In Response to Thomas: 3/10

Original Post by Kim Thomas: 1. In "Modern Media and Persuasion," Larsen describes McLuhan's point of view on media usage. McLuhan sees innovations such as the television and internet as creating a "lonely crowd." Due to the fact that watching television and surfing the internet are activities we do alone and often, we have sacrificed relationships with our neighbors. I certainly do not know any of my neighbors, do you? However, there is also the opinion that the internet has created a "Global Village." Through the internet we are able to connect to people all over the world. The definition of community now includes and online community such as the ones we find on Facebook and Myspace. Which view of the internet, and television do you lean towards? Is the internet alienating ourselves from each other? Has it changed what we consider socializing? Or has the internet brought us together?

McLuhan, Larson and Thomas all make interesting points about the advancement of media control in our society. When it comes down to it, people are overwhelmed with electronic options—phones, internet, iPods, television, etc. There is so much to keep us occupied. This “lonely crowd” that McLuhan discusses is flourishing day by day as people decide to congregate on the internet rather than in person. Although impersonal and often detrimental to our social skills, its benefits are worth noting.
The internet has a certain veil of secrecy and anonymity that people are drawn to. When chatting with friends, because we are not in person and hence unable to read expressions, generally speaking we are more honest and straight-forward. This is to say that when behind a screen and detached from direct contact humans automatically feel more confident. It is as if we are drunken with personal power and persuasion. In many ways our rhetoric changes when we are on the internet—sending an e-mail or chatting with a friend through facebook. Often times what we say through the written word may differ from what comes across aurally and in person. Messages are coded and decoded in very distinct ways through each medium.
As far as the internet sacrificing relationships, I would argue that while it does limit our interpersonal contact there is room for relationship building through the veil—albeit limited. First and foremost, a relationship created online is not a relationship. A more substantive relationship includes personal contact and the understanding of someone's oral and auditory habits. A person may be completely different in person then how they present themselves online. Lets face it—humans are naturally good liars. The concept of the “Global Village” does have some warrant in this argument, however. The internet has allowed individuals to connect to virtually anyone and anything. The world has become smaller with a simple click of a button. This virtual globalization, however, faces the same problems and same criticisms as a larger move towards globalization in where there often is a loss of culture at the expense of integration.
This movement towards a global village via the internet is two-fold. On one hand individuals are separating and thus alienating themselves from immediate personal contacts (this idea of loneliness) while on the other hand we are consequentially creating a culture of community albeit limited. I use limited in the sense that, again, relationships from online are not true relationships to the fullest extent. However, there is something that is created with such easy connection. This something—whether it is greater understanding, respect or questioning of another culture proves the power the internet has over our daily lives. There is no escaping it nor the inevitable juxtaposition of alienation and community. While an odd combination, it is one that seems to work for many people.

Chapter 9: The Passions

In the early part of Hauser's chapter titled “The Passions,” he makes a statement that defines his argument concerning pathos. He exclaims that “all thinking engages emotional response.” It is with this as a basic foundation, that we are able to question the validity of both decision-making based on emotions as well as pathos as a means of successful rhetoric. Hauser makes it apparent that emotions are not “things.” This is to say that emotions themselves are part of a holistic response to an experience. Happiness, sadness, fear, grief, etc are not external to who we are proposes Hauser. He also states that feelings are not universal. Depending on a given situation, we all have different emotional responses. I think most immediately of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which evoked a range of emotions in Americans. While we may have experienced different experiences—sadness, anger, remorse, guilt, etc—it would seem that the attitude preceding the events seemed to be universal or at least that was what had been projected by our media. There was a general feeling of patriotism, and renewed energy. However, does the media play a role in designating a universal emotion? To this extent, is emotional appeal a manipulative tool? Americans saw immediately after the attacks an appeal by former President George W. Bush to Americans emotions. He addressed the anger—we are prepared to fight the (“evil-doers”) as well as the sadness (“we will never forget”). Even before individuals could make their own decisions and create their own emotional responses, there seemed to be rhetoric from a place of authority dictating that which we should feel. While this is an integral part of assessing the rhetorical situation (addressing it and then consequentially defining it for an audience) one has to wonder its level of morality. To what extent does this strategy—the defining of emotions for a particular audience—infringe on individuals rights to free-will and a personal decision-making process? It can be argued that above all else this process is manipulative.
A simple question to ask of this specific chapter—and Hauser seems to propose it in his summary—is whether or not “our feelings are appropriate in making wise decisions.” Especially in a western society that values the logical over emotional, it becomes important to question the perceived norm. To what extent does emotion, over intellect and ration, become the most important factor in making decisions? As Hauser states, all of our intellectual experiences are clouded with emotion. While our intellect and cognitive may come first (experience) what defines the situation is our emotional response. With this said, I would argue that emotional appeal is first and foremost what makes us human and unique. The rational, intellectual contrastingly is inherently exterior to what is uniquely personal. Is the emotional what makes us personal and unique and therefore provides even more validity to our arguments? Hauser says that if emotional appeals are coupled with logical arguments then “our emotions are likely to be appropriate responses, essential for considered action.” Does emotion by itself ever justify the decision making process? In what situation?

Response to Lamiah's Questions of 2/2/09. Responded to on 2/9/09.

Lamiah states: 2.Creativity is within us all but is difficult to articulate at times for a range of reasons. In speech writing, it is generally limited by our knowledge, our audience and what we are not allowed to say. In Chapter 6 of Hauser’s textbook, as well as in the majority of rhetorical reasoning texts, we are advised to judge the appropriate setting and to always consider the audience. But, in doing so, how much information can you leave out or skew – what do you leave in the commonplaces? Will being politically correct limit the content or general message of your speech? What if you want to attract “passersby,” as talked about in class? Furthermore, Hauser also places much emphasis on the role of the audience and on their creativity. Subjectivity and personal interpretations are expected after viewing an abstract painting or reading a certain poem, but are they after hearing a speech? Hauser claims it is “what we do with what he [speaker – Chris Rock] invents – in our heads and hearts and actions – that is at the core of rhetorical argument.” How much creativity do you think is expected of the receiver and how much room for interpretation should there be?

Lamiah poses some interesting questions, many of which are unanswerable without knowing the specifics of any given situation. However, generally speaking, I think many would argue that the speaker is only a foundation for creativity. This is to say that much of the responsibility is endowed on the receiver who interprets a message based on his/her own individual creativity. A speaker cannot force interpretation. When it comes down to it, individuals will consume any given message however they are structured to do so. For example, a gay man takes a message very differently from a heterosexual man when it comes to Barack Obama discussing something such as marriage rights. While Obama wants to appeal to both audiences, he must leave room for interpretation as he does not want any one group to become alienated. It is a balancing act to which audience demographics takes huge importance. As to whether or not being politically correct will limit a message, I would disagree. Perhaps I have faith in the collective human race that searches for answers outside of speeches, but I would argue that an act of rhetoric is merely one outlet to gain information on a specific message. There are other avenues to which we can research and understand an issue. Those who remain stagnant with a singular definition of a situation are neglecting discourse. The cyclical relationship between situation and discourse needs to be in constant motion.
Burke's/Philpott's notion of “persuasion by perspective” is somewhat negligent of the fact that individuals have the ability to think and define a situation for themselves. The persuasion by perspective approach insists that a speaker shapes the way people think about the situation they are in. While this may be true in many cases, this negates the possibility of any “receiver” creativity. Ultimately people think for themselves. Much like a poem or a painting, a speech is up for interpretation. Whether discussing a set of exigencies in a speech, appealing to pathos or logos or simply physical movements in the presentation of a message—people react differently and therefore form opinions. The audience is capable of making informed decisions given a messengers chosen content. DeVito's states that meaning is essentially created. Situations of rhetoric make possible “unique” meaning not necessarily defined by the speaker but rather the receiver.

Chapter 13, Rhetorical Form as Strategy.

(1).Gerard Hauser states in the 13th chapter of his text that, “Although we form an intelligible perception of 'reality,' it is a partial perception and necessarily a distorted perception” (247). This is to say that human perception is based on a series of selective perceptions. We, therefore, inherently choose what we perceive. I would like to expand on Hauser's argument and express my concerns with any consequent fallout from his idea. That is, the extent to which selective perception limits the understanding of an objective, universal reality/idea. As Hauser states, human beings perceive things differently. That in which we interpret is completely subjective, especially given specific structures based on our own “realities.” My question is this, then: When forming an argument and rhetoric designed to reach the largest audience possible, how does the rhetor overcome audience subjectivity/experience and reach a level of objectivity—that is a universal perception? For example, Barack Obama's inauguration speech will be carefully planned to hopefully attract a large audience—democrat and republican. However, given Hauser's argument that we select our own “realities,” Obama's speech is bound to alienate certain individuals who disagree with Obama's subjective perception of reality. Hauser states that we participate in a discriminatory process whereby we select our perception. If by selecting, categorizing, bounding and abstracting the way we shape data, do we consequentially miss out on an objective reality? Are we clouded over by what we perceive? Is is possible to perceive a universal structure? Is there even a universal structure? (2). Continuing with Hauser in Chapter 13, the Women in Black protest movement struck me as incredibly interesting. I had not considered the rhetorical impact/social impact of a visual protest. While I have encountered it before, Hauser makes it apparent that visual rhetoric is more than just a profound visual statement—it can take the place of language. Hauser describes the Women in Black visual rhetoric as strategic action. He says this concern focuses on “how it 'works' in the practices of any person who communicates with purposes to another” (244). This communication then, can be through visual depiction. It begs the question if visual rhetoric ultimately has a larger impact on people than linguistic rhetoric? From my own experiences, having attended numerous protests, I tend to identify with the visual images (women dressed in black, coffins, upside down American flags) more so than the protest signs. For an individual paying attention, the message inherent in a visual symbol is more powerful and easily identified. The visual impact of women dressed in all black indicates a certain emotion immediately as where linguistic rhetoric may take time to decipher. (3). Hauser makes an interesting point about politicians in Chapter 13, that I found relevant to our current political landscape. He describes association clusters as “terms and ideas that congregate together,” wherein Hauser uses Dowd to group political figures in terms of actors and true politicians. Ironically, she argues that Dick Cheney is a politician who does not play into the camera—or direct an emotional appeal towards the audience. Al Gore and George W. Bush, rather, put on a show according to Dowd. This may include eye rolls, gestures and obscure facial expressions. Hauser states that “the suggestion is that the candidates are more committed to creating an image than to communicating with us about the issues and their position on them” (254). I would tend to agree with both Hauser and Dowd (maybe not on the Dick Cheney comment). One can even make this argument regarding Barack Obama. To what extent is Obama's rhetoric a means to gain popularity? At the basic level, he appeals to a large audience by preaching a message of hope and change. Given our current situation (which he is responding to), this is an appealing prospect. However, we must ask ourselves the authenticity of his message. Is Obama more of a pop-icon or a celebrity? Going along with the theme of the chapter, how much of his message is political strategy?