn't do that this world would be in even worse shape than it is. My problem is that I don't need someone using manipulation to make me come around. If I want to open my mind to a new idea, I will. It's that simple. A ridiculous public relations campaign isn't going to make me think that President Bush is a smart man or that Tom Cruise isn't a nut bar. The fact of the matter is, what you see is what you get. If the President goes in front of the world and says something like "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me--can't get fooled again" the damage has been done. I'm not going to forget what he said and I should hope no one else would either (if only for the simple fact that it's pretty damn funny!). PR campaigns don't wash away memories.
The Lippman article disturbed me just as much as Bernay's did. The article says that "the ideal of a citizenry being well informed through the news was unrealistic." Well no shit! If I wanted to be more informed, I would find a way. Don't try to tell me that a ridiculous PR campaign is going to inform me with strictly truths. That's the biggest load of crap spewed forth since....well forever. The Lippman article goes on to say that, "Even this degree of responsible understanding is only attainable by the development of fact-finding agencies of great scope and complexity." And just as I'm starting to agree... "Their findings are too intricate for the casual reader." And we're back to being stupid!
I don't know who the hell these articles were aimed at. Probably PR people. It's a nice pat on the back to fellow PR men (and women). Hey man! Great job on that manipulation of thought! I couldn't have done it better myself! I can coerce and/or persuade my boyfriend into anything, but it doesn't mean I am right in doing so. I'm not helping the greater good, I'm merely getting what I want. In the case of Public Relations, people aren't out to make the world a better place, they are making a name for themselves and some money too. And lord help those who enter into the PR world to help. I fear that somewhere down the road, they will see it as a corrupt buisness, much the way I do.
The Lippman article disturbed me just as much as Bernay's did. The article says that "the ideal of a citizenry being well informed through the news was unrealistic." Well no shit! If I wanted to be more informed, I would find a way. Don't try to tell me that a ridiculous PR campaign is going to inform me with strictly truths. That's the biggest load of crap spewed forth since....well forever. The Lippman article goes on to say that, "Even this degree of responsible understanding is only attainable by the development of fact-finding agencies of great scope and complexity." And just as I'm starting to agree... "Their findings are too intricate for the casual reader." And we're back to being stupid!
I don't know who the hell these articles were aimed at. Probably PR people. It's a nice pat on the back to fellow PR men (and women). Hey man! Great job on that manipulation of thought! I couldn't have done it better myself! I can coerce and/or persuade my boyfriend into anything, but it doesn't mean I am right in doing so. I'm not helping the greater good, I'm merely getting what I want. In the case of Public Relations, people aren't out to make the world a better place, they are making a name for themselves and some money too. And lord help those who enter into the PR world to help. I fear that somewhere down the road, they will see it as a corrupt buisness, much the way I do.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
0110001
Chapter 4 starts out by talking about the stasis approach. This, as you know, is a question that creates a division among people. Then a rhetorical act (argument) is used to mend the fracture.
In chapter 3 we learned that coercion uses a suppression of alternatives to direct peoples thinking, and reach a predetermined end. It goes on to explain how coercion is increasingly disguised as persuasion by creating a division and ultimatums. (the whole “do you believe in God or not”) This will eventually lead you to one conclusion.
It seems like ideas are being built up as fast as they are being torn apart. This explains why there are so many never ending debates on CNN, but does this apply to everyday situation we find ourselves in?
Chapter 3 showed how Bush carefully constructed his speech to get his point across. Then this chapter took it apart to show how it did not really hold up in some areas. I get the impression that we are continually coding and decoding meaning from things we only have the gist of. Relativism is beginning to look more and more plausible. If we can communicate across belief systems why do we need to code and decode?
In chapter 3 we learned that coercion uses a suppression of alternatives to direct peoples thinking, and reach a predetermined end. It goes on to explain how coercion is increasingly disguised as persuasion by creating a division and ultimatums. (the whole “do you believe in God or not”) This will eventually lead you to one conclusion.
It seems like ideas are being built up as fast as they are being torn apart. This explains why there are so many never ending debates on CNN, but does this apply to everyday situation we find ourselves in?
Chapter 3 showed how Bush carefully constructed his speech to get his point across. Then this chapter took it apart to show how it did not really hold up in some areas. I get the impression that we are continually coding and decoding meaning from things we only have the gist of. Relativism is beginning to look more and more plausible. If we can communicate across belief systems why do we need to code and decode?
"This year, we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead."
That is the second sentence of Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. Bush wastes no time in applying what Ramage calls a "stasis" approach. Taken in social context, it is clear that the "decisive days" mentioned here refer to the time when the decision must be made as to whether or not the United States should go to war with Iraq. In his opening statement, Bush does not directly ask a "proposal question," but instead he implies one: "What should we do about this thing?" As Ramage mentions, the SOUA is not typically a time to try to suggest something as drastic and controversial as war. Yet Bush, from the very start of his address, is preparing his audience to digest a rhetorical act that will attempt to frame going to war with Iraq as the best possible answer to the looming question of "what should we do about this thing?"
What happened to choices B, C, and D?
Near the end of the speech, Bush comes off as either utterly confident, or profoundly ignorant:
"In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country."
Perhaps "language is the only reality" is the basis for Bush's statements here? If he says it enough times, maybe it will become true? The idea of "ambient persuasion," I suppose, would be Ramage's take on that strategy. At play here is that notion that is people hear something said enough times, it takes on an air of truth. And Bush certainly needed the power of that air of truth, as even before the bombs were dropped, I don't think the state of this country in regards to the war could be described as one of "calm unity" or "confidence" with any reasonable degree of accuracy. It's difficult to say, exactly, how ignorant Bush was to this dissent, or if he was simply too caught up in his own priorities.
Either way, it's tragic.
That is the second sentence of Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. Bush wastes no time in applying what Ramage calls a "stasis" approach. Taken in social context, it is clear that the "decisive days" mentioned here refer to the time when the decision must be made as to whether or not the United States should go to war with Iraq. In his opening statement, Bush does not directly ask a "proposal question," but instead he implies one: "What should we do about this thing?" As Ramage mentions, the SOUA is not typically a time to try to suggest something as drastic and controversial as war. Yet Bush, from the very start of his address, is preparing his audience to digest a rhetorical act that will attempt to frame going to war with Iraq as the best possible answer to the looming question of "what should we do about this thing?"
What happened to choices B, C, and D?
Near the end of the speech, Bush comes off as either utterly confident, or profoundly ignorant:
"In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country."
Perhaps "language is the only reality" is the basis for Bush's statements here? If he says it enough times, maybe it will become true? The idea of "ambient persuasion," I suppose, would be Ramage's take on that strategy. At play here is that notion that is people hear something said enough times, it takes on an air of truth. And Bush certainly needed the power of that air of truth, as even before the bombs were dropped, I don't think the state of this country in regards to the war could be described as one of "calm unity" or "confidence" with any reasonable degree of accuracy. It's difficult to say, exactly, how ignorant Bush was to this dissent, or if he was simply too caught up in his own priorities.
Either way, it's tragic.
Monday, September 25, 2006
pending.
Ok so first, I'm going to admit right now that I have not been in school mode lately. Not an excuse... just a statement. So this is coming kinda late. Bear with me.
My mind wasn't in gear trying to read Rhertoric. Previously I really just skimmed the chapters and grabbed the examples, but really didn't read into what they might mean. So I decided this weekend to finally seclude myself from all outside noise (I'm an I-pod aholic... so this was hard for me, believe me) and get into the book - and just read til' my head exploded. (It came close, believe me.) But I am glad to say that by really really reading the book, I started to enjoy Ramage's whole style; and relate to his examples.
Chapter 4wise, I am not going to state too much. I'm really focusing on Resemblance and how it ties into rhetoric and the outcome of the audience perception. Like in the SOUA - how they compare Vietnam and Iraq and show how nobody really wants to compare the two - due to the unfavorable outcome of Vietnam, drawing any connotation between the two would definately cause it to become negative; which could definately harm the support from the audience. (Audience was mentioned in Chapter 2, therefore coming to this conclusion made me really feel as if I was starting to lightly grasp rhetoric. Yay.) Chapter 3 was helpful in the sense that I could see how characteristics and identity had influence with persuasion; and vice versa. Society wise, as well as personally when I 've seen myself practice it. Example: I was offered to a concert, but the same day I was previously offered a well paying just-for-that-day job. Lets just say that I need the money. No If's; And's or But's but I still heard myself over the phone say, "Yeaaa! I am SO going!!" I thought about it and realized that if i was a "Serious Person" - I'd be at that job, making a lot of easy money. Paying for food, and books (yes Im still getting books.) and the necessities. But the chance to be spontaneous, the one who doesnt want to look at the map, go with the list, etc. etc.... well theres the Rhetoric person. A "Lover of Experience."
So there it is. My conception on rhetoric so far. Feel free to comment, and I won't hold it against you if you think I am utterly crazy. Ha!
As for the paper? I've got my idea started and it well into the works... just got to find a way to wrap it all up. I'll share tomorrow. Right now I'm still trying to figure out my Haloween costume. :o)
My mind wasn't in gear trying to read Rhertoric. Previously I really just skimmed the chapters and grabbed the examples, but really didn't read into what they might mean. So I decided this weekend to finally seclude myself from all outside noise (I'm an I-pod aholic... so this was hard for me, believe me) and get into the book - and just read til' my head exploded. (It came close, believe me.) But I am glad to say that by really really reading the book, I started to enjoy Ramage's whole style; and relate to his examples.
Chapter 4wise, I am not going to state too much. I'm really focusing on Resemblance and how it ties into rhetoric and the outcome of the audience perception. Like in the SOUA - how they compare Vietnam and Iraq and show how nobody really wants to compare the two - due to the unfavorable outcome of Vietnam, drawing any connotation between the two would definately cause it to become negative; which could definately harm the support from the audience. (Audience was mentioned in Chapter 2, therefore coming to this conclusion made me really feel as if I was starting to lightly grasp rhetoric. Yay.) Chapter 3 was helpful in the sense that I could see how characteristics and identity had influence with persuasion; and vice versa. Society wise, as well as personally when I 've seen myself practice it. Example: I was offered to a concert, but the same day I was previously offered a well paying just-for-that-day job. Lets just say that I need the money. No If's; And's or But's but I still heard myself over the phone say, "Yeaaa! I am SO going!!" I thought about it and realized that if i was a "Serious Person" - I'd be at that job, making a lot of easy money. Paying for food, and books (yes Im still getting books.) and the necessities. But the chance to be spontaneous, the one who doesnt want to look at the map, go with the list, etc. etc.... well theres the Rhetoric person. A "Lover of Experience."
So there it is. My conception on rhetoric so far. Feel free to comment, and I won't hold it against you if you think I am utterly crazy. Ha!
As for the paper? I've got my idea started and it well into the works... just got to find a way to wrap it all up. I'll share tomorrow. Right now I'm still trying to figure out my Haloween costume. :o)
My Reaction to the SOUA
As I was reading the 2003 SOUA, I noticed that I was responding in a rather cynical way. Everything I read was being "yeah-righted" in my head. Once I realized that I was doing it, I tried to examine the reasons that made me so cynical towards anything the leader of our country says. It wasn't like I was pulling up specifics to support my cynicism, it was more like...feelings. And I realized, this could be the result of that "ambient persuasion" that Ramage discussed in Chapter 4. I am not a heavy follower of politics, although maybe I should be. But I do hear things, like opinions, debates, and issues, through the media and other people. Perhaps these things have created, through repetition and time, opinions in my mind that affected me while I was reading the SOUA. For example, the part where Bush proposes enviromental reforms got a huge "YEA RIGHT" from me. Maybe that is a result of hearing, over time, different instances where he did not support enviromental reforms. That could be one way of looking at ambient persuasion. Then again, I could also be cynical because the speech came off as rather propagandic to me. Bush spent a seemingly puny amount of the speech addressing national concerns like health care, homelessness, unemployment, and taxation. It seemed like he threw in these issues at the beginning to kind of "get them over with" before he moved on to the really important issue of the day: Iraq. Throughout the majority of his section on the Iraqi threat he fails to present the other side of the story. He hardly ever discusses the negative aspects of war, and there are plenty, but stresses the need to act. He does not present alternatives to war. Seems like propaganda to me. He made war sound so inevitable, that I wondered if the American people ever really had a choice in the matter.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
State of.......the Agenda
Upon reading Ramage's chapter four it is apparent that the rhetorical purpose of the 2003 State of the Union was to bend the minds of television viewers. Whether the Bush Administration was acting honestly or deceptively the agenda was clear, "We're going to invade Iraq, period" No matter how insignificant or cloudy the links between Iraq & 9/11(terrorism) were, Bush was steadfast in goal of democracy in Iraq. Ramage mentions "petition is reputation" certainly holds true with the administrations continous barrage of reasons to invade Iraq. The Weapons of Mass Destruction phrase was repeated ad nauseam to the American people and the threat of mobile nuclear weapons was a frightening thought. To specifically address "Stases" & "Toulmin's schema" here are my thoughts...I found Ramage using Toulmin to breakdown the 2003 SOUA very insightful and systematic. The use of the Claim, Data, Warrant, Backing. Qualifiers & Conditions of Rebuttal very similar to that of a debate format. When discussing the Claim, etc a clear picture of the speech is formed while the underlying problem with Iraq is stated as well. The SOUA contains absolutely no Qualifiers or alternative measures that could be possibly taken when the case for war was made. Ramage remarks, "The one element of the president's argument that most clearly marks it as propagandistic is the virtual absence of qualifiers" pg 130. President Bush & his administration were steadfast in their goal to invade Iraq and were not interested in alternatives or taking what they felt to be unecessary chances with WMD. Ramage's discussion of Stases leaves something to be desired. While he asked several questions and had the corresponding response I felt these points were long winded and less than clear to the reader. So hopefully during class I will have a better grasp of what Stases is.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
A true American Hero
A notice, to start: This is not my official, SOUA-tackling blog post for this week. Although it is on a related note. I was just watching the clip again of Stephen Colbert's speech at this year's White House Correspondence Dinner, and for any of you who haven't seen it yet, it is an absolute must.
Part one is on YouTube here, and the other 2 parts are linked from there.
"Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
This is a masterful example of rhetoric, wit, and insane boldness. To stand right in front of the president and say those things, all the while maintaining his faux-Conservative persona, is absolutely brilliant. I also found a very interesting blog post that discusses the ways in which Colbert's speech was brushed off by the media, which is rather scary. But you really have to admire Stephen's courage on this one.
Part one is on YouTube here, and the other 2 parts are linked from there.
"Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
This is a masterful example of rhetoric, wit, and insane boldness. To stand right in front of the president and say those things, all the while maintaining his faux-Conservative persona, is absolutely brilliant. I also found a very interesting blog post that discusses the ways in which Colbert's speech was brushed off by the media, which is rather scary. But you really have to admire Stephen's courage on this one.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Hey all. I didn't get a chance to post on the blog before yesterdays class, but I'm glad that I didn't. After class I formed some perspective on the book--Chapter 3 mainly--as well as the paper we will be writing in the next week.
I'll start off with the book. Nearly everyone in class who stated that Chapter 3 was easier to read, well I DISAGREE... Kidding. It was much simpler. It didn't feel like we were having to filter through endless ideas and theories, all the while trying to manage through the complex language that Ramage was also hurdling towards us. Thanks, buddy (Ramage). He simplied his chapter with just a few ideas that came to the foreground of our minds: Pluralism vs. Relativism; Coericion vs. Pure Persuasion; and Propaganda vs. Literature. Those are basically the three main elements of chapter 3.
What I really want to focus on in my narrative journey is the whole concept of Propanganda and propagandists. That's the subject where I felt I started to understand what Ramage was trying to say. Ramage states, "While propagandists may sincerely believe that the doctrine or product they promote will best serve their audience--and one of the crucial differences between propagandists and advertisers is the former's sincere belief in the cause--their first commitment is to the doctrine or product rather than to the happiness of their audience." (pg. 77)
This deception holds through with many different areas in life. Salesman do it. Television does it. Policiticians do it. Heck, our teachers might even do it half the time--when they promote a book of theirs, or a piece of work that they do. (It actually happened the previous class prior to this one!!) The dynamic of propanganda is ambiguous, because it can go many different ways. Some use it for their own personal benefit, while others can use it in a matter that can profit the good of a nation.
As far as the paper assignment goes, well, I like the unorthodox approach. I would much rather write something that can be entertaining and academically engaging, then something that is...just academically engaging. haha. This allows us to use our creative minds, our humor, our sense of brilliance, to create something that is compelling to read. I know all of us are capable of doing just that. Thanks, Teach.
I'll start off with the book. Nearly everyone in class who stated that Chapter 3 was easier to read, well I DISAGREE... Kidding. It was much simpler. It didn't feel like we were having to filter through endless ideas and theories, all the while trying to manage through the complex language that Ramage was also hurdling towards us. Thanks, buddy (Ramage). He simplied his chapter with just a few ideas that came to the foreground of our minds: Pluralism vs. Relativism; Coericion vs. Pure Persuasion; and Propaganda vs. Literature. Those are basically the three main elements of chapter 3.
What I really want to focus on in my narrative journey is the whole concept of Propanganda and propagandists. That's the subject where I felt I started to understand what Ramage was trying to say. Ramage states, "While propagandists may sincerely believe that the doctrine or product they promote will best serve their audience--and one of the crucial differences between propagandists and advertisers is the former's sincere belief in the cause--their first commitment is to the doctrine or product rather than to the happiness of their audience." (pg. 77)
This deception holds through with many different areas in life. Salesman do it. Television does it. Policiticians do it. Heck, our teachers might even do it half the time--when they promote a book of theirs, or a piece of work that they do. (It actually happened the previous class prior to this one!!) The dynamic of propanganda is ambiguous, because it can go many different ways. Some use it for their own personal benefit, while others can use it in a matter that can profit the good of a nation.
As far as the paper assignment goes, well, I like the unorthodox approach. I would much rather write something that can be entertaining and academically engaging, then something that is...just academically engaging. haha. This allows us to use our creative minds, our humor, our sense of brilliance, to create something that is compelling to read. I know all of us are capable of doing just that. Thanks, Teach.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
My short post
As I commented earlier, I'm interested in religious rhetoric and its affect on society. I'm thinking of focusing on one or three areas: 1) Religion's role in American politics. Ex: The president's use of religious terms during secular speeches to the nation, compared with a historical perspective of previous presidents and their own ways of being secular or religious in public speech. 2) International religion. Ex: Pope offending Muslims, Mother Theresa's legacy, Middle Eastern conflicts and their affects on the world's societies. 3) Religion in Hollywood. Ex: Tom Cruise and Scientology, Madonna and Kabala, etc.
The way each figure presents their identity as a religious/celebrity figure is their own rhetorical identity, which I think would be an interesting subject.
The way each figure presents their identity as a religious/celebrity figure is their own rhetorical identity, which I think would be an interesting subject.
3 down; 3 to go
It is a bit upsetting that we are now half way through Rhetoric, but think not of the what is lost. Look forward to the three remaining chapters (all 110 pages) and the mind blowing Ramage rhetoric left.
I have to agree that chapter three was a better read than the others. It was full of examples that helped clarify what he was talking about in the other chapters. I found the side bar to be a useful tool since it provided real life evidence of rhetoric. I wish Ramage would have been there, at the State of The Union Address, to expose Bush and all of his war propaganda. Maybe he could have saved us from taking the war out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. But I suppose that hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to analyze an emotionally charged speech after the fact.
For my paper I would like to focus on one point brought up in chapter 3. I am going to research and write about the “continuum of persuasive practices”. (75) To do this I will try to find examples of each type of persuasion—propaganda, legal reasoning, literary texts—and compare them and their author’s intent. I am hoping to find specific traits in each so that they become easier to spot and understand. We are bombarded with a range of persuasive tactics on a daily basis, if we are able to differentiate them we will be better equipped to make more informed decisions.
I have to agree that chapter three was a better read than the others. It was full of examples that helped clarify what he was talking about in the other chapters. I found the side bar to be a useful tool since it provided real life evidence of rhetoric. I wish Ramage would have been there, at the State of The Union Address, to expose Bush and all of his war propaganda. Maybe he could have saved us from taking the war out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. But I suppose that hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to analyze an emotionally charged speech after the fact.
For my paper I would like to focus on one point brought up in chapter 3. I am going to research and write about the “continuum of persuasive practices”. (75) To do this I will try to find examples of each type of persuasion—propaganda, legal reasoning, literary texts—and compare them and their author’s intent. I am hoping to find specific traits in each so that they become easier to spot and understand. We are bombarded with a range of persuasive tactics on a daily basis, if we are able to differentiate them we will be better equipped to make more informed decisions.
Propaganda and the Role of the Audience?
Hello everyone!
I wanted to start off by saying that I am enjoying this book much more now that I got through Chapter One. I thought Chapter Three was easier to read and understand and had clearer points.
Anyway, I think I might have somewhat of an idea for this first paper, but I'm not really sure what direction I want to go in with it, I guess.
I really liked the section in Chapter Three about advertising and propaganda. Ramage says, "Near propaganda, thus, one might position marketing, advertising, salesmanship, talk radio call-in shows, political campaign speeches, and the like..." (75). This got me thinking about all the encounters we have everyday with advertisements, television, and political speeches where we, as a collective audience, simple "buy into" what we're told.
Then, about a page later, Ramage adds, "...subscribing to the propagandist's ends seems the surest way for the audience to act in the name of their beliefs. Which is why propagandists and advertisers study their audiences so acutely, reading and perofrming extensive research, forming "focus groups' to test appeals, conducting opinion polls, and so forth; as a general rule, the more to the left a persuasive activity is situated, the more thoroughly and scientifically do the practitioners study their audiences, not so as to learn from them but so as to find out how best to take advantage of them" (77).
The entire section on propaganda, especially the last quote from page 77 made me think about propaganda in terms of the audience who receives it and subscribes to it. I'm hoping to talk about propaganda from the audience/general public's perspective and discuss their role in some way, since without a subscribing audience, there would be no propaganda.
I wanted to start off by saying that I am enjoying this book much more now that I got through Chapter One. I thought Chapter Three was easier to read and understand and had clearer points.
Anyway, I think I might have somewhat of an idea for this first paper, but I'm not really sure what direction I want to go in with it, I guess.
I really liked the section in Chapter Three about advertising and propaganda. Ramage says, "Near propaganda, thus, one might position marketing, advertising, salesmanship, talk radio call-in shows, political campaign speeches, and the like..." (75). This got me thinking about all the encounters we have everyday with advertisements, television, and political speeches where we, as a collective audience, simple "buy into" what we're told.
Then, about a page later, Ramage adds, "...subscribing to the propagandist's ends seems the surest way for the audience to act in the name of their beliefs. Which is why propagandists and advertisers study their audiences so acutely, reading and perofrming extensive research, forming "focus groups' to test appeals, conducting opinion polls, and so forth; as a general rule, the more to the left a persuasive activity is situated, the more thoroughly and scientifically do the practitioners study their audiences, not so as to learn from them but so as to find out how best to take advantage of them" (77).
The entire section on propaganda, especially the last quote from page 77 made me think about propaganda in terms of the audience who receives it and subscribes to it. I'm hoping to talk about propaganda from the audience/general public's perspective and discuss their role in some way, since without a subscribing audience, there would be no propaganda.
The It's Not Really A Blog, Blog
Hey all,
I'm assuming we don't have to blog this week because we haven't be given any info on the paper that is due. Also, I read the other blogs for this week and there don't seem to be too many. I suppose if I was overly concerned on the subject I could have e-mailed our professor... Alright, just incase we do have to blog I will say this: Discussing Ramage, and with what I learned in our last class, I would say that it's easier to discuss his book than it is to read it. It's not too bad though, I've read worse. And I'll end on that positive note. Toodles.
I'm assuming we don't have to blog this week because we haven't be given any info on the paper that is due. Also, I read the other blogs for this week and there don't seem to be too many. I suppose if I was overly concerned on the subject I could have e-mailed our professor... Alright, just incase we do have to blog I will say this: Discussing Ramage, and with what I learned in our last class, I would say that it's easier to discuss his book than it is to read it. It's not too bad though, I've read worse. And I'll end on that positive note. Toodles.
Rhetoric and Persuasion vs. The Audience
Ok, I think I finally know what I want to write this first paper on.
In Chapter 3, Ramage talks about Rhetoric and Persuasion. SO, I think I want to write about how the audience gets sucked in to rhetoric because of propogandists, advertisers, lawyers, religious figures, authors, family, teachers... or anyone for that matter. I also want to get into how an audience can be "hurt" or misinformed by the use of rhetoric.
I don't know... it's hard to explain what I'm going to write about because I haven't written anything yet, and my paper will probably go in a completely different direction. I think that everytime I write a paper with one intention in mind, I come up with something better that I hadn't considered before writing. ...yeeaahhhh.
Anyway, on page 80, Ramage writes, "Rhetoric is always concerned with the effectiveness of arguments at persuading audiences, always operates under the assumption that people construct arguments in order to seek advantage of some sort and that ineffective arguments that fail to persuade audiences are more often deserving of judicious amendment than unswerving loyalty...." There's more to it but I really don't feel like typing it all out, but that's the paragraph that kind of made me come up with my paper idea.
Yeah, so I don't know if I've made any sense, but at least I'm starting to think about something to write about. I want to try to find another book or two that talks about rhetoric in this sense... and maybe they can explain it in a slightly less confusing way.
~Dani*
In Chapter 3, Ramage talks about Rhetoric and Persuasion. SO, I think I want to write about how the audience gets sucked in to rhetoric because of propogandists, advertisers, lawyers, religious figures, authors, family, teachers... or anyone for that matter. I also want to get into how an audience can be "hurt" or misinformed by the use of rhetoric.
I don't know... it's hard to explain what I'm going to write about because I haven't written anything yet, and my paper will probably go in a completely different direction. I think that everytime I write a paper with one intention in mind, I come up with something better that I hadn't considered before writing. ...yeeaahhhh.
Anyway, on page 80, Ramage writes, "Rhetoric is always concerned with the effectiveness of arguments at persuading audiences, always operates under the assumption that people construct arguments in order to seek advantage of some sort and that ineffective arguments that fail to persuade audiences are more often deserving of judicious amendment than unswerving loyalty...." There's more to it but I really don't feel like typing it all out, but that's the paragraph that kind of made me come up with my paper idea.
Yeah, so I don't know if I've made any sense, but at least I'm starting to think about something to write about. I want to try to find another book or two that talks about rhetoric in this sense... and maybe they can explain it in a slightly less confusing way.
~Dani*
Chapter 3 ... Much better
My wish came true in chapter 3. Even though chapter 1 was an introduction without explanation and had us scratching our heads a bit, Ramage knew his readers would eventually understand what he was saying as they read the following chapters. The reading now feels as if it's falling in to place as Ramage refers back to the first two chapters. They make more sense now than they did last week, just as I hoped they would. That's not to say the reading is easier. He uses heavy words that I have to look up in the dictionary, but that's O.K., at least I'm building my vocabulary in the process.
About the paper ... I think I need a little direction in that area, but I'm still going to float an idea with you all so I know if I need to come up with a completely different idea or if this is a good start.
Ramage says that rhetoric is more pluralistic, emphasizing our commonalities, than it is relativistic, focusing on our differences. This reminded me of a scene that stuck with me in the movie "Take the Lead" (the dancing movie based on a true story with Antonio Banderas). The principal of an inner city high school needed someone to take over detention at the end of the day. Through a series of circumstances, Pierre Dulaine (Banderas) ends up in charge of the detention, teaching the mostly Hispanic and African-American students how to dance ballroom, the tango, foxtrot, etc. The principal eventually wants to get rid of him because in essence, this is a rich, white person's hobby that will do nothing to help her students. She is focusing on the simple fact that her students are a "different" color and background than the typical ballroom dancer. Dulaine takes the pluralistic side of this issue and argues that all kids want and need the same things out of life, regardless of their backgrounds. They need to feel as if they have a purpose. He saw that even though these kids' dancing style was different from what he teaches in his classroom, they are still dancing. Using this argument, he is able to persuade the principal to allow him to continue giving the detention students dancing lessons.
Of course this idea needs to be developed more, but it's a start. I welcome any constructive criticism anyone is willing to give.
About the paper ... I think I need a little direction in that area, but I'm still going to float an idea with you all so I know if I need to come up with a completely different idea or if this is a good start.
Ramage says that rhetoric is more pluralistic, emphasizing our commonalities, than it is relativistic, focusing on our differences. This reminded me of a scene that stuck with me in the movie "Take the Lead" (the dancing movie based on a true story with Antonio Banderas). The principal of an inner city high school needed someone to take over detention at the end of the day. Through a series of circumstances, Pierre Dulaine (Banderas) ends up in charge of the detention, teaching the mostly Hispanic and African-American students how to dance ballroom, the tango, foxtrot, etc. The principal eventually wants to get rid of him because in essence, this is a rich, white person's hobby that will do nothing to help her students. She is focusing on the simple fact that her students are a "different" color and background than the typical ballroom dancer. Dulaine takes the pluralistic side of this issue and argues that all kids want and need the same things out of life, regardless of their backgrounds. They need to feel as if they have a purpose. He saw that even though these kids' dancing style was different from what he teaches in his classroom, they are still dancing. Using this argument, he is able to persuade the principal to allow him to continue giving the detention students dancing lessons.
Of course this idea needs to be developed more, but it's a start. I welcome any constructive criticism anyone is willing to give.
Thanks!
Dawn
We are the dollars and cents
For the upcoming paper, I aim to examine what Ramage suggests about, and the role rhetoric plays in, the following ideas:
- How much of an effect do cultural readymades have on our spending habits?
- Is our entire materialist culture founded on this idea?
- What would the effect be if we transcended the need to fit into a cultural readymade?
I'm particularly interested in that last question. I'm wondering if our society would be generally more content without feeling the pressure to have the items that fit a certain lifestyle. On an NPR program recently, they discussed the notion of whether money can buy happiness. A bit of research that was mentioned was a finding that the difference between making $5,000 a year and $50,000 was related to a significant difference in "happiness." But that income difference is simply what it takes to fulfill basic needs. When it comes to someone making $50,000 a year versus someone making $500,000 a year, there is very little difference in their reported satisfaction with life. Therefore, the rhetoric of consumerism is misleading. I hope to unpack Ramage's notion of cultural readymades, and examine the rhetoric that turns a need for identity into purchases.
Basically I'm worried that I can't afford to be cool. jk rofl. But really, I think there's something pretty rediculous going on here regarding the factors that cause us to spend money, or even want it in the first place as much as we do. And I'm not saying I'm not a victim of it, I just want to better understand it.
- How much of an effect do cultural readymades have on our spending habits?
- Is our entire materialist culture founded on this idea?
- What would the effect be if we transcended the need to fit into a cultural readymade?
I'm particularly interested in that last question. I'm wondering if our society would be generally more content without feeling the pressure to have the items that fit a certain lifestyle. On an NPR program recently, they discussed the notion of whether money can buy happiness. A bit of research that was mentioned was a finding that the difference between making $5,000 a year and $50,000 was related to a significant difference in "happiness." But that income difference is simply what it takes to fulfill basic needs. When it comes to someone making $50,000 a year versus someone making $500,000 a year, there is very little difference in their reported satisfaction with life. Therefore, the rhetoric of consumerism is misleading. I hope to unpack Ramage's notion of cultural readymades, and examine the rhetoric that turns a need for identity into purchases.
Basically I'm worried that I can't afford to be cool. jk rofl. But really, I think there's something pretty rediculous going on here regarding the factors that cause us to spend money, or even want it in the first place as much as we do. And I'm not saying I'm not a victim of it, I just want to better understand it.
Paper??
Hi everyone. I am not sure what I want to write for my paper because I don't know what the paper is about yet! I am assuming Ramage and rhetoric, of course. Maybe we will find out tonight in class, and then I can elaborate.
I thought that this chapter was soooo much easier to understand. I could actually highlight and take notes! Yay! If we do get to choose any concepts from Rhetoric to write about in our papers, I would choose those from Chapter 3, concepts like relativism and pluralism, ethos, and the rhetorical situation.
I also noticed that in this chapter, I am beginning to see places throughout the book where Ramage is practicing his own rhetoric. When he talks about "self-interference", I realized that he did that in Chapter 1, with his anti-rhetoric spokesperson. Also, he says that authors of literary texts must present some contrasting ideas, and he does, with the use of "serious people" and "rhetorical people".
In this chapter after he talked about the continuum of persuasion, and I realized that his book would fall under literary texts area, because Ramage is practicing a type of persuasion. He wants his audience to believe or at least consider that rhetoric is useful and necessary in today's world for sorting out problems and expressing ourselves.
So Hopefully we can do our papers on any chapter, because this one was much smoother sailing for me than the first two! (Not saying that it was too easy; I mean that I just wasn't pulling my hair out in frustration this time!)
--Devon
I thought that this chapter was soooo much easier to understand. I could actually highlight and take notes! Yay! If we do get to choose any concepts from Rhetoric to write about in our papers, I would choose those from Chapter 3, concepts like relativism and pluralism, ethos, and the rhetorical situation.
I also noticed that in this chapter, I am beginning to see places throughout the book where Ramage is practicing his own rhetoric. When he talks about "self-interference", I realized that he did that in Chapter 1, with his anti-rhetoric spokesperson. Also, he says that authors of literary texts must present some contrasting ideas, and he does, with the use of "serious people" and "rhetorical people".
In this chapter after he talked about the continuum of persuasion, and I realized that his book would fall under literary texts area, because Ramage is practicing a type of persuasion. He wants his audience to believe or at least consider that rhetoric is useful and necessary in today's world for sorting out problems and expressing ourselves.
So Hopefully we can do our papers on any chapter, because this one was much smoother sailing for me than the first two! (Not saying that it was too easy; I mean that I just wasn't pulling my hair out in frustration this time!)
--Devon
Monday, September 18, 2006
Ramage Moving Forward..
As I consider how my paper is going to shape up, it was nice to see Ramage move away from some of his previously abstract thoughts and targets recognizable examples in Chapter 2 some of which we discussed. However it seems that Ramage felt the need to delve back into the frey of Rhetoricspeak with words such as solipsism and chimerical. This certainly does not help the reader's understanding of the text...but knowing Ramage is probably wasnt intended to. In my paper I will probably address relativism versus pluralism in some form and the interesting differences/similarities between coercion and persuasion. The examination of propaganda is definately relevant in today's world climate and will try to look at its many uses and Ramage's belief about how it is used. I also hope to address Ramage's section-"Act as Medium:..." on page 86 and continues where he takes on the job of analyzing President Bush's SOUA and its implications for war. I found Ramage's "call and response" to be quite interesting and the insincerity of the mentioned event quite true. Ramage is right on point when he disects Bush's persuasive argument by stressing the potential dangers the United States could face. I think President Bush was not vilified by the American people during the speech due to the thought of another September 11th type attack. Any sliver of doubt regarding our nation's safety struck a cord with many Americans. Examining Ramage's points on ethos would also be worthy discuss in my paper. A poignant question to entertain: Was Bush practicing propaganda or was the intelligence to blame?, an honest evaluation will point to at minimum a substantial use of propaganda by the administration(Karl Rove & Cheney). Ramage evidently decided to make the second half of this chapter much more interesting and truly applicable to current rhetorical items. I found the political discussion to be a nice relief from some of his prior rants. His mention of the audience may be one of the most important points he makes throughout as without an audience that buys into your expression the content is meaningless. The "axis of evil" regarding N. Korea and Iraq is quite a compelling choice of words due to the following.......axis-brings to mind our enemies in WWII-Nazi Germany, Japan,etc and evil-used at the time was tired directly to terrorism, thus providing a powerful message to the American people. So overall I hope to use aspects of Ramage's relativism/pluralism, propaganda/ethos and more.
Chris
Chris
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Ramage and Mother Theresa
I'm still reading Ramage, but i just wanted to quickly say that Ramage has some very good points on the topic of identity, but he is falling into the same trap of the essentialists. Not all identity is based on rhetoric. Another channel is action. I have never read anything written by Mother Theresa, but I think I definitely have an impression of her identity.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Rhetorical Procrastinator
Hey all. I'm Dani Karaszkiewicz (you wish you could pronounce that!). I'm a junior Professional Writing major, Literature minor, Procrastinator extraordinaire... and I think I fell asleep at least three times trying to get through this book.
Although I am a fan of definitions, I am okay with Ramage's lack of one, and I'm glad he told us that we aren't getting one. However, I am not okay with this book. For the most part, I don't get it, and I had trouble get into it.
"Little wonder that rhetoric has become the refuge or last resort for those seeking to justify the unjustifiable or to render the impossible plausible." ...what? I've read that statement over and over and I think I die a little inside every time I try to comprehend it...
Maybe one of the only things I did get in the reading was the "Rhetoric panders to the masses" section in chapter one and the sentence "What matters is not the truth of a statement but its effect on an audience." Also, Ramage's examples in this section about selling traveler's insurance to an audience who believes the world is flat incase they were to sail over the edge of the earth... yeah, I would totally do that. But the bigger thing is that I actually understand what rhetoric means in that sense.
Alright, so I don't know if I fell asleep through the rest of the chapter, or if I just didn't grasp it... but either way I'm HOPING that chapter 2 will help clear some things up... but I have my doubts.
And finally, onto the kairos...
"...the urgency and currency of a situation demands action in the form of lively rhetorical exchanges about an issue. But if an issue has lost its immediacy, then the rhetor must not only deliberate the issue but make a case for the issue's relevance." Thank you, Crowley and Hawhee, for putting it in a way that I understand. This was a much easier read than the book. By far.
Okay, I'm done with my first post on here... now I have to get that 2-3 page paper done...
Although I am a fan of definitions, I am okay with Ramage's lack of one, and I'm glad he told us that we aren't getting one. However, I am not okay with this book. For the most part, I don't get it, and I had trouble get into it.
"Little wonder that rhetoric has become the refuge or last resort for those seeking to justify the unjustifiable or to render the impossible plausible." ...what? I've read that statement over and over and I think I die a little inside every time I try to comprehend it...
Maybe one of the only things I did get in the reading was the "Rhetoric panders to the masses" section in chapter one and the sentence "What matters is not the truth of a statement but its effect on an audience." Also, Ramage's examples in this section about selling traveler's insurance to an audience who believes the world is flat incase they were to sail over the edge of the earth... yeah, I would totally do that. But the bigger thing is that I actually understand what rhetoric means in that sense.
Alright, so I don't know if I fell asleep through the rest of the chapter, or if I just didn't grasp it... but either way I'm HOPING that chapter 2 will help clear some things up... but I have my doubts.
And finally, onto the kairos...
"...the urgency and currency of a situation demands action in the form of lively rhetorical exchanges about an issue. But if an issue has lost its immediacy, then the rhetor must not only deliberate the issue but make a case for the issue's relevance." Thank you, Crowley and Hawhee, for putting it in a way that I understand. This was a much easier read than the book. By far.
Okay, I'm done with my first post on here... now I have to get that 2-3 page paper done...
Rhetoric is fun.
Greetings. My name is Aimee and I’m a junior writing major with a minor in advertising.
I’m slightly outraged as I read/reflect on the posts the class has written concerning Ramage’s text. He tells us on the first page he is not going to give us a concrete definition of rhetoric, so why fight it?
I was psyched to find Ramage’s approach to rhetoric is abstract, open to interpretation, full of contradictions, and a bit stream of consciousness. It’s a great text for the classroom because it’s highly debatable. As an added bonus, it’s nearly impossible to give incorrect answers.
I think the reading might have been a bit more interesting had it included more quotes such as “You never step in the same river twice” and “You step in one river, you’ve stepped in ‘em all.” You can agree with either under various circumstance, and in doing so, help shape your identity.
Until next blog...
I’m slightly outraged as I read/reflect on the posts the class has written concerning Ramage’s text. He tells us on the first page he is not going to give us a concrete definition of rhetoric, so why fight it?
I was psyched to find Ramage’s approach to rhetoric is abstract, open to interpretation, full of contradictions, and a bit stream of consciousness. It’s a great text for the classroom because it’s highly debatable. As an added bonus, it’s nearly impossible to give incorrect answers.
I think the reading might have been a bit more interesting had it included more quotes such as “You never step in the same river twice” and “You step in one river, you’ve stepped in ‘em all.” You can agree with either under various circumstance, and in doing so, help shape your identity.
Until next blog...
rhetor-a-huh?
Hey everyone! My names Jenna and I'm a senior writing major at Kutztown. I live in NJ w/ my family and a bunch of birds [totally not joking, my Mom is an obsessive animal lover haha]Anyway I started reading about rhetoric, but immediately found myself caught up in the fact that to me, rhetoric is a philosophy. Its a little hard to place an answer to a subject that has the depth of a million questions, so I am a little caught on how exactly I want to take rhetoric as.
Ramage uses "Serious People" and "Rhetorical People" within his text, and is able to draw a distinctive line. While the Serious People tend to search for the difinitive and certain answers to questions, Rhetorical People are less for characterizing a situation or thing, and more opt to find their own way and make their own answers; whether they make sense or not. Rhetoric therefore focuses less on the end, but more on the journey to wherever it may be.
I am going to start reading the article now, but I hope I didn't sound too much like I am pulling stuff outta you know where, and I really do have the right concept to what rhetoric may mean. Uh... yeah.
Ramage uses "Serious People" and "Rhetorical People" within his text, and is able to draw a distinctive line. While the Serious People tend to search for the difinitive and certain answers to questions, Rhetorical People are less for characterizing a situation or thing, and more opt to find their own way and make their own answers; whether they make sense or not. Rhetoric therefore focuses less on the end, but more on the journey to wherever it may be.
I am going to start reading the article now, but I hope I didn't sound too much like I am pulling stuff outta you know where, and I really do have the right concept to what rhetoric may mean. Uh... yeah.
Ramage warped my mind...
Hey everyone. My name is Kim McPherson and I'm a junior Prof. Writing writing with a minor in literature and possibly women's studies.
I guess I'll just jump right in and start with Ramage. I started reading like I usually do with any textbook--with a highlighter. Unfortunately, that doesn't help because the book jumps from topic to topic and makes reference to one thing immediately after another. I was very confused to say the least. The thing that did me in right from the beginning was when he says, "What we won't be doing in this chapter is telling you what rhetoric is in fifty words or less--other than to say it always has to do with the production/interpretation of symbolic acts and usually has to do with persuasion." I highlighted and stuck with this definition, because by the end, I kind of threw up my hands, shrugged, and felt like I'd been made dumber.
I did enjoy the Crowley and Hawhee reading on Ereserves much better. It was much more direct, which made it more engaging. The examples were well thought-out, well-placed, and easy to relate to, as compared to the references in Ramage that seemed random and haphazardly thrown in without a cohesive feel in between.
See you guys later today!
I guess I'll just jump right in and start with Ramage. I started reading like I usually do with any textbook--with a highlighter. Unfortunately, that doesn't help because the book jumps from topic to topic and makes reference to one thing immediately after another. I was very confused to say the least. The thing that did me in right from the beginning was when he says, "What we won't be doing in this chapter is telling you what rhetoric is in fifty words or less--other than to say it always has to do with the production/interpretation of symbolic acts and usually has to do with persuasion." I highlighted and stuck with this definition, because by the end, I kind of threw up my hands, shrugged, and felt like I'd been made dumber.
I did enjoy the Crowley and Hawhee reading on Ereserves much better. It was much more direct, which made it more engaging. The examples were well thought-out, well-placed, and easy to relate to, as compared to the references in Ramage that seemed random and haphazardly thrown in without a cohesive feel in between.
See you guys later today!
Monday, September 11, 2006
Nonsensical Hubbery
Hey all, this is Cory (Cory M Mull as most know me -- literary greats among the likes of Bill Gates, Donald Rumsfeld, Oprah, Jebus, Toukan Sam and Colin Blair all know me by that name). My hobbies include reading the day before an assignment is due (although, this was not the case here--I only had to read about 15 pages today), skipping along sidewalks in mid-afternoon and recalling drunken nights of text-messages.
So now that you have the basic summary of my life, I might as well delve into the nonsense that is "rhetoric." What a bunch of hoo-ha this is. Not only is it nearly impossible to decipher, it's wildly over written, provides too many accounts of pointless metaphors and doesn't connect with my meager little mindset. When a book tells you, "what we won't do in this chapter is tell you flat out what rhetoric is..." then by all accounts in my mind, there will be a problem. Um, if you're not going to tell me literally, what's the point? Can't definitions be told in less than,I don't know....a book? Yes, I understand the complexities of this word "rhetoric" and the many fascinating areas of study here, but to sit and read page after page of endless material, it just doesn't connect. There are moments, few moments, when this book details the simple nature of rhetoric, but then that simple context is masked by 2,000 words of random anecdotes about how the author wants to become an NBA center, but didn't inherent the characteristics of such genes. Wait, what? When does the NBA come into play here? I'm confused.
Fitting, after 60 pages of utter beffudlement.
But I must say: that's why we have you, TEACH!
So now that you have the basic summary of my life, I might as well delve into the nonsense that is "rhetoric." What a bunch of hoo-ha this is. Not only is it nearly impossible to decipher, it's wildly over written, provides too many accounts of pointless metaphors and doesn't connect with my meager little mindset. When a book tells you, "what we won't do in this chapter is tell you flat out what rhetoric is..." then by all accounts in my mind, there will be a problem. Um, if you're not going to tell me literally, what's the point? Can't definitions be told in less than,I don't know....a book? Yes, I understand the complexities of this word "rhetoric" and the many fascinating areas of study here, but to sit and read page after page of endless material, it just doesn't connect. There are moments, few moments, when this book details the simple nature of rhetoric, but then that simple context is masked by 2,000 words of random anecdotes about how the author wants to become an NBA center, but didn't inherent the characteristics of such genes. Wait, what? When does the NBA come into play here? I'm confused.
Fitting, after 60 pages of utter beffudlement.
But I must say: that's why we have you, TEACH!
So glad I'm not the only one
Hello all!!!!!! My name is Dawn. I am an English Sec.ed major and sooooo happy I'm not the only one who couldn't quite grasp was Ramage was saying as a whole. As I read, I understood what Ramage was saying in bits and pieces, especially with the help of his examples (maybe a few too many). BUT I found myself rereading at least two times to get it a little bit. The first thirteen or so pages I had to read FOUR times just to get used to his language. I THINK I got through it O.K. in the end. At least I'm still living. I certainly have plenty of looming questions I hope will be answered in class.
Hi Ho Hi Ho it's off to blog I go....
Hey all, I'm Lindsay...a Secondary Ed English major. I find it interesting and rather amusing that we have to post on a blog for class since I'm already an avid blogger on another site.
After reading the chapter a few times there was one sentence in the beginning that has stuck in my head to help clear the cobwebs of what rhetoric really is. "What matters is not the truth of a statement but the effect on an audience." (*page 5 in the first paragraph*) Maybe that has nothing to do with it buuuuut it clicked some type of light on in my head.
I'm looking foward to class tomorrow to see what we all have to say. =D
After reading the chapter a few times there was one sentence in the beginning that has stuck in my head to help clear the cobwebs of what rhetoric really is. "What matters is not the truth of a statement but the effect on an audience." (*page 5 in the first paragraph*) Maybe that has nothing to do with it buuuuut it clicked some type of light on in my head.
I'm looking foward to class tomorrow to see what we all have to say. =D
The Rhetorical Question?
Whats up everyone! My name is Chris Costello and I'm an electronic media major in my junior year at KU. I can proudly say that this is my first official blog post. Anyway, this Ramage guy is very unique to say the least. Although he refuses to offer a straightforward definition of rhetoric, he certainly gives the reader a confusing crash course on the subject. Like him or not, he does have some valid points about the morality of rhetoric. He says there are no gatekeepers or codes of conduct in this discipline. For this reason, I feel that rhetoric is too often used for immoral purposes and selfish propaganda. Audiences may not have the knowledge and awareness to read between the lines. Politicians usaully come to mind when discussing this topic. I'm not saying rhetoric is always immoral or misleading, but it does lack ethical boundaries. Ramage even says that "rhetoric encourages agonistic behavior." Is rhetoric bad or good? I'm not sure if I know the answer to the rhetorical question yet.
Ramage on a rhetorical rampage
Yo, Dudes and Dudettes. It would have been really cool to post earlier than the day before class but I couldn't quite recall my username--too much technology in my life. I'm a junior pro writing major. I am trying very diligently to break any procrastination habits. Not such a good start.
And, my title has nothing to do with the subject of my post. Just a heads up.
So, I read Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation first and I'll tell you what, I really thought it was going to be some ridiculously dense recall of the numerous rhetorical philosophers and, on top of that, a vocabulary nightmare. I was rather wrong. It was straight forward and very much a that's-kinda-common-sense reading. It's always nice to make concrete the things we take for granted.
The reading is similar to the PR class I have this semester; it was all that stuff we already know, but the author writes a book and labels everything. Hopefully I can make some money doing that sometime soon (I'm really broke). It was a good basis for exploring rhetoric and audience.
Ramage ... Honestly, I'm pretty sure he made some good points, but I think I need to reread that whole first section before I understand if there was any structure to what he said. I think there was. It was a bit heavier than I expected.
And, my title has nothing to do with the subject of my post. Just a heads up.
So, I read Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation first and I'll tell you what, I really thought it was going to be some ridiculously dense recall of the numerous rhetorical philosophers and, on top of that, a vocabulary nightmare. I was rather wrong. It was straight forward and very much a that's-kinda-common-sense reading. It's always nice to make concrete the things we take for granted.
The reading is similar to the PR class I have this semester; it was all that stuff we already know, but the author writes a book and labels everything. Hopefully I can make some money doing that sometime soon (I'm really broke). It was a good basis for exploring rhetoric and audience.
Ramage ... Honestly, I'm pretty sure he made some good points, but I think I need to reread that whole first section before I understand if there was any structure to what he said. I think there was. It was a bit heavier than I expected.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
If you give a writer a blog...
He'll want a cookie to go with it. Hi! My name is Heather and I am a procrastinator. I like to cut things close and live for the now. And I definately like clear defintions. I was glad Ramage started out with arguments against rhetoric, becuase I was feeling resentful toward rhetoric at the moment. It was interesting how Ramage twisted the arguments toward supporting rhetoric just by showing how the arguer was not real, and just a way to prove the positive points of rhetoric. It bothered me how in the first half of the introduction the arguments were numbered points, and the second half was not--not a very clear way to compare the pros and cons, but then, since when is rhetoric clear? Shoulda seen that one coming. Now where is my cookie?...
My first thoughtful blog
My name is Justine and I am a professional writing major/women's studies minor. I live in Kutztown (thankfully not in town) with my bestfriend, my boyfriend, our dog (Rupert) and our cat (Banjo). I completly forgot that we even had to blog because we haven't had class in a while.
In terms of the text, I can say that so far I'm not a huge fan. Sorry. It shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, however, because I don't like many of the texts I have to read, mainly because I HAVE to read them. I did like how the book said "There is no Golden Rule of rhetoric, no "DO unto Others." I took this as basically saying that rhetoric is never (or hardly ever) wrong. It is what you make it out to be. There are no right or wrong answers. Also the book uses an example from the comedian Groucho Marx who said, "Those are just my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
As I read the first chapter I came across P-Dog. This exerp made me laugh because my dog is the same way. He seems to respond to questions but he doesn't. He has no idea what I am saying to him when I ask him why he crapped on the dining room floor, but he can tell from the tone in my voice that I am not happy and therefore he knows not to come near me. This isn't because he is being bad; he doesn't know what bad is. Rupert is just behaving the only way he knows how. It was an interesting part in the book, for sure. Although, it did make me feel bad for getting soooo mad at him. Chances are i'm going to keep getting mad though.
That's all for now until I read the Crowley and Hawhee handout on ereserves.
In terms of the text, I can say that so far I'm not a huge fan. Sorry. It shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, however, because I don't like many of the texts I have to read, mainly because I HAVE to read them. I did like how the book said "There is no Golden Rule of rhetoric, no "DO unto Others." I took this as basically saying that rhetoric is never (or hardly ever) wrong. It is what you make it out to be. There are no right or wrong answers. Also the book uses an example from the comedian Groucho Marx who said, "Those are just my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
As I read the first chapter I came across P-Dog. This exerp made me laugh because my dog is the same way. He seems to respond to questions but he doesn't. He has no idea what I am saying to him when I ask him why he crapped on the dining room floor, but he can tell from the tone in my voice that I am not happy and therefore he knows not to come near me. This isn't because he is being bad; he doesn't know what bad is. Rupert is just behaving the only way he knows how. It was an interesting part in the book, for sure. Although, it did make me feel bad for getting soooo mad at him. Chances are i'm going to keep getting mad though.
That's all for now until I read the Crowley and Hawhee handout on ereserves.
rhetor ahhhhh
When I began to read this book I knew that I was doomed from the start. I not only have the attention span of a 9 year old but when I start reading something that bores me or just drags on and on I get even worse. I struggled getting through the 68 pages that were assigned. Though Ramage does an excellent job with his explinations he lacks with what he is trying to actually say. It seems to babble on about how people who use rhetoric are bad evil whatnot. He also is babbleing on about serious people and why they're in turn better. I feel as though everyone uses rhetoric and you cannot go without the use of it and hat those so called "serious" people are just trying way to hard. I mean just reading this it seems like soemoen who uses rhetoric is the bad guy in the situation but I feel as though rhetoric does need to be used. I mean when most people present something they're using rhetoric as a way to help get a point accross and they themselves are also falling into what they are saying not just convinceing the audience. So Although Ramage presents what he feels in a good yet boring way I like rhetoric. So thats about how I feel on that right now.. Oh and I know we have to write a bit about ourselves. My name is Amber my user name is a nickname I have had for a long time and well my name. I am Sophmore Speech communications major and I work as a CA in Rothermel hall. I'm 19 and I actually dont have a drivers license. Okay thats a bit about me byes everyone
Serious v. Rhetorical
To be honest, I'm not finished reading the book selection yet. I got about halfway through when I had to put it down for the great headache I received when considering the difference between Serious People and Rhetorical People and definition of Rhetoric in general. Although others here have said Ramage is writing an arguement against Rhetorical People, I got the impression that he must prefer their abstract ways of thinking rather than to belong to the Serious People group, who seem to need an answer for everything.
I have to disagree. Serious People do need answers, as do I, yet I also consider the range of answers that could be given in a given situation, as a Rhetorical Person. Almost like politics (which is funny, considering the average politician's attachment to rhetoric), it seems rare for a person to be set into one particular ideology. Of course it could be done, but for those with both characteristics, the practice is an unfair judgement.
Reading the eReserves packet, I was interested in reading about the attempts of persuasive arguements in popular debates, such as capital punishment, even though topics like the death penalty and abortion and whatnot have been done to death (oh the horrible puns!), I like the idea of rhetoric thinking of a new way to present an old problem. Guess who has a new problem? George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois mentioned in the article. If you're a member of New York Times online, which is free, you could click on his name to read about how he was just sentenced to 6 and 1/2 years in prison for corruption and fraud. Although some anti-capital punishment activists might have cheered Ryan when he gave clemency to death row inmates the second before he left office, perhaps they might be singing a different tune now that he did something illegal. Then again, people make mistakes, and sometimes, people pay for it. Or the taxpayers, but I would argue this with Ryan himself or another corrupt politician. I'm sure you'd have your pick.
I seriously believe all situations need to be judged based on their individual attributes. Just because George Ryan made a mistake doesn't mean all politicans make mistakes, based on a rhetorical view. However, the popularity of rich white men publicly bashing either other in campaign ads, committing fraud and money laundering, and basically fighting to get into office so they could either vote for their own pay raise or vote against raising minimum wage is just the way society sees their government leaders. Is this the way things really are or the way they are perceived? Ramage's Serious People might give a straight yes/no answer, Rhetorical People might be a little more socially sensitive, saying it could be either depending on an individual's personal beliefs.
And now I'm done thinking about rhetoric for the night...
I have to disagree. Serious People do need answers, as do I, yet I also consider the range of answers that could be given in a given situation, as a Rhetorical Person. Almost like politics (which is funny, considering the average politician's attachment to rhetoric), it seems rare for a person to be set into one particular ideology. Of course it could be done, but for those with both characteristics, the practice is an unfair judgement.
Reading the eReserves packet, I was interested in reading about the attempts of persuasive arguements in popular debates, such as capital punishment, even though topics like the death penalty and abortion and whatnot have been done to death (oh the horrible puns!), I like the idea of rhetoric thinking of a new way to present an old problem. Guess who has a new problem? George Ryan, the former governor of Illinois mentioned in the article. If you're a member of New York Times online, which is free, you could click on his name to read about how he was just sentenced to 6 and 1/2 years in prison for corruption and fraud. Although some anti-capital punishment activists might have cheered Ryan when he gave clemency to death row inmates the second before he left office, perhaps they might be singing a different tune now that he did something illegal. Then again, people make mistakes, and sometimes, people pay for it. Or the taxpayers, but I would argue this with Ryan himself or another corrupt politician. I'm sure you'd have your pick.
I seriously believe all situations need to be judged based on their individual attributes. Just because George Ryan made a mistake doesn't mean all politicans make mistakes, based on a rhetorical view. However, the popularity of rich white men publicly bashing either other in campaign ads, committing fraud and money laundering, and basically fighting to get into office so they could either vote for their own pay raise or vote against raising minimum wage is just the way society sees their government leaders. Is this the way things really are or the way they are perceived? Ramage's Serious People might give a straight yes/no answer, Rhetorical People might be a little more socially sensitive, saying it could be either depending on an individual's personal beliefs.
And now I'm done thinking about rhetoric for the night...
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Ramage.......and my headache
Hi this is Chris Hardin and as I mentioned during our first class(It seems like a quite a long time ago) I'm a Kutztown graduate going back for my teaching certification(English & Communications) and M.Ed and currently work full-time as a case manager/counselor in the Allentown School District.....As I delved into Ramage's book I'm uncertain as if the abstract nature of this reading, the start of the school year or my allergies/sinuses has given me a pounding headache for the last week or so. Hopefully this posting will be somewhat coherent in my curtain condition. Ramage presents a number of examples of with his "performance" of Rhetoric and it's certainly an unusual start to a textbook. He contrasts the "rhetorician" and Socrates and how Socrates stands for "The Truth" while a rhetorician is only interested in his or her gain. Within the first segment, Ramage slams rhetoric as a deceptive driven practice without discernible boundaries. His comparison of rhetoric to professional wrestling is quite amusing as he uses his own rhetoric to devalue the topic. Ramage is looking for the reader to examine the complexities of rhetoric and acknowledge the deeper meanings that rhetoric contains.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Go Go Gadget Blog Post!
Well this is certainly exciting, I can't say I ever expected to be using a blog for a college course. It's nice to see technology being used to its extent, exploring possibilities that it wasn't originally intended for. The Internet after all was conceived as a tool for research and communication so it's only fair to use it as an open forum for educational purposes.
On the other hand I could be talking out of the side of my mouth, maybe even using rhetoric to convince not only you, my composition classmates, but also myself that this will be a fun and exciting method of learning how to become a better writer which is obviously what we're all here to do.
I can't say I've ever been too fond of blogs and I'm not very up to date on the blogosphere, and the blogonomics and blogonomitry of blogging and so on and so forth but I am a hardened Internet warrior with some experience and I can recognize how it's changing the way we communicate especially in the sense of instant communication without gatekeepers to hold us back (for better or worse) and instant feedback from sources that are literally global in scale. Of course if you want to look at it from the perspective of Ramage's "Serious People" then it's not changing anything because you can't change anything since nothing that didn't exist before can possibly exist now or should exist now because if it didn't exist before then we obviously didn't need it and why should it exist now?
Anyway, that last sentence gave me a headache. I'm sure the philosophy brought up in the introduction chapter will make for an interesting class on Tuesday. I hope I'm not the only one that's just still just a wee bit confused on the topic of rhetoric.
On the other hand I could be talking out of the side of my mouth, maybe even using rhetoric to convince not only you, my composition classmates, but also myself that this will be a fun and exciting method of learning how to become a better writer which is obviously what we're all here to do.
I can't say I've ever been too fond of blogs and I'm not very up to date on the blogosphere, and the blogonomics and blogonomitry of blogging and so on and so forth but I am a hardened Internet warrior with some experience and I can recognize how it's changing the way we communicate especially in the sense of instant communication without gatekeepers to hold us back (for better or worse) and instant feedback from sources that are literally global in scale. Of course if you want to look at it from the perspective of Ramage's "Serious People" then it's not changing anything because you can't change anything since nothing that didn't exist before can possibly exist now or should exist now because if it didn't exist before then we obviously didn't need it and why should it exist now?
Anyway, that last sentence gave me a headache. I'm sure the philosophy brought up in the introduction chapter will make for an interesting class on Tuesday. I hope I'm not the only one that's just still just a wee bit confused on the topic of rhetoric.
My thoughts on "Rhetoric"
Hello everyone! My name is Devon Kramer, and this is my first official Blog post ever! (I hope I do it right!) I just completed the Introduction in Ramage's book. I must say that the book was hard to get into. (Sorry, Professor Mahoney!) I am the kind of person who likes a straight-forward definition for everything, maybe like those "Serious People" that Ramage seems to dislike. So when I read the Introduction and did not find a clear definition of rhetoric, I was...kinda lost. But once I read through the whole chapter I began to form an idea in my head of this mysterious concept. The examples where Ramage compares rhetoric with law and cooking help illustrate his points.
Hopefully reading on will help me to shake off the last of my confusion! See everyone on Tuesday.
Hopefully reading on will help me to shake off the last of my confusion! See everyone on Tuesday.
Rhetoriphobia
Does the intense study of communication turn any attempt at communication into somethin akin to a game, or perhaps a running of a computer program? It is a fear of mine, but I'm absolutely uncertain as to its base in reality. Ramage acknowledges the rather obvious in his book when he writes that conversation is "central to our existence," and that it is "how friends and lovers establish intimacy." The fact that this point is made right in the midst of a study of rhetoric strikes me as alarming. If ones ability to communicate begins to draw heavily on their knowledge of what linguistic techniques are most effective, and how to be most persuasive, then what is done to the possibility of having an authentic conversation? And by authentic I suppose I mean one which is not manipulative. Granted, people use manipulative language and deceit all the time, even without any background in the study of language. I suppose I'm just wondering if such studies make it easier to maniuplate, and in the process, make it more difficult to honestly interact with others. Thoughts?
Also, I'm Aaron. I'm interested in literature, film, music, spending too much time contemplating the most worthwhile ways to spend my time, and "the issues" such as politics, education, culture, and globalization, all of which I know relatively little about, so I'm probably part of the problem.
Also, I'm Aaron. I'm interested in literature, film, music, spending too much time contemplating the most worthwhile ways to spend my time, and "the issues" such as politics, education, culture, and globalization, all of which I know relatively little about, so I'm probably part of the problem.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
My first blog entry (thoughts on "Rhetoric")
Hello, my name is Jon. As you can tell from the title, this is the first time I am writing in a blog. I am from Allentown and am currently a senior professional writing major. For this reason, I am trying to write well in order to prove to myself that I did not choose the wrong major. From what I have read thus far in "Rhetoric: A User's Guide" this course seems like it will be very interesting. I like the philosophical view Ramage takes on the subject of rhetoric. His examples help give a clearer understanding on this complex subject. I find myself relating to the "Rhetorical People" better since we both 'never step in the same river twice' and 'rely on experience' (17). As I read, trying to relate to the author, images of a secluded conspiracy theorist can not be pushed out of my mind. Though I agree with everything he says, it seems as if Ramage is dividing everyone into "Rhetorical People" and "Serious People" and is set on blaming one of the two opposing groups for all the wrongs of the world. This could be because it is only the introduction and he is trying to get across how far reaching the influences of rhetoric truly are. Whatever the case, I look forward to learning more on the subject.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
YIPPEEEE! My very first blog!
Hello fellow classmates! I also have heard students and other profs speak about Mahony and his class VERY positively! Definitely a good thing! Especially after being asked during our first class to answer, "What is rhetoric?" It's one of those words that most people know what it is in context, but to single it out and describe it specifically is a whole other ball game. At least for me it was.
That's about it for my first attempt at a blog ...
Dawn
That's about it for my first attempt at a blog ...
Dawn
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Making this work
I'm mAking a blog right now right here on my friends comp because well mine went all dead.. This is Amber from Class I am currently on duty in rothermel and my two friends are canoodling in the background Yes I understand that canoodling isnt a real word and My friends are making werid nosies oh no I'm afariad to look back... okay I was just checking to see if this worked.. P.S. Bobby come here I'm scared
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Im here....lol
Hello all. This is Yolawndah* from class. If you are drawing a blank ... I am the girl who woke up because she wanted to make her ex jealous. Sickening I know...lol.
Well anyway, I heard some great things about this class as well as the professor. So I am lookin foward to a productive semester, and interesting Blog conversations. (NOT!!!! )
*not actual spelling
Well anyway, I heard some great things about this class as well as the professor. So I am lookin foward to a productive semester, and interesting Blog conversations. (NOT!!!! )
*not actual spelling
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Welcome to Mahoney's Advanced Comp Blog!
Hello, hello!
Another academic year...and yes, another semester of blogging ahead! As you will notice, and as we discussed in class, our blog is not empty. Rather, the conversation you will be entering has been going on for two semesters. As I said last night, the concept of a "conversation" will frame one of the ways we will investigate writing, rhetoric, and discourse over the course of the semester.
I look forward to working with all of you this semester!
Another academic year...and yes, another semester of blogging ahead! As you will notice, and as we discussed in class, our blog is not empty. Rather, the conversation you will be entering has been going on for two semesters. As I said last night, the concept of a "conversation" will frame one of the ways we will investigate writing, rhetoric, and discourse over the course of the semester.
I look forward to working with all of you this semester!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
identity absract
I id my paper on identity and tried to find some ways and reasons why we got hrough chanes in our identities. I chose to look at three areas tha kinda interesed where people have changed personalities for whatever reasons.The first I looked at was kidnappig victims and their relationships with their abductors, for these I focued on Elizabeth Smart of Utah, Heather Wendorf of Florida, and Patty Hearst of California. Smart,14 year old in 2003 who was kidnapped and made to believe she was the 'bride' of a homeless handy man and his freind.
Patty Hearst was the heiress to a billion dollar magazine fortune and was kdnapped and made int a guerilla terrorist, held up some banks, was arrested, convicted and eventually pardoned. Heather Wendorf, unlike the others, was not 100% innocent in her plight. she fell under the spell of a charismatic 'vampire' named Roderick Ferel and was taken under his wing as a vampiress. Her parents (whom she was very close to) were evetnually beaten to death by Rod, in an attempt to 'free her' from her human hell. Rod then took heather and his rag-tag clan of goth artists on a road trip to Louisiana to meet up with other vamps.
I used Rod to segway into gaming culture and deal with online and offline personalities and how being immersed in fantasy worlds could start to fudge with you head and such. I also talked breifly about forming online friendships and how to see one off were something happen to them in reality. overal I liked this paper and how i turned it out. Looking into the lives of Hearst, Wendorf and Smart while they were kidnapped were fascinating.
to sum it up: I dealt with Vampires, Guerillas, teenage delinquints with blood to spill, innocent children being kidnapped formt heir bedroom, Internet video games, people losing control of their minds and mass mayhem and murder followed by a cross sate road trip. Only in america will this be the combined into a term paper. only in america.
Patty Hearst was the heiress to a billion dollar magazine fortune and was kdnapped and made int a guerilla terrorist, held up some banks, was arrested, convicted and eventually pardoned. Heather Wendorf, unlike the others, was not 100% innocent in her plight. she fell under the spell of a charismatic 'vampire' named Roderick Ferel and was taken under his wing as a vampiress. Her parents (whom she was very close to) were evetnually beaten to death by Rod, in an attempt to 'free her' from her human hell. Rod then took heather and his rag-tag clan of goth artists on a road trip to Louisiana to meet up with other vamps.
I used Rod to segway into gaming culture and deal with online and offline personalities and how being immersed in fantasy worlds could start to fudge with you head and such. I also talked breifly about forming online friendships and how to see one off were something happen to them in reality. overal I liked this paper and how i turned it out. Looking into the lives of Hearst, Wendorf and Smart while they were kidnapped were fascinating.
to sum it up: I dealt with Vampires, Guerillas, teenage delinquints with blood to spill, innocent children being kidnapped formt heir bedroom, Internet video games, people losing control of their minds and mass mayhem and murder followed by a cross sate road trip. Only in america will this be the combined into a term paper. only in america.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Cults Abstract
In my paper, I examined the persuasive language of cults. I focussed on three cults and touched briefly on a related "organization". The three cults were The Raelian Movement, The Summit Lighthouse, and The Assembly of YAHOWAH the Eternal. The organization was Clonaid, which is not a mouthwash or any sort of other product. It's promoted by Rael, the leader of the Raelian Movement, and claims to be able to clone humans.
These cults were all very forward in their language, and there were some subtle methods hidden amongst the big, bold text.
I wrote the paper in the voice of someone intending to start a cult, and looking at these other cults for information on what to do or what not to do. I broke this voice for only a paragraph or two to state that I became incredibly freaked out over the idea that there were people out there saying, "Okay, how can we get inside the heads of impressionable people and manipulate them."
At the end of the paper, I wrote my own cult statement. Something similar to what one would find on one of the other cult webpages. Looking back on it, I should have analyzed my own statement in the same way as I did the others, but it's too late for that now.
Unfortunately for me and my cult statement, I lack the fanaticism of an actual cult to add a certain fervor and legitimacy to my statement.
These cults were all very forward in their language, and there were some subtle methods hidden amongst the big, bold text.
I wrote the paper in the voice of someone intending to start a cult, and looking at these other cults for information on what to do or what not to do. I broke this voice for only a paragraph or two to state that I became incredibly freaked out over the idea that there were people out there saying, "Okay, how can we get inside the heads of impressionable people and manipulate them."
At the end of the paper, I wrote my own cult statement. Something similar to what one would find on one of the other cult webpages. Looking back on it, I should have analyzed my own statement in the same way as I did the others, but it's too late for that now.
Unfortunately for me and my cult statement, I lack the fanaticism of an actual cult to add a certain fervor and legitimacy to my statement.
Anarchy in the Paper Abstract
My paper is a look at the part that language played in the brief, controversial career of 70s British punk rockers the Sex Pistols. It also analyzes that language.
Most of the language analysis (and the paper) is spent on deconstructing the Sex Pistols' song lyrics. The Pistols' first singles were revolutionary in a musical sense, but also in a social sense, in that they were carefully worded diatribes against the powers that be in a language straight from the working class. With talk of anarchy, destruction, and the lack of a future, the singles were designed to be outrageous and to play on the fears of the British cultural elites. Delivered in an abrasive yet simple style, and by a group of young nobodies, they were targeted at the youth and the working class.
This paper shows the impact that a few words (and a little music) can have on an entire culture or society. The Sex Pistols' entire catalog is less than 20 songs, and yet, for two years they spearheaded one of the most important counterculture movements in English history and struck fear into the heart of the English establishment. The reason is the language that they used; had they written songs about love or cars, no one would've cared, and they'd be a footnote on history. As it stands, the Sex Pistols are one of the most important and infamous rock bands to exist, and they'll be remembered forever (at least in England). This paper will demonstrate why that is.
And with that, my semester is over. Have a good summer all, now I must go get drunk.
Most of the language analysis (and the paper) is spent on deconstructing the Sex Pistols' song lyrics. The Pistols' first singles were revolutionary in a musical sense, but also in a social sense, in that they were carefully worded diatribes against the powers that be in a language straight from the working class. With talk of anarchy, destruction, and the lack of a future, the singles were designed to be outrageous and to play on the fears of the British cultural elites. Delivered in an abrasive yet simple style, and by a group of young nobodies, they were targeted at the youth and the working class.
This paper shows the impact that a few words (and a little music) can have on an entire culture or society. The Sex Pistols' entire catalog is less than 20 songs, and yet, for two years they spearheaded one of the most important counterculture movements in English history and struck fear into the heart of the English establishment. The reason is the language that they used; had they written songs about love or cars, no one would've cared, and they'd be a footnote on history. As it stands, the Sex Pistols are one of the most important and infamous rock bands to exist, and they'll be remembered forever (at least in England). This paper will demonstrate why that is.
And with that, my semester is over. Have a good summer all, now I must go get drunk.
Friday, May 05, 2006
woop woop
My paper is going to look at the ambiguity of truth behind the connotations of terrorism as they are viewed from the frame of a "terrorist", and those being terrorized. Rather than doing it about the all to obvious and easy current events, my paper is going to look at the terrorism, in regard to the the symbilic discourse (exchange) of tactics between the two sides - in 1970's latin america. The interesting twist with this case is that in this case, the governments in latin america operated in much the same way that the US handles things right now- hiding torture camps, publically vilifying the terrorists- And also that the Carter and Reagan administrations provided these governments with money and troops. While I don't address these links with the U.S. in the paper, it is interesting knowledge for reading it. I'm using the 3 books we read for class - Ramage, Lakoff and Rutherford. I'm using the three of these as citable rationale for my own thoughts on the subject, taking a few excerpts from each. Each of the authors for this class affected me differently, and i came away with different things from each one - so that difference will be apparent in the context in which i use them, and to argue for or against the side i more closely associate the message i took away. In addition to the reading for this class, I'm using a book called "Death of Somoza" which is a memoir written by a terrorist cell who tracked down and assasinated (the author uses the phrase "erased him from the surface of the earth") their former dictator for the reason, as one of the assasins said, "to let him die peacefully and naturally would be a historical injustice." Also is the book "The Little School," was written by an argentinian concentration camp survivor. There is alot of symbolism in this book that i can correlate to other events. For example, in the concentration camps, the detainees were forced to wear white scarves as blindfolds, white scarves which, the mothers of the plaza del mayo proudly wear around their heads every thursday as they,still 30 years later, wear around their heads, holding vigil for their absent children. In these countries, the government simply kidnaps and eliminates all posible opposition, more than 30,000 in just agentina alone. The main reason i use these book is that they are written from the stand point of political activists, so they are inherently slighted- which i address in my paper. If for nothing else, they are interesting books that provide interesting perspectives on this topic. These are the only books i plan on using. The reason i rely more heavily on the two books not read for this class is because Ramage and the gang never actually DID anything. Its all well and good to analyze all the different problems in the world, especially from behind a computer. These books were written by people that were physically beaten, tortured and supressed by the government they criticize. Action over advocacy. Hell, Rtherford is Canadian!- he's criticizing a war that neither includes nor is concerned with where he lives. Thats not good enough. I appreciate that it allows him to have a more objective standpoint on the issue- and that can't be ignored--*--but isn't truth just as personal and subjective as the pain of the cattle prods and thumbscrews is to the hands that wrote those books?
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Virtual Classroom
Since I couldn’t make it to class today, I’m going to post the section that I thought grasped the essence of my paper. But first, let me preface it with an explanation on what I am writing about. I’m doing a comparative look at entertainment as a form of political criticism throughout history. I focused a lot (but not exclusively) on Aristophanes, Shakespeare, and Al Franken. I’m pretty confident that no one has compared those three people together in one paper before.
“Politics has transformed from a formalized system of governing to a stylized trend discussed openly in American cafés along with music, movies, and weather. The rhetoric of politics is more about theatrics than leadership. Though western governments are much more progressive than their patriarchal forerunners, the potential advancements of civilization have been stunted by a new wave of politics that can be defined as ‘political entertainment.’”
By the way, the picture is irrelevant.
Monday, May 01, 2006
I finally found a topic
Ok,I think i may finally have a topic. I want to write about the language and actions of the Civil Rights movement. I want to study the tactics that were used to draw attention to a cause. I think that this is something very few people study: Exactly why the Civil Rights movement was effect, what kind of lanuage did they use, what kind of people did you always see in the forefront. These all are important issues that are relevant to why the movement worked. I also wanted to study how movements today are modeled after the Civil Rights movement.
OH NOOOOOOOO
I AM SO LOST........................I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT I'M DOING I HAVE NO TOPIC AND IT'S 4 DAYS BEFORE THE PAPERS DUE. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN......WHERE DID I GO WRONG. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO THROW ME A LINE...OR A TOPIC PLEASE HELP!!!!
i've been neglecting the blog for a good two weeks, so i figured i'd share an update of my paper:
my topic is dealing with stereotypes that are found on television and how they are reaffirmed with various shows. this was inspired by the FX show black.white in which a white family and a black family switch places so as to experience a different lifestyle.
i realize the paper is supposed to be a research paper with credible sources, however, not including the texts we read in class and maybe one scholarly journal, my sources are going to be the tv shows that display stereotyping.
i'd like to begin by discussing the show black.white and its purpose for being on air. from there, i am going to dive deeper into stereotyping on tv.
the best way to share ideas of my paper is to list them in a bullet format; i will expand on each idea citing examples from television shows or news articles in which there was public discourse surrounding a show/ad on tv.
anyway, here:
- the show black.white is supposed to allow families to experience a different culture; i want to explore the show from beginning to end -- the first few shows aired were aimed at teaching both families the proper way to speak while in 'costume'
:: the white family was taught phrases such as "yo bitch. what up dog." and ways to "mispronounce" words. [example: ask - ax]
((note: the word "mispronounce" was used during the training - what message does this send to black viewers/viewers who speak a 'black dialect' - that they are not smart enough to properly pronounce words?
:: the black family was taught phrases such as "how was your day darling? good evening children." i grew up in a primarily white household. NEVER did i hear such phrases as "good evening children" not that it is not said, but again -- who is to decide what is "white" language.
- i'd also like to explore how stereotypes are being confirmed with the show. typical misconceptions concerning blacks is that they dress in baggy clothes, call eachother "niggas" etc. misconceptions about whites is that every white person is basically a walking/talking beaver cleaver. ties, loafers, phrases such as 'darling.' the show is basically creating stereotypes for entertainment purposes.
- also, i want to question whether or not someone can just be "black" or "white" my personal opinion is that CULTURE is more what shapes a person's attitude, not just skin color. it takes more than just face paint for someone to truly experience another person's daily interactions with people. culture plays a key role in people's life. i don't know if this even comes into play, but i am thinking of bringing up the fact that there are white rappers. black cowboys. white people on welfare. black millionaires. etc.
- lastly, with the show - i want to point out that while the families are in make-up they are interacting with people around them and forming friendships. what will happen at the end of the show when the friends made have to learn that they were just part of an experiment? how will that affect their attitude concerning different races? if a black kid befriends the "black" boy and he shares personal insights on what he experiences day to day - will he feel betrayed and hurt to know that the entire time, his life experiences were being used to make the show more entertaining? how will that make him feel towards the white boy? or all whites? how is this show helping to break down barriers by using deceit?
with the betrayal aspect of the show, i can incorporate the apologies that lakeoff discussed. also, i can explore the race card issues brought up by lakeoff. with the show, i can explore bernay's ideas of manipulating the public. also, there was a debate surrounding the show whether or not the white family could use the word 'nigger' while dressed as the black. rutherford's censorship issues come into play here.
some other shows i'd like to research and discuss include:
- beverly hills - a show about rich white kids facing "problems" [no blacks on the show, at least not for the 1st 7 years]
- FRIENDS - is it reality to believe that in NEW YORK CITY there will be no blacks in the area?
- good times - this is a show about a poor black family and their struggles - how realistic is this show? also, there was a lack of white characters. ALSO this show dealt with racism for at least 3 episodes.
- starsky & hutch - two white detectives and a black former druggie informant. i believe he was also a pimp. [although the sergeant was black - so idk about this one]
- the real world - although this show is not primarily race stereotypes, it still does help to affirm stereotypes of the :gay man :loud black woman :proud black man :drunken blonde slut :football stud womanizer --- how does this show [which is pop. among teens] create a mold for viewers?
- benny hill show [ that is not the right name, i forget what the show was called -- help!] where the white father hated blacks. this show openly dealt with racism and poked fun at it. [note: this show could be seen as beneficial bc it poked fun at racism and somewhat pointed out the contradictions/stupidity in stereotyping]
- the jeffersons - this was a reverse benny hill show. a black family 'moving on up' in which the proud black husband does not approve of whites.
blah blah blah blah - you get the idea. any suggestions of shows that have blatant stereotyping present - please share.
hope everyone had a great weekend;; ps. - one week of classes left!! yesssssssssssssssssss!! =-)
ps. while spell checking, the word 'womanizer' came up as misspelled and the suggestion was 'homemaker.' idk if that is important or interesting to anyone else in the slightest, but i found it amusing.
my topic is dealing with stereotypes that are found on television and how they are reaffirmed with various shows. this was inspired by the FX show black.white in which a white family and a black family switch places so as to experience a different lifestyle.
i realize the paper is supposed to be a research paper with credible sources, however, not including the texts we read in class and maybe one scholarly journal, my sources are going to be the tv shows that display stereotyping.
i'd like to begin by discussing the show black.white and its purpose for being on air. from there, i am going to dive deeper into stereotyping on tv.
the best way to share ideas of my paper is to list them in a bullet format; i will expand on each idea citing examples from television shows or news articles in which there was public discourse surrounding a show/ad on tv.
anyway, here:
- the show black.white is supposed to allow families to experience a different culture; i want to explore the show from beginning to end -- the first few shows aired were aimed at teaching both families the proper way to speak while in 'costume'
:: the white family was taught phrases such as "yo bitch. what up dog." and ways to "mispronounce" words. [example: ask - ax]
((note: the word "mispronounce" was used during the training - what message does this send to black viewers/viewers who speak a 'black dialect' - that they are not smart enough to properly pronounce words?
:: the black family was taught phrases such as "how was your day darling? good evening children." i grew up in a primarily white household. NEVER did i hear such phrases as "good evening children" not that it is not said, but again -- who is to decide what is "white" language.
- i'd also like to explore how stereotypes are being confirmed with the show. typical misconceptions concerning blacks is that they dress in baggy clothes, call eachother "niggas" etc. misconceptions about whites is that every white person is basically a walking/talking beaver cleaver. ties, loafers, phrases such as 'darling.' the show is basically creating stereotypes for entertainment purposes.
- also, i want to question whether or not someone can just be "black" or "white" my personal opinion is that CULTURE is more what shapes a person's attitude, not just skin color. it takes more than just face paint for someone to truly experience another person's daily interactions with people. culture plays a key role in people's life. i don't know if this even comes into play, but i am thinking of bringing up the fact that there are white rappers. black cowboys. white people on welfare. black millionaires. etc.
- lastly, with the show - i want to point out that while the families are in make-up they are interacting with people around them and forming friendships. what will happen at the end of the show when the friends made have to learn that they were just part of an experiment? how will that affect their attitude concerning different races? if a black kid befriends the "black" boy and he shares personal insights on what he experiences day to day - will he feel betrayed and hurt to know that the entire time, his life experiences were being used to make the show more entertaining? how will that make him feel towards the white boy? or all whites? how is this show helping to break down barriers by using deceit?
with the betrayal aspect of the show, i can incorporate the apologies that lakeoff discussed. also, i can explore the race card issues brought up by lakeoff. with the show, i can explore bernay's ideas of manipulating the public. also, there was a debate surrounding the show whether or not the white family could use the word 'nigger' while dressed as the black. rutherford's censorship issues come into play here.
some other shows i'd like to research and discuss include:
- beverly hills - a show about rich white kids facing "problems" [no blacks on the show, at least not for the 1st 7 years]
- FRIENDS - is it reality to believe that in NEW YORK CITY there will be no blacks in the area?
- good times - this is a show about a poor black family and their struggles - how realistic is this show? also, there was a lack of white characters. ALSO this show dealt with racism for at least 3 episodes.
- starsky & hutch - two white detectives and a black former druggie informant. i believe he was also a pimp. [although the sergeant was black - so idk about this one]
- the real world - although this show is not primarily race stereotypes, it still does help to affirm stereotypes of the :gay man :loud black woman :proud black man :drunken blonde slut :football stud womanizer --- how does this show [which is pop. among teens] create a mold for viewers?
- benny hill show [ that is not the right name, i forget what the show was called -- help!] where the white father hated blacks. this show openly dealt with racism and poked fun at it. [note: this show could be seen as beneficial bc it poked fun at racism and somewhat pointed out the contradictions/stupidity in stereotyping]
- the jeffersons - this was a reverse benny hill show. a black family 'moving on up' in which the proud black husband does not approve of whites.
blah blah blah blah - you get the idea. any suggestions of shows that have blatant stereotyping present - please share.
hope everyone had a great weekend;; ps. - one week of classes left!! yesssssssssssssssssss!! =-)
ps. while spell checking, the word 'womanizer' came up as misspelled and the suggestion was 'homemaker.' idk if that is important or interesting to anyone else in the slightest, but i found it amusing.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Hello Class.
I’m posting this in class while Mahoney is talking. I'm also working on my paper due... now! Just thought I'd check in.
Oh, and Diana Hacker rocks!
Oh, and Diana Hacker rocks!
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
The End of Term Anxiety
Well, now that it's almost 12 on Tuesday night, and I'm just beginning this draft that due tomorrow (oh wait no, today!!) I am kind of actually beginning to see some shape in my paper. Just a question though-- why do we always get bombarded with so much work for all our classes in the very last weeks of the semester? It happens every time, no matter far in advance you plan.
Anyway, I am doing my paper on customer service. I just had an idea about putting an appendix on the paper with some bad cust. service stories, either as an employee or a customer. So, if any of you have any and would like to comment and tell me about them, that would be wonderful. You know, just in case you have nothing to do before next thursday and are bored!! Thanks!
Anyway, I am doing my paper on customer service. I just had an idea about putting an appendix on the paper with some bad cust. service stories, either as an employee or a customer. So, if any of you have any and would like to comment and tell me about them, that would be wonderful. You know, just in case you have nothing to do before next thursday and are bored!! Thanks!
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
The thing that bugs me most about citation is all the zany parts you are suppose to find about a given website which seem completely inaccessible.
According to the OWL (online writing lab) these are the necessary components of citation:
Author(s). Name of Page. Date of Posting/Revision. Name of institution/organization affiliated with the site. Date of Access.
I often times find it hard to find a byline for a website.
The date of access & date of revision kind of bother me feeling unnecessary. While the site could be completelychanged I always feel bad because most likely the date of access is the night before the paper is due so i am clearly pinned as a procrastinator.
In reality what I am looking for is the bare minimum of acceptable information of an online citation. What is acceptable?
According to the OWL (online writing lab) these are the necessary components of citation:
Author(s). Name of Page. Date of Posting/Revision. Name of institution/organization affiliated with the site. Date of Access
I often times find it hard to find a byline for a website.
The date of access & date of revision kind of bother me feeling unnecessary. While the site could be completelychanged I always feel bad because most likely the date of access is the night before the paper is due so i am clearly pinned as a procrastinator.
In reality what I am looking for is the bare minimum of acceptable information of an online citation. What is acceptable?
So...
I did the interview with the Abercrombie and Fitch employee. It was a little difficult to get anything good out of her because she seemed to like her job. She had also been there for quite a while, I believe she said two years. So...Here is the juice...
1. She described the poster in the stockroom that is hanging on the inside of the back door: "It describes the ideal customer." .....Well thats freaking great lady what did it say!?!?!? It was like pulling teeth I am telling you! She continued..."The ideal customer should like to party, needs to be athletic, should be sociable, and needs to look good in our clothes."
Now was that too hard? So,,,they need to look good in your clothes huh? Well,, what if they don't? We then discussed how small their clothing is in relation to other stores that are targeted to the same age group. Her reply....
2. "Our tops do run pretty small, but our clothing is geared towards twenty year olds. Sometimes moms will come in and try to shop but we try and push away that customer and concentrate mainly on our ideal customer."
I said...DID YOU JUST SAY YOU PUSH THEM AWAY...and she said,,,wait thats not what I meant. As you can see it was too late,,,I already wrote it down. Wait till I tell my mom! SO this is looking good! They have an ideal customer, who is athletic, aka firm and usually thin, sociable, aka popular, and will look good in their clothes, aka 110 pounds. Then they try and "PUSH AWAY" anything that doesn't fit that description. Well thank you ma'am that will be all. .......
Wait sorry...one more thing. The posters hanging around your stores. Are you really trying to sell those shorts or are you trying to sell that man?
3. "We do get a lot of complaints from parents but...lets face it sex does sell."
How bout that.
1. She described the poster in the stockroom that is hanging on the inside of the back door: "It describes the ideal customer." .....Well thats freaking great lady what did it say!?!?!? It was like pulling teeth I am telling you! She continued..."The ideal customer should like to party, needs to be athletic, should be sociable, and needs to look good in our clothes."
Now was that too hard? So,,,they need to look good in your clothes huh? Well,, what if they don't? We then discussed how small their clothing is in relation to other stores that are targeted to the same age group. Her reply....
2. "Our tops do run pretty small, but our clothing is geared towards twenty year olds. Sometimes moms will come in and try to shop but we try and push away that customer and concentrate mainly on our ideal customer."
I said...DID YOU JUST SAY YOU PUSH THEM AWAY...and she said,,,wait thats not what I meant. As you can see it was too late,,,I already wrote it down. Wait till I tell my mom! SO this is looking good! They have an ideal customer, who is athletic, aka firm and usually thin, sociable, aka popular, and will look good in their clothes, aka 110 pounds. Then they try and "PUSH AWAY" anything that doesn't fit that description. Well thank you ma'am that will be all. .......
Wait sorry...one more thing. The posters hanging around your stores. Are you really trying to sell those shorts or are you trying to sell that man?
3. "We do get a lot of complaints from parents but...lets face it sex does sell."
How bout that.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Hello everyone, how are those proposals going??? Well, I spent the majority of my weekend putting together a story board for Teaching Adolescent Literature. I felt like I was in elementary school. I had disgusting glue all over me. Anyway, I am slowly putting together my bibliography. Does anyone know how to do a works cited entry for a blog?? I am really stumped on this one. Please help!!
Emily, I agree that that would be a wonderful place to be right now!!
Emily, I agree that that would be a wonderful place to be right now!!
Yes, Well...
What better place to procrastinate than Blogger, where I can pretend to engage in class discourse on my progress with my research proposal. Aside from my writer's-cramped marginalia and growing dread of making an effort on the annotated bibliography, here is my progress:
I wish I was here.
I wish I was here.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Oh I hope these silly hyperlinks work for this paper
Because of the unpopularity of the Iraqi War, the Army faces a severe shortage of recruits. A survey done in 2001 showed that 70% of young adults said that they would definitely not join the army. Who could blame them? In fact the army was so unpopular in 2005 that it missed its recruiting by 7,000 people.
The military’s solution to this problem? Spend more money on marketing. Within five years the marketing budget for the army nearly doubled. While in 1998, the military spent $2.99 million dollars on recruiting; in 2003, the army spent $5.92 million. The branch with the most aggressive plan is the army. In 2004, the army spent 200 million---an amount that totals $4,000 dollars per recruit.
The new expensive marketing plan strives to reach potential recruits where they are most vulnerable: at school and in the home.
First it targets the schools. Because of a clause in the No Child left Behind Act, schools are required give the military access to the schools or else risk losing federal funding. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools give out their student’s addresses and phone numbers to military recruiters unless a parent requests not to give out that information. Unfortunately, not too many parents are aware of that option or their rights. As a result, places like high schools are an ideal place for a recruiter.
The No Child Left Behind Act left the door wide open for a recruiter to participate in the schools. A recruiter may volunteer or interact with students in any of the following ways.
*Assistant Coach
* Chaperone for a school dance
* Referee in a sporting event
* Timekeeper in a sporting event
* Eating in the school cafeteria
* Leading boy scouts
Generally, recruiters look for students of influence such as the student government leaders, or popular students.
Another means of reaching the students is through Junior Reserve Training Corps (JRTC) classes. Offered at 1,555 high schools, these classes focus on target practice and discipline. These JRTC classes are especially appealing for poorer high schools because the classes are a new elective offered a bargain rate since the government is paying for a large portion of it.
Desperate for loyal supporters, the army now offers a class for even younger kids. The Pre-(JRTC) offers after school classes for middle scholars. Now even kids as young as eleven can join in the fun of marching with wooden guns and singing loud chants.
The military also reaches the students through tests like the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Given as a career test for juniors and seniors, the army uses this information for smart advertising. With information about the student’s intelligence or interest, the army will have a better idea exactly how to market the army to each individual. Unfortunately, because the ASVAB is not spelled out, students and parents are completely unaware about how the test is connected with the army. For more information about how the army invades the public school systems see the article Who’s Next?
The second target of the military marketing brigade is the parents. Because many of the parents of today’s youth grew up during the Vietnam Era, many parents feel uneasy about war. Because of that, a new wave of army ads geared towards the parents is making their way to the television. In one ad a mother reads a letter about how the army changed her son into a man.
At at goarmy.com, an entire section of the website is devoted to the parents. The website acknowledges the parents fears, but boasts that with all the training from boot camp your child will be prepared for what’s ahead. The website uses testimonies from “everyday people.”
The military’s solution to this problem? Spend more money on marketing. Within five years the marketing budget for the army nearly doubled. While in 1998, the military spent $2.99 million dollars on recruiting; in 2003, the army spent $5.92 million. The branch with the most aggressive plan is the army. In 2004, the army spent 200 million---an amount that totals $4,000 dollars per recruit.
The new expensive marketing plan strives to reach potential recruits where they are most vulnerable: at school and in the home.
First it targets the schools. Because of a clause in the No Child left Behind Act, schools are required give the military access to the schools or else risk losing federal funding. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools give out their student’s addresses and phone numbers to military recruiters unless a parent requests not to give out that information. Unfortunately, not too many parents are aware of that option or their rights. As a result, places like high schools are an ideal place for a recruiter.
The No Child Left Behind Act left the door wide open for a recruiter to participate in the schools. A recruiter may volunteer or interact with students in any of the following ways.
*Assistant Coach
* Chaperone for a school dance
* Referee in a sporting event
* Timekeeper in a sporting event
* Eating in the school cafeteria
* Leading boy scouts
Generally, recruiters look for students of influence such as the student government leaders, or popular students.
Another means of reaching the students is through Junior Reserve Training Corps (JRTC) classes. Offered at 1,555 high schools, these classes focus on target practice and discipline. These JRTC classes are especially appealing for poorer high schools because the classes are a new elective offered a bargain rate since the government is paying for a large portion of it.
Desperate for loyal supporters, the army now offers a class for even younger kids. The Pre-(JRTC) offers after school classes for middle scholars. Now even kids as young as eleven can join in the fun of marching with wooden guns and singing loud chants.
The military also reaches the students through tests like the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Given as a career test for juniors and seniors, the army uses this information for smart advertising. With information about the student’s intelligence or interest, the army will have a better idea exactly how to market the army to each individual. Unfortunately, because the ASVAB is not spelled out, students and parents are completely unaware about how the test is connected with the army. For more information about how the army invades the public school systems see the article Who’s Next?
The second target of the military marketing brigade is the parents. Because many of the parents of today’s youth grew up during the Vietnam Era, many parents feel uneasy about war. Because of that, a new wave of army ads geared towards the parents is making their way to the television. In one ad a mother reads a letter about how the army changed her son into a man.
At at goarmy.com, an entire section of the website is devoted to the parents. The website acknowledges the parents fears, but boasts that with all the training from boot camp your child will be prepared for what’s ahead. The website uses testimonies from “everyday people.”
Monday, April 17, 2006
NIX_BRESSER is a Stupid American Pig
One day I realized - and came to terms with the fact - that I am a walking stereotype of my generation. If something isnt blaring techno music or covered in flashing neon lights, I'm probably not goi
ng to notice it - or care about it. I am one of those directionless twenty-somethings killing themselves in the name of a GPA. I am counted among those whose main concern is whether or not the printer in the library is going to print their report that’s due in an hour, or if their car has enough gas to actually make it to campus. The concept of sleeping and eating have now become circumstantial, as a result, I generally don't concern myself with global, economic or social issues; in fact, the only issues I’m actually aware of are the ones parodied on the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report. I consume what I am fed, and generally don’t concern myself over the ingredients.
I Don’t Care. And most of us don’t. That’s what it all essentially boils down to. I have my priorities, I arrange them as I see fit, and I focus on them. Isn’t that the model for success? If I don’t let other [little] things get in the way of my work, I’m seen as goal oriented or driven, no? By striving toward this ideal, we, as a society learn to accept this barrier between what there is to know, and what we let ourselves know. Think about it, media coverage of events is often the way we hear about them. Our attention spans have atrophied so badly, there better be footage of green explosions or at least some videos of things on fire if they have any plans of holding our attention.
So along comes this war in Iraq. We have all these cool bombs and jets and tanks and guns and missles - and we're using them!! SWEET!! (hey, at least we're stopping a madman from maybe ~ possibly ~ almost ~ using them - if he might have had them---right?). Show me a few clips of an emaciated terrorist televangelizing his ‘evil’ views from some obscure cave and - I’m Sold. You feed me explosion after gunshot after bombing, and you better bet I'm not changing that channel, at least until some boring old-timer in a suit comes on and starts rambling about some policies and…//. That's about the time that I realize I'm missing Family Guy, and change the channel.
Still, Americans felt better about themselves because the shallowness that plagued their hollywood discussions was more ignorable when they talked about politics, it was "cooler" to do. No one seemed to care anymore about it than they would care if Ross and Rachel got back together. The American flag was transformed from a symbol of national pride and unity, to a fashion accessory to people who want to look like they care.
Pulitzer Prize winner John Patrick Shanley said it best when he wrote, “We are living in a culture of extreme advocacy… Discussion has given way to debate.” And debate is fine, but Americans only debate the topics that the media deems “popular.” Everyone has a stance on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but when was the last time you spoke with someone about the ones in North Korea? And I’m no better. I really don’t care about anything that doesn’t affect my priorities – I don’t read the newspaper – and I don’t watch CNN. I walk around all day listening to loud music on my iPod as I overpay for gas and get pissed about all the damn rubber bracelets everyone is wearing, as well as the ribbon and flag magnets every car.
But I don’t do anything about it – just like I’m doing now, I debate about it. As a culture, we all consume what we are fed and rarely question the source. We even rationalize it by complaining that “we can’t help it, it’s force fed to us everywhere we go.” Commercialization has rendered us as an entire generation of intellectually emaciated drones 'scratching on day to day, and all we’re waiting for is for something worth waiting for. We fear that pop culture is the only culture we’re ever gonna have. We are more than the sum of what we consume - desire is NOT an occupation' (*thanks KMFDM). This is bad America, our consumption is killing us --- change the channel --- or pull the damn plug.
- NIX_BRESSER
ng to notice it - or care about it. I am one of those directionless twenty-somethings killing themselves in the name of a GPA. I am counted among those whose main concern is whether or not the printer in the library is going to print their report that’s due in an hour, or if their car has enough gas to actually make it to campus. The concept of sleeping and eating have now become circumstantial, as a result, I generally don't concern myself with global, economic or social issues; in fact, the only issues I’m actually aware of are the ones parodied on the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report. I consume what I am fed, and generally don’t concern myself over the ingredients.I Don’t Care. And most of us don’t. That’s what it all essentially boils down to. I have my priorities, I arrange them as I see fit, and I focus on them. Isn’t that the model for success? If I don’t let other [little] things get in the way of my work, I’m seen as goal oriented or driven, no? By striving toward this ideal, we, as a society learn to accept this barrier between what there is to know, and what we let ourselves know. Think about it, media coverage of events is often the way we hear about them. Our attention spans have atrophied so badly, there better be footage of green explosions or at least some videos of things on fire if they have any plans of holding our attention.
So along comes this war in Iraq. We have all these cool bombs and jets and tanks and guns and missles - and we're using them!! SWEET!! (hey, at least we're stopping a madman from maybe ~ possibly ~ almost ~ using them - if he might have had them---right?). Show me a few clips of an emaciated terrorist televangelizing his ‘evil’ views from some obscure cave and - I’m Sold. You feed me explosion after gunshot after bombing, and you better bet I'm not changing that channel, at least until some boring old-timer in a suit comes on and starts rambling about some policies and…
Still, Americans felt better about themselves because the shallowness that plagued their hollywood discussions was more ignorable when they talked about politics, it was "cooler" to do. No one seemed to care anymore about it than they would care if Ross and Rachel got back together. The American flag was transformed from a symbol of national pride and unity, to a fashion accessory to people who want to look like they care.
Pulitzer Prize winner John Patrick Shanley said it best when he wrote, “We are living in a culture of extreme advocacy… Discussion has given way to debate.” And debate is fine, but Americans only debate the topics that the media deems “popular.” Everyone has a stance on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but when was the last time you spoke with someone about the ones in North Korea? And I’m no better. I really don’t care about anything that doesn’t affect my priorities – I don’t read the newspaper – and I don’t watch CNN. I walk around all day listening to loud music on my iPod as I overpay for gas and get pissed about all the damn rubber bracelets everyone is wearing, as well as the ribbon and flag magnets every car.
But I don’t do anything about it – just like I’m doing now, I debate about it. As a culture, we all consume what we are fed and rarely question the source. We even rationalize it by complaining that “we can’t help it, it’s force fed to us everywhere we go.” Commercialization has rendered us as an entire generation of intellectually emaciated drones 'scratching on day to day, and all we’re waiting for is for something worth waiting for. We fear that pop culture is the only culture we’re ever gonna have. We are more than the sum of what we consume - desire is NOT an occupation' (*thanks KMFDM). This is bad America, our consumption is killing us --- change the channel --- or pull the damn plug.
- NIX_BRESSER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)