Three Questions for the week of 3/9-3/13, CMJR 205

Olivia Hernandez

3/9/09

CMJR 205

Rhetoric Questions

1. In Shawn J. Parry-Giles’ article about the media representation of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and by association women in the political world, Parry-Giles writes about how the media’s approach to Clinton’s many different roles (mother, wife, politician, feminist, first lady) reflects the media’s typical approach to women in politics. Because Clinton represents such an extreme mixing of traditional female roles and her highly-driven and politically-motivated persona, the media’s approach to her has been fascinating. Parry Giles writes that “the television news texts combine a rhetoric of fear surrounding powerful women with a gendered discourse on first ladies,” continuing with examples of news reporters mixing metaphors of feminine lace with explosive power, “Within such a phrase, the juxtaposition of danger with lace epitomizes the double bind for women who become so powerful that they lose their femininity.” Parry-Giles talks about Clinton as being “equated with images of feminism, power and fear.” I agree with this examination of women in politics. It is evident to me both from the evidence from this article as well as my own analysis of contemporary news that it is difficult for our society to not mix gendered terms with talk about political prowess when it comes to women. Women in politics continue to battle a media that scrutinizes them for being both too-feminine and not-feminine enough by different accounts. Talk of femininity, usually as a weakness, is inescapable for women in seats of power, even though masculinity (too much or too little of it) is never addressed as a problem in male politicians by the media. After reading Parry-Giles’ article, do you agree with mine or the article’s assessments?

2. Charles Larsen talks about “verbal”, “auditory” and “sight” scripts that exist as media “languages” used as persuasive mediums. Especially in advertising do these scripts factor into the persuasive argument of the communicator. Verbal scripts represent the actual message being communicated, while auditory scripts try to evoke feelings and memories with memorable sounds or the creation of effective songs. The sight script finishes the job with images that resonates feelings for the viewer, the image might be connotative to the auditory and verbal scripts, or it may attempt to say something with the way it visually presents the images. Visual scripts create the reality of the words being spoken and demonstrate and deepen the message. If you were to create an advertisement that persuaded a student to take a rhetoric class at Seattle University, how would you structure the verbal, auditory and sight scripts to create an effective persuasive message for your audience? Using the media language as described by Larsen, what would be the most effective way of using these scripts to make your point and create an attractive prospect in your argument for taking the class?

3. In Charles Larsen’s writing about media and persuasion, he notes the differences between “hot” and “cool” media. He defines hot media as messages that have “high fidelity or definition and are easy to perceive…well-drawn or recorded.” Of cool media he writes that they have “low fidelity or definition” and that we must work as an audience to process the messages. Larsen notes that there are also hot and cool persuaders or spokespeople that work within their respectively hot or cool mediums to get their message across. Using Larsen’s ideas about “hot” and “cool” methods of persuasion within a medium, how would you classify Jon Stewart of the Daily Show? How would you classify Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report?

Response for the week of 2/9-2/13, CMJR 205

Olivia Hernandez
2/10/09
CMJR 205
Rhetoric Response # 4

In response to the question from “Citizen Jones”:

3) Using the information in the reading by Warnick and Inch, I would like to ask for someone to analyze the following ads from the 2008 Presidential campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv4bYWBTgdw , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHe_FQGfdyo , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1azQcs-8iI , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrRk8KQukY

As we read in this selection, evaluating the claim, reasoning and evidence is critical to argument analysis. Which of the above ads was most powerful? Were any overly strong and therefore off-putting? What are the different audience assumptions, orientations and background knowledge that each claimant is relying on in order to make his or her argument persuasive? Please use the concepts from the reading to make your analysis, rather than your own biases.

In the context of this field of argument, politics, all of these ads were overdoing it. Each one’s rhetoric was seemed flawed. My two favorites or at least the one’s that I find least grating are Barack Obama’s “Barney Smith” ad and Hilary Clinton’s “Phone Call” ad.

Both Obama and Clinton make a connection with their audience with their ads. They aren’t talking about foreign policy directly; they are talking about the emotions of the people who would vote for them. They are creating a message for their audience in a way that they hope will help the audience connect to them.

The argument model for Clinton if Warnick and Inch would look at these ads is thus:

I have spent years working directly in both domestic and foreign politics and my husband used to be president, allowing me access to high-risk politics (Evidence.) Because of this, I am an experienced politician; I know what I am doing and am prepared to make quick decisions (Reasoning.) I am the person most equipped to answer the important phone calls in my duty as a potential president (Claim.) She doesn’t say, but implies, that she is better than the other nominees.

Obama’s would follow like this:

McCain, in my interpretation of his voting record, supports tax-cuts for corporations that export jobs to other nations. People are losing their jobs to outsourcing of work (Evidence.) If John McCain is president, he may continue to support corporations that outsource, and in doing so they will continue to outsource positions to other countries and more people will lose their jobs (Reasoning.) I am a better candidate to vote for because if you vote for John McCain, your job is in danger (Claim.)

These are ads that still bother me, because they don’t go into depth about the voting records or ideals of either candidate, but they are still preferred.

I felt that both the John McCain ad and the Tom Tancredo ad were both off-putting, the Tancredo ad especially. If the McCain ad had stuck to the facts, without using imagery that implied some sort of future where things have gone to hell, I would have found it infinitely more effective because it used real, compelling information.

All of these advertisements functioned from a base of fear. They exploit the fear in their audience to make themselves seem superior in the face of trying times.

I think that the ads are all based in recipient orientation. According to Warner and Inch this approach to argument “causes us to consider the nature of the audiences to which an argument is addressed.” The assumptions that each ad is making about its audience is based in fear and anxiety, though in differing levels and about different subjects. Tancredo assumes that his audience is afraid of foreigners wreaking violent havoc in our nation and assumes that the fact that other, hazy, unknown, politicians will not protect them. Tancredo claims he can because he favors border protection. This is not a strong enough argument. What do his opponents favor? How will forcing people out of the country protect us from violence? His argument’s reasoning and claim are flawed. He perceives the right things in his audience orientation but doesn’t come to a claim that would be effective for his audience—I think he just alienates them and inspires fear because of the intensity of the images and claims he makes. He doesn’t offer them the options that he should have explored within the audience orientation.

Clinton and Obama are both guilty of using the audience’s fear in attempts to craft a more effective claim. It is Clinton’s perceived fear of inexperience, and Obama’s perceived fear of having the wrong person in the white house that acts as the basis for their reasoning.

I don’t think campaign ads are ever as engaging or effective as they should be. They always put off the audience they are trying to connect with in the way that they address the audience—as if we don’t know any facts and will be swayed by persuasive words or images or attitudes, without hard facts.

Answer for Week 2/2-2/6

Olivia Hernandez

2/4/09

CMJR 205

Rhetoric Response for the Week of 2/2-2/6

In response to Elaine’s question about the Kenneth Burke article:

“ 1. After this, Burke discusses the contradictions found among proverbs that I found to be rather interesting. If proverbs are meant to serve as methods for dealing with a given situation, isn’t it reasonable that such contradictions exist? For example, following a proverb that aims to provide a helpful hint to reach success will result in either a success or a failure. Let’s say that the person did indeed fail after first obeying the helpful proverb. The person might then seek a proverb of consolation that might encourage a second attempt. We, as humans, are not successful in all of our endeavors and therefore seek words of encouragement, consolation, and incentive to match any situation we find ourselves in. It is natural that proverbs are contradictory, then, because we require a number of different attitudes to complement what we humans experience. We are constantly re-working our strategies in order to achieve our goals, which thus create the necessity of a range of proverbs that we may tailor to our emotional needs. What do you think of my interpretation of Burke’s ideas?”

This interpretation of Burke’s essay does a great job of delving deeper into the information and ideas that he presents about proverbs. I agree with Elaine’s introspective assessment of how humans use proverbs.

Burke speaks at length at his idea of proverbs as much debated “strategies.” In this essay that attempts to explain the “sociology of literature”, Burke starts with proverbs as a way of examining how the medicinal “literature” of proverbs can be socially reflective. He attempts to categorize the emotions that proverbs capture. “There is realism for promise, admonition, solace, vengeance, foretelling, instruction, charting, all for the direct bearing that such acts have upon matters of welfare,” Burke writes in page 296, emotional welfare.

Burke seems to subscribe to the notion that proverbs themselves create the human condition that seeks them, almost like the Lakoff and Johnson we read last week about metaphors transcending their status as literary devices and becoming the stage that the situation is played out on.

Perhaps we act on one proverb, knowing that we can always find a separate proverb to catch us as we fall, proverbs can guide us and then save us both in the situation and emotionally, which seems to be what Elaine is implying.

Elaine thinks of proverbs as devices that humans “tailor to our emotional needs.” This is why proverbs can contradict each other, because human emotions contradict each other. We can be needy in one moment and feel fiercely independent the next. How could we exist within the confines that these proverbs and metaphors create in our society if they were not contradictory enough to include our broadest range of emotions and needs?

Burke identifies proverbs as “strategies for dealing with situations”, which I think more than supports Elaine’s interpretation of these proverbs of both motivation and saving grace. This certainly also fits into my own view of proverbs in our interactive society.

CMJR 205 Three Questions 1/26-1/30

Olivia Hernandez

1/26/09

CMJR 205

Three Questions for 1/26-1/30

1) In George Lakoff’s and Mark Johnson’s three chapters that we read this week, the authors explore the concept of metaphors being an intrinsic part of the way that we communicate. They discuss the idea that, not only do we use metaphors in our communication, but our communication is in a way a metaphor. In particular, they explore the idea of “Argument is War.” They explain that this idea takes on its own life in Western culture in that even in nonmetaphorical speech about arguments, there exist allusions to war---such as “I’ve never won an argument.” Lakoff and Johnson write, “Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument—attack, defense, counterattack, etc.--- reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing…. Argument is partially structures, understood, performed, and talked about in terms of WAR.” I find this concept interesting and something that I did not think about previously. In thinking about it, though, their ideas make a lot of sense. This concept, as well as that of “Time is money”, are duly represented in our culture even outside of their metaphorical meanings. In our culture, these metaphors transcend speech and become custom in the way we communicate. Do you find the authors’ ideas to fit your ideas of metaphors in communication?

2) In Chapter 11 of Hauser’s book, we read about ideas of action and motion in interaction and communication and how rhetoric plays its part in these two aspects. Hauser addresses Kenneth Burke’s “definition of the human.” Among its designations for symbolic communication and creation of negativity, Burke also describes humans as “rotten with perfection.” Hauser further explains this concept as humans need to strive for perfection, and the repetition with which we make attempts. “We are ‘rotten’ with the spirit of perfection as we seek the logical extension of some principle,” Hauser writes. I am not sure if Burke means this as a trait that all humans possess or just something that is a common trait for the human race. To consider perfection as a systematic, “compulsive”, quest carried about by every human being seems too lofty. What do you think if meant this part of Burke’s definition of the human, especially as it relates to Hauser’s idea of action as an attachment “of interpretations to the raw data of existence”?

3) We watched the presidential inauguration of President Barack Obama this week. President Obama was expected to make an inauguration address that was up to par or even exceeded the level of his previous speeches he had made as a Senator and on the campaign trail. Though we may not think of his speech as just informative, it fits within the boundaries of writer Rudolph Verderber’s “Public Lecture” as defined in the two chapters we read in class. Knowing both the expectations of his speech to rouse the American public with his rhetoric, as well as the current state of the nation, what do you think Obama outlined as his speech goal as defined by Verderber? What about his “Strategies for getting and maintaining audience interest”? Do you think his speech was a success in these two aspects?

Three Questions for the Week of 1/19-1/23--CMJR 205

Rhetoric and Reasoning (CMJR 205)

Questions

For the week of 1/19-1/23

1. In the eighth chapter of the text, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, Hauser explores the source of ethos in a speaker as perceived by the audience. He thinks of ethos as a sort of authority that the audience gives the speaker. Hauser decides is a social construct that “is not a thing or quality but an interpretation that is the product of speaker-audience interaction.” Charles Larsen, in the reading entitled “Cultural Premises in Persuasion”, talks about ethos in terms three dimensions that prove the source credibility of the speaker: expertise, trustworthiness, and dynamism. I agree with both author’s perspectives on the idea of ethos. It is an interesting sensation in which people find themselves assigning ethos to others they are communicating with. I know that a person that I typically think of this trait being held by teachers. This interpretation of the person educating me is always a product that results after I have gotten to know them. First, I need to look at Larsen’s criteria for ethos. If I determine whether the teacher is wholly knowledgeable person who I feel safe with in regards to my education. Then I discover whether the person has an element of “Dynamism” to their person, whether they are engaging and confident in their ideas and way of speaking. As Larsen puts it, this kind of person takes up “a lot of psychological space.” A part of me will be more likely to be affected by their rhetoric because I am engaged by their ethos. I know that Hauser’s and Larsen’s ideas about ethos closely resemble the way that I determine whether I can be an effective audience member for a teacher. Do you follow a similar way of assigning authority to the people in your life? Do you look for different qualities in your speakers’?

2. In Irving Goffman’s Chapter entitled “Performances”, he details the different ways in which people change their “front” during social interaction and conversations. It is a look at the social need to adapt to every situation and audience. This plays into rhetorical theory as every rhetor needs to have an understanding of how to relate to their audience, sometimes through an adaptation of their front. He talks about idealization, about how some speakers will present themselves as figures that represent the absolute values and needs of their audience. He writes about the changing front of the beggar. Goffman says of street beggars, “In Western society, however, since the turn of the century, the scenes that beggars stage seem to have declined in dramatic merit.” He goes on the describe the difference between these cleaned-up families in tattered clothes and the old, oddly idealized, image of the man stealing bread crumbs from birds and sitting on the street. Do you see this idea of a beggar? Do you ever consider a homeless person as performing an rhetorically idealized front?

3. Hauser describes four different styles that represent distinctive forms of a “culture in power”: realist, courtly, republican and bureaucratic. Obama presents rhetoric that attempts to persuade the listener to vote Democratic, but also to believe his intended message of hope. After watching Barack Obama’s 2004 address at the Democratic National Convention, what would you place as the sort of culture that he is trying to promote with the rhetoric and front presented in his speech?