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?