Chapter 3 of Persuasion and Social Movements focuses on what the persuasive functions of a social movement are. It analyzes how social movements use persuasion to alter the perceptions of the protesters, as well as strategies for how movements should mobilize for action. The chapter is extremely detailed, including relevant historical figures in both the US and around the world, and the authors obviously want to present an unbiased examination of how social movements work. They do take the position of accepting social movements as important, but this doesn't place bias in either direction.
I enjoyed the section on how movements must alter the perceptions of the protesters. This is something new, as everything we've read up to now has focused on how movements use rhetoric to alter the perceptions of the oppressors or unmoved masses, so it was interesting to learn how movements 'transfer perceptions of reality' among their own supporters. I do think that all of these 7 subsections of chapter 3 translate to digital activism, but even this section alone translates very well. I have mentioned before that I believe digital activism lacks a sense of intimacy, or intimacy-likeness, and movements must use this strategy in order to change that in their favor. Maintaining the power to change the perception or narrative reality of the audience is, on its own, enough to be a primary focus for social movements, because that is the mission objective of activism: to educate the public and to bring about change.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Week 4 Writing Response
Environmental and Linguistic Revisions on RA2:
What I would definitely include in a revised 'Rhetorical Analysis 2' is a description of how the website functions as a material community. With regard to environmental rhetorical analysis, I would say that the Change.org page functions as something much bigger than a room, but a contained place where information can be presented in an unbiased manner. What most strongly accentuates this feature is the sites devotion to petitions. With the simple one-click participation in any petition you are disposed to, you feel as though you are talking with someone face-to-face. What I notice about language, that I feel embarrassed for not mentioning in my original analysis, is the very large typeface that headlines the page: "The world's platform for change", with the 'start a petition' button right next to the text. This alone does a great job of immediately making clear to visitors what the intent of this website is.
What I would definitely include in a revised 'Rhetorical Analysis 2' is a description of how the website functions as a material community. With regard to environmental rhetorical analysis, I would say that the Change.org page functions as something much bigger than a room, but a contained place where information can be presented in an unbiased manner. What most strongly accentuates this feature is the sites devotion to petitions. With the simple one-click participation in any petition you are disposed to, you feel as though you are talking with someone face-to-face. What I notice about language, that I feel embarrassed for not mentioning in my original analysis, is the very large typeface that headlines the page: "The world's platform for change", with the 'start a petition' button right next to the text. This alone does a great job of immediately making clear to visitors what the intent of this website is.
Starbucks Response
Summary:
This article attempts to draw a profound sense of class consciousness(modernity) out of the rhetorical analysis of a Starbucks coffee shop. The author argues that since we are constantly losing our sense of time, place, and self, that Starbucks is arranged such that we conform to it.
This is an environmental rhetorical analysis because it dissects and investigates how the environment of a coffee shop can affect/persuade the consumers.
This article differed from the Joe Louis article in that this analysis focused on a smaller environment (Starbucks compared to the Louis Monument/Detroit) and instead of being a symbol for hope, it analyzed how the environment is constructed to conform consumers.
This article attempts to draw a profound sense of class consciousness(modernity) out of the rhetorical analysis of a Starbucks coffee shop. The author argues that since we are constantly losing our sense of time, place, and self, that Starbucks is arranged such that we conform to it.
This is an environmental rhetorical analysis because it dissects and investigates how the environment of a coffee shop can affect/persuade the consumers.
This article differed from the Joe Louis article in that this analysis focused on a smaller environment (Starbucks compared to the Louis Monument/Detroit) and instead of being a symbol for hope, it analyzed how the environment is constructed to conform consumers.
Response to Detroit and Closed Fist
Summary:
This article offers a materialized rhetorical analyses of the 'Monument to Joe Louis", and how the monument reflects the cultural, class, and racial segregation of the city of Detroit. The article is divided into three sections; the first gives a background on the fist symbol, the second is on the 'agony' of Detroit and the history of that phrase, and the third details how the monument symbolically relates to the city.
What was new for me in this article was the scope of which the rhetor analyzed. The centerpiece is obviously the monument, but upon further reflection I see Detroit as the centerpiece, and the monument as an instrument. The way the author analyzed not just the urban geography but connected that with race/class tensions gave rise to a pretty substantial conclusion on how Detroit not only came to be seen in its negative lens but how it is to be moved out of that lens.
This article offers a materialized rhetorical analyses of the 'Monument to Joe Louis", and how the monument reflects the cultural, class, and racial segregation of the city of Detroit. The article is divided into three sections; the first gives a background on the fist symbol, the second is on the 'agony' of Detroit and the history of that phrase, and the third details how the monument symbolically relates to the city.
What was new for me in this article was the scope of which the rhetor analyzed. The centerpiece is obviously the monument, but upon further reflection I see Detroit as the centerpiece, and the monument as an instrument. The way the author analyzed not just the urban geography but connected that with race/class tensions gave rise to a pretty substantial conclusion on how Detroit not only came to be seen in its negative lens but how it is to be moved out of that lens.
Response to DelGandio's Chapter 3
The importance of language:
DelGandio dedicates chapter 3 entirely to how language affects not only how we communicate, but also how language 'changes our realities'. DelGandio begins by addressing how language affects identity, including race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. This follows from his claim that language creates new realities, we dictate our identity by how we choose to communicate. He then moves to how language can be used negatively, such as with propaganda and through the distortion of the meaning of words, like political correctness (PC). DelGandio analyzes these strategies and identifies how to fight against them. Following these lengthy analyses, he concludes by wrapping up his 'words create realities' claim, arguing that notably, the creation of new words can create new realities.
All in all, I agree with DelGandio that words do affect our 'reality' and that they can be part of the foundation of it. While his analyses were helpful in identifying propaganda and the like, I would have enjoyed a section dedicated to the application of how we are supposed to use language moving forward with activism. He seems to hint at this with the concluding section, listing a few contemporary definitions that are part of the activist community, but how should we use these to 'create new realities'?
DelGandio dedicates chapter 3 entirely to how language affects not only how we communicate, but also how language 'changes our realities'. DelGandio begins by addressing how language affects identity, including race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. This follows from his claim that language creates new realities, we dictate our identity by how we choose to communicate. He then moves to how language can be used negatively, such as with propaganda and through the distortion of the meaning of words, like political correctness (PC). DelGandio analyzes these strategies and identifies how to fight against them. Following these lengthy analyses, he concludes by wrapping up his 'words create realities' claim, arguing that notably, the creation of new words can create new realities.
All in all, I agree with DelGandio that words do affect our 'reality' and that they can be part of the foundation of it. While his analyses were helpful in identifying propaganda and the like, I would have enjoyed a section dedicated to the application of how we are supposed to use language moving forward with activism. He seems to hint at this with the concluding section, listing a few contemporary definitions that are part of the activist community, but how should we use these to 'create new realities'?
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
2nd Rhetorical Analysis
Change.org:
Within a few seconds of scrolling through the homepage of Change.org, a purpose can easily be found. This website is focused on spreading awareness about societal, political, and environmental topics that highlight unethical or immoral actions. Upon slightly more extensive exploration, the website presents another purpose, an invitation to act. This website not only focuses on bringing attention to controversial issues, but is home to interactive petitions, which users can sign with the click of their mouse. This seems to be the more immediate goal of the site, not only for readers to become aware but to take action.
The overall design of the page is relatively simple, with a white back drop and black, red, or blue typeface. The center of the page is dedicated to 'victories', situations where the petitions corroborated or directly led to change. The page is fairly interactive, with petitions and 'victories' taking up the majority of the screen. There is a sidebar with links to general topics such as politics, environment, human rights, etc.
Overall, the website successfully communicates its purpose. The absent color scheme and the simple page layout give rise to an interactive website that presents its objective with a subtle sense of urgency that is non-intrusive.
Within a few seconds of scrolling through the homepage of Change.org, a purpose can easily be found. This website is focused on spreading awareness about societal, political, and environmental topics that highlight unethical or immoral actions. Upon slightly more extensive exploration, the website presents another purpose, an invitation to act. This website not only focuses on bringing attention to controversial issues, but is home to interactive petitions, which users can sign with the click of their mouse. This seems to be the more immediate goal of the site, not only for readers to become aware but to take action.
The overall design of the page is relatively simple, with a white back drop and black, red, or blue typeface. The center of the page is dedicated to 'victories', situations where the petitions corroborated or directly led to change. The page is fairly interactive, with petitions and 'victories' taking up the majority of the screen. There is a sidebar with links to general topics such as politics, environment, human rights, etc.
Overall, the website successfully communicates its purpose. The absent color scheme and the simple page layout give rise to an interactive website that presents its objective with a subtle sense of urgency that is non-intrusive.
Response to 'What Writing Does'
Overall, the rhetorical analyses caught me off guard. I have never been exposed to writing that grants so much effort and importance to a single magazine page, or instructional website. Moreover, this writing is exciting, and it's amazing to see objects that we ordinarily consume blindly go through such meaningful deconstruction(This would be true regardless of whether my professor wrote the article or not).
What was particularly enlightening to me occurred during the final analysis, of the instructional website. With the many definitions of rhetoric floating around in my mind, while reading this section a question came to me that seemed to sum up my understanding of rhetoric: "What is it doing?" This could be taken simply as the object's 'purpose', but to me this question begs an even further one: "How is it doing this?" Obviously rhetoric is much more complicated than how/why an object is acting on you, to begin proceeding rhetorically you first need to learn the how/why of identifying an object's how/why.
What was particularly enlightening to me occurred during the final analysis, of the instructional website. With the many definitions of rhetoric floating around in my mind, while reading this section a question came to me that seemed to sum up my understanding of rhetoric: "What is it doing?" This could be taken simply as the object's 'purpose', but to me this question begs an even further one: "How is it doing this?" Obviously rhetoric is much more complicated than how/why an object is acting on you, to begin proceeding rhetorically you first need to learn the how/why of identifying an object's how/why.
Response to DelGandio
DelGandio's ideas are creative and inspiring, and I appreciate the import to which he gives 21st century radicalism/activism. He calls for rhetorical action, stating that while our ideas and movements have the right thing in mind, 21st century activists do not communicate effectively. I agree with DelGandio's call to action, but I do not think his argument is sufficiently presented. He claims that 21st century activism has taken on a different form, that we no longer need recognizable figure heads to lead our movements and instead should rely on the communal power of a global network of local, organized movements. While I don't necessarily disagree with DelGandio, I don't think that he effectively responds to challenges against such a claim.
DelGandio argues that modern day activism is not effective because we do not communicate effectively. However, one might argue that while this is an issue to address, it does not completely solve the problem. He states that the lack of notable figures is due to unfocused media attention and political dismissal. But couldn't it just be the lack of inspiring figures that is causing the lack of inspiring figures? While I agree with DelGandio that 21st century activism must rely on a globalized network of communication, I maintain that recognizable figures are of great importance within the realm of activism. Sure, we aren't rhetoricizing effectively, but is a large number of pretty good rhetors better than a few with an advanced proficiency? Those who are capable of moving huge masses with single speeches or actions? My idealized direction for activism is one that includes both effective communication throughout groups as well as single, inspiring figures.
Regardless, DelGandio's writing is moving, and I enjoyed reading such a passionate author. It was interesting contrasting his definition with Longaker and Walker's; I see the former as more idealistic and the latter as pragmatically analytic.
DelGandio argues that modern day activism is not effective because we do not communicate effectively. However, one might argue that while this is an issue to address, it does not completely solve the problem. He states that the lack of notable figures is due to unfocused media attention and political dismissal. But couldn't it just be the lack of inspiring figures that is causing the lack of inspiring figures? While I agree with DelGandio that 21st century activism must rely on a globalized network of communication, I maintain that recognizable figures are of great importance within the realm of activism. Sure, we aren't rhetoricizing effectively, but is a large number of pretty good rhetors better than a few with an advanced proficiency? Those who are capable of moving huge masses with single speeches or actions? My idealized direction for activism is one that includes both effective communication throughout groups as well as single, inspiring figures.
Regardless, DelGandio's writing is moving, and I enjoyed reading such a passionate author. It was interesting contrasting his definition with Longaker and Walker's; I see the former as more idealistic and the latter as pragmatically analytic.
Friday, September 19, 2014
1st Rhetorical Analysis
I will analyze the 4th NWF poster:
The center of the poster shows a black outline of a human being. The lower half of the person is made up of various wild animals, and they appear to be a part of the person that is now falling or breaking apart. The only text is at the bottom, in large bold letters, "Help reverse climate change before it's to late". This poster is intended to show how climate change is affecting not just wild animals, but humans too. The central idea is that the animals make up the human being, that they are not separate species, but are actually a part of humanity. While this is idealization, the intention is to show that while it has been animals that have suffered so far, it is only a matter of time before we start to feel the consequences of global climate change.
The implied rhetor is the National Wildlife Foundation, and the poster is set up with the intention to draw the attention of anyone with knowledge of global climate change. This is where the poster draws its strengths: it is simple, fairly easy to understand, and can appeal to very wide audience. However, the poster does not have any details regarding where someone would go if they would like to know more, or how to take action. I don't think this makes the poster ineffective, but it is a weak point.
The center of the poster shows a black outline of a human being. The lower half of the person is made up of various wild animals, and they appear to be a part of the person that is now falling or breaking apart. The only text is at the bottom, in large bold letters, "Help reverse climate change before it's to late". This poster is intended to show how climate change is affecting not just wild animals, but humans too. The central idea is that the animals make up the human being, that they are not separate species, but are actually a part of humanity. While this is idealization, the intention is to show that while it has been animals that have suffered so far, it is only a matter of time before we start to feel the consequences of global climate change.
The implied rhetor is the National Wildlife Foundation, and the poster is set up with the intention to draw the attention of anyone with knowledge of global climate change. This is where the poster draws its strengths: it is simple, fairly easy to understand, and can appeal to very wide audience. However, the poster does not have any details regarding where someone would go if they would like to know more, or how to take action. I don't think this makes the poster ineffective, but it is a weak point.
Response to Longaker and Walker
Rhetorical Analysis: A Brief Guide to Analysis begins by introducing readers to the world of rhetoric, including its history dating back to ancient Greece, and its contemporary use. Through describing the history of how rhetoric is used, a 'classical' definition is presented. This classical definition the author's describe as the 'art of persuasion'. However, they explain that the definition of the term in its contemporary use is contentious, as over the course of history its meaning has been explored and defined. Longaker and Walker argue that they will further this exploration, and will arrive at their own definition of rhetoric.
This is the bulk of the second chapter, as the authors break down the term in order to arrive at a satisfactory definition. This dissection is extensive; the authors introduce numerous technical terms in order to fully capture the full experience of the speaker-to-audience relationship. Terms such as implied rhetor, actual rhetor, intended audience, and actual audience all dictate a technical graph which is intended to display, on paper, the rhetorical situation. The authors introduce another, however not-so technical sounding, technical term, called 'kairos'. This, they describe, is the specific timing of a rhetorical situation. It is the influence that a specific setting has on how successful a rhetorical situation will be. The authors exemplify kairos by asking the reader to imagine telling a racy joke to their friend, with an extremely positive response, and then telling that same joke at the family dinner table with your parents and grandparents; not such a positive result. This, they claim, is the importance of 'kairos'.
The second chapter concludes with an example analysis of two pieces of literature: one is a famous letter written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the other is a 1960's Volkswagen advertisement. The authors use multiple analytic tactics to create a rhetorical interpretation of both pieces of work, and explain the importance of each in very different terms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)