Magic and Rhetoric

I thought this reading was really interesting. I was surprised to see words like magic and rhetoric pared together and it really sparked my interest. The whole idea of suppressing enthusiasm written about on page 354 seemed like a rather dark historical moment. I also find it interesting that religion was involved with the destruction of this "magical model of the universe." These concepts are very new to me. I've never heard of rhetoric described in these magical and powerful terms. This strikes me as an idea for a final project, but I don't know exactly what I would study or how I'd go about it. I was interested by the phrase, "words are lifeless" and "'witchery' of language" words like "phantasms" and the secret societies that kept magic alive like the Freemasons (a group I've heard of) and the Rosicrucians (a group I have not heard of.)

The hulk loves milk and so do I...

Ok I cheated a little bit and found this add off a google search for examples of visual rhetoric. But it's an interesting example, especially for me. When I was a kid I used to collect the milk ads because I liked all the pictures of celebrities and other famous figures. I never thought it was strange the dairy industry was pushing the purchase of milk. As a kid I thought milk was good for you so these advertizements weren't bad. In fact, they were promoting something so healthy and good, which was obviously the reason why all these famous people wanted to be a part of the movement.

Now, after learnin about some of the negative affects of milk on the body, that there are other ways to get your calcium (isn't it strange that we are the ONLY species that drink the milk of a different species?? Odd) I see that the dairy industry is just trying to promote their product...like anyone else.

So this ad in particular...the Hulk...a popular figure in our current mainstreem media. I assume this ad came out around the same time as the most recent version of the Hulk came out. So the advertizers are definitely paying attention to their audience. Even if you haven't seen the hulk, almost every American can recognize this face and most young (or maybe I should say a lot of) Americans think he's pretty cool. He's cool--> drinking milk is cool. Even a superhero needs to drink milk to strengthen his bones. Don't you want to be strong like the hulk? Well get over to your fridge and poor yourself a glass of cold milk then, God Damnit!

visual rhetoric

G Bonsiepe - Ulm: Journal of the Ulm School of Design, 14/15, 1965 - asomatic.com

That link may or may not work. It should automatically open up a pdf file. I found this piece off google scholar. The author, Gui Bonsiepe writes about advertizement and visual rhetoric. He states that the message of the advertiser is the "rhetoric of modern age." I don't fully agree with him there. I think there are other forms of visual rhetoric, where people are trying to send a message that isn't attempting to sell a product. I still agree that advertizement is a major component of modern rhetoric.

Here's just a few notes I collected that I think can be used towards a definition:

First he talks about classical rhetoric and how it has been broken up into legal, political, and religious sections. He now says marketing is one more section in modern rhetoric. He says, "where force rules there is no need for rhetoric." He talks about how consumers are free to make their own decisions and therefore rhetoric is necessary to convince people to purchase a particular product.

He says that classical rhetoric is no longer adequate for describing and analyzing rhetorical phenomena in which verbal and visual signs are allied. so basically visual rhetoric brings a whole other aspect to the once simple verbal rhetoric. The 5 main sections of classical rhetoric (which he doesn't define, but I think it's very similar to the sections we have been working on) can be reduced to just the third, which covers linguistic and stylistic formulation of the material.

He goes on to discuss the different kinds of figures. He loses me a bit here with his definition of synatic and sematic and how they apply to visual rhetoric. He says a figure is synatic when it operates through the shape of the sign, while it is sematic when it operates through the referent. I don't quite understand what he's getting at here.

He finishes off with several photographs that combine verbal and visual rhetoric. He classifies each photo into a certain kind of figure including how it conveys its message and what it tries to accomplish.

A really simple piece of rhetoric

First off, I'd like to say that I appreciate the ease of which both these more recent articles read. So organized! Wayyyyy less confusing than Aristotle. I thought Keith Grant-Davie's essay in particular was helpful, well organized, and gave rhetoric a better explanation than empty words used by those who want to manipulate their audience - which is what I've gathered is a main reason that people these days distance themselves from politics and rhetoric.

So anyway, I decided to go to my e-mail inbox to look for a piece of rhetoric. Several times during my college years, I foolishly added myself to an e-mail list. Now I pay for it by spending time each day deleting pieces of rhetoric that I have no interest in reading. In the previous election, I added myself to some Obama e-mail campaign list and so I receive these obnoxious e-mails. Many times the subject headings include my name--wow! so personal! And the e-mails are from Michelle or Barack Obama! Oh my god they're talking to me directly! I haven't taken myself off the e-mail list (too lazy) so I had one from Michelle herself right before the second debate. I retrieved it from my trash (so I guess that explains how I responded to it) to take a look at what she had to say...

Madeline -- When you watch the results come in on Election Night, you probably won't be thinking back to today. But the outcome will absolutely depend on what we do right now. We can win this the right way, but it's going to take every single one of us getting on board and pitching in what we can, when we can -- whether that's time, energy, or a few hard-earned dollars. I know Barack is going to be out there fighting hard up until the very end -- taking his case straight to the American people, talking with voters all across the country. We can't afford to come up short, so today, hours before our final FEC deadline, I'm asking you to take the next step in your support for this campaign. Chip in $5 or more right now -- please don't wait any longer: https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-Tonight Thanks, Michelle So as the heading states, this is a very simple piece of rhetoric, but a piece all the same. It has elements of exigence, audience, rhetor, and constraint. Exigence - what is the urgent situation needing change? I think there are a few 1. Barack Obama needs to win this election 2. We need more money! Audience - those who can help solve the exigence (I'd say this is audience invoked) so all of us who have joined the e-mail list are assumed to be Obama supporters who can solve this situation with our pocket books and our votes Rhetor - the different roles, who is the rhetor?? So the rhetor here is actually many different people. Michelle is one rhetor acting as the speaker to the audience, but the rhetors also include, whoever wrote this e-mail (it could be Michelle - or it could be someone else), the democratic party, and members of the obama campaign. Michelle also has different roles here as a wife, first lady, and mother Constraints - factors... -the upcoming election -the results of the first debate and how Obama came off looking weak (so they need more money, to campaign more, to make him look better!) So I guess my response to this piece, as an audience member, is to delete the e-mail, not give money, and make my decision on November 6th...I bet that the Obama campaign expects this from a certain percentage of those on the e-mail list, but I'd say that even though they expect some people not to pay, they still hope to negotiate the outcome of the election...

Ok, so I noticed that Obama was more aggressive and did seem more confident than the first debate. This debate was a bit more juicy than the first, but I still felt like they both made fools of themselves a bit. "This great country..." shut up please...

I feel like many times neither candidate actually answered the questions being asked. They skirted around direct answers and gave more vague solutions. That's what people refer to as rhetoric...empty words...Romney even used it against Obama at first.

I'm glad the moderator tried a bit harder to move the debaters along...

Rhetorical face off - who is more effective?

I reviewed two political campaign advertisements. I picked one video from each presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. For the first analysis assignment we completed a few weeks ago I chose a Romney ad so I felt a switch to the other candidate would make for an interesting topic. But once I began viewing different videos I decided I would have more fun comparing tactics rather than just focus on one party.

The advertisement in favor of Barack Obama came out on September 26^th and is called “To Us.” The video is roughly thirty seconds long and discusses Romney’s past as a business executive at Bain Capital, an investment company he cofounded. It states how his business tactics negatively affected American workers and warns that he will do the same if elected to the Oval Office. The speaker in the video also describes parts of Romney’s economic plan that will harm the poor and middle class. The advertisement ends with a maxim calling Romney the problem and not the solution. 

Mitt Romney’s ad appeared the following day, September 27^th and is called, “Too Many Americans.” Romney speaks directly to the audience in a minute long video that also discusses the economy as well as job creation. He begins by talking about the current employment situation in America. He refers to the growing number of people living in worse conditions since Obama’s election. He defines compassion in regards to welfare and then discusses how his economic plan will help the poor and middle class. He finishes with a maxim stating that America cannot afford four more years like the last four. 

The Obama advertisement employs topics of blame and attempts to build distrust, anger and even fear from viewers towards Romney. I believe the aim here is to make the audience see Romney as a wrongdoer, an unjust person and a poor leader. I think the targeted audience consists of members of the poor and middle class, especially blue collar workers who do not have job security. During this election season Romney has included his business experience as a reason he would be a superior president to Obama. This video directly attacks that statement.

In the text, Aristotle talks about the characteristics of a wrongdoer and an unjust person. He says a wrongdoer commits a deed knowing that he can get away with it(92). Then, “(U)njust…actions are matters of being unjust and doing justly…” (97). When the narrator discusses Romney’s past - his fortune made from Bain Capital and his potential tax brakes to millionaires - he suggests that Romney did something wrong and thought he got away with it. So he is therefore and unjust person. I think the paradigm here is, “Tax breaks for millionaires is wrong. Making a fortune when your worker’s are suffering is wrong. Therefore Mitt Romney is a wrong doer and an unjust person. You don’t want an unjust person running this country. If you vote for Obama, he will not let that happen.”

The video contains a lot of pathos. The scriptwriter chose a few emotionally loaded words like “shuttered” when talking about businesses and factories closing. The speaker used “slashed” instead of cut when talking about lowered wages. These words can bring up images of depression, fear, pain and suffering. Craftily chosen indeed.

The image of Romney standing in front of the Trump airplane sends the message that he rides with the millionaires; not the people. I think this image was chosen because almost all Americans know who Donald Trump is and are aware of his reputation as someone with little compassion. The Obama campaign wants people to lump Romney and Trump together in the same group. The assumption here is that the targeted audience does not want someone like Donald Trump running their country.

The first difference I noticed when I watched the Romney video was the delivery of information. An anonymous male narrates “To Us” and the words are accompanied by related images. The Romney video is much more direct. The presidential hopeful sits in front of the camera and speaks to the audience for the duration of the advertisement. I think he is employing ethos here and attempting to raise his credibility with the viewers (the same targeted group as the Obama video). He does this by looking into the camera viewer so that he can make eye contact with every person who watches this advertisement. This tactic creates the feeling that Romney is speaking directly to you.

He uses pathos when he talks about Americans struggling to make ends meet. He implies that he cares for those who are suffering from the current economic situation. He needs voters to believe that he truly cares for the American people since he is not struggling financially - nor will he ever - a fact that the Obama administration has raised frequently throughout the election. Romney has to come off as sympathetic and empathetic. Like Aristotle said, Romney has to convince viewers that he is a virtuous man in order to give an effective speech.  

Romney really gets into pathos when he talks about the word “compassion.” The aim here is to imply that Romney is the more compassionate presidential candidate. Well, logically he needs to define this word – especially when the definition leads to the conclusion that he is in fact the true compassionate candidate. He purposefully includes welfare in his definition because the Democratic Party has slammed Romney/Republican Party for not supporting programs like welfare. Here Romney attempts to flip the negative image onto Obama who is less compassionate because he has too many citizens on welfare.

So which tactic is more effective, one that focuses on past actions and implies a similarly negative future, or one that suggests poor leadership and a brighter future? First, the verdict depends on the audience. Are they informed? Let us assume someone who knows very little about the current economic situation and does not follow politics watches these two advertisements. I think Romney’s ad is more effective in that case.

 He is able to come off as more trustworthy, caring and concerned simply because he is the one speaking to the audience. He does not slam Obama directly. Instead he talks about current issues. He does not have to say that Obama is at fault. It is implied. I think the enthymeme here that people could answer themselves is, “Obama’s leadership these past four years has been ineffective because he is not truly compassionate. Romney knows what being compassionate really means and can therefore create jobs for the American people.”

While Obama’s video is effective, it does not connect as well with voters. Romney’s ad both attacks Obama’s leadership and gives hope for the future. Obama’s advertisement only slanders Romney’s skills as a leader. The creators behind the Romney ad realize that people want to hear something positive about the future. Although they want to know the details of the opponent’s failures, they also want to hear the speaker’s plans to improve their lives.

The problem with this judgment of the advertisements is that I do not have to take into account if Romney is speaking honestly or with enough knowledge to know his policies will actually work. Obama’s video may be speaking the truth and correctly warning the American people that Romney’s skills as a business leader will not improve their lives. How many people fact check these days? I do not know the answer to that question. I do know that campaigns would not allot so much money to advertisements if they were ineffective.

This brings us back to the first day of class when we talked about how many people define rhetoric in terms of empty words and promises. Romney’s effective use of rhetoric could help him sail to the Oval Office. But when it comes to actually running a country, will his campaign words hold any weight – any truth? Does it pay off to be skilled in the ways of effective speaking? I’d say that depends on if one can talk the talk and walk the walk. 

The Debate

I had an interesting experience with the debate. I am home sick with a lovely case of Tonsillitis (yay!!) and out here in the sticks we don't have no TV or nuthin so I listened to the debate on NPR. I'm sure it made quite a difference not being able to see faces, gestures, colors, clothing, hair style, and the like.

As far as style - I thought Romney spoke with what seemed like more confidence. He did not pause very much nor stutter. I think he was speaking to an audience mixed of members of the Republican party who were losing a bit of faith as well as the Independent voters he has a shot of winning over by November 6th. I think he spoke to that audience well. He came off strong and aggressive. He also seemed to strongly stand behind his views.

 I think the other audience being Democrats and Obama supporters (as well as some Independents or people who really don't have a party choice) he probably came off as rude, pushy, and defensive. Also, during the post debate discussion on the radio, analyzers said that Romney did in fact just change some of his views on the spot, including the ping pong debate of a 5 trillion dollar tax cut.

Aristotle doesn't speak of "the last word" as far as I recall, but I definitely noticed that trend! Phew! It took forever to move on to the next subject because each candidate (and I'd say Romney more than Obama) had to get in the last word - even interrupting the moderator!

Obama spoke slowely, and though he didn't trip on his words, sometimes he seemed to struggle to find the exact phrase. I noticed he used a lot of logos. He even brought up simple arithmetic when discussing Romney's economic plan. I think Obama's strategy was to call out Romney's plan and put it down with logic and figures.

I thought Romney used more of an ethos approach, arguing that the American people are suffering and he'll be the one to save us from destruction with his supreme business skills and his experience in Massachusetts! don don donnnnnn

BTW correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure Mass had superior schools before Romney became Governor...and I really like PBS...and Big Bird!

sentences and paper topic

So from Rhetoric website I chose four sentences from the campaign adds I'm analyzing for the paper:
Mitt Romney - "Too Many Americans" http://youtu.be/_HjDCHbtXHQ
And Barack Obama - http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2012/?adv=Too+Many+Americans+-+Mitt+Romney+-+Sep+27
Antirrhesis - Rejecting reprehensibly the opinion or authority of someone
Example: "Romney's not the solution. He's the problem." - Obama Video
Climax - arrangement of words in order of increasing importance
Example: "Too many Americans...struggling to find work...pay check to paycheck...living in poverty...on foodstamps" - Mitt Romney video
Epitorchasmus - to touch rapidly on one point then another
Example: "When Mitt Romney led Bain, hundreds of plants, factories, and stores were shuttered. Workers saw wages slashed, jobs sent over seas. Romney made a fortune." - Obama Video
Simile - Explicit comparison
Example: "Obama and I both care about the poor and middle class. The difference is, my policies will make things better for them." Romney video

I'm either going to analyze and compare strategies in these two videos or just analyze one depending on how much time I have... :)

paper idea

I think I want to focus my paper on looking at Mitt Romney's campaign theme "War on Religion." I'll probably use the campaign add that I've been looking at for this class and look into enthymemes, pathos, logos, ethos (if it's there) and paradigms. Then I might compare that with the Obama campaign flip side "War on Women" and do a similar rhetorical analysis of either a speech or video from Obama/supporters...
...I'm also interested in idea we discussed in class where during a speech the speaker will imply - look, this is the kind of person he/she is - and then either say or imply that the speaker is no such person...

Most political rhetoric includes this kind of statement and campaign videos most definitely use this tactic all the time so I'll point those out as well if I have time and space

Ok, so I think the main enthymeme here is that Obama has forced the catholic institution to go against their values - so he's therefore a threat to all religious institutions. The audience hears - Obamas health care plan declared war on religion. They fill in the blanks -- Insurance companies are required to cover contraceptives to employees -- including those of private religious institutions (like religious universities) -- these actions imply that Obama wants to declare war on the catholic religion -- if he declares war on the catholics he is likely to declare war on all religious institutions.

Here are additional notes from the reading that I think the film makers use to aid in this suggestion

- (Page 120) they've attempted to put the audience into a state of anger and fear towards Obama and show that he is responsible for the things that are causing the anger and fear (ie: declaring war on religion) - and that Obama is the type of person that the audience should direct their anger and fear towards (because he looks scary and angry. Also he's declaring war on religion)

- (Page 130) The speaker (in this case the narrator speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney) should make the audience realize something or someone they may not have feared and make them realize that they are likely to suffer from this person ("When religious freedom is threatened - who do you want on your side?"). And the audience is supposed to think (Oh, my religious freedom is being threatened?!? Oh no! Better get Mitt Romney on my side to protect me!)

- (Page 174) Topic 4 - for the more and the less (If the lesser thing is true so is the greater)  -- I think the enthymeme here is that Obama has declared war on the Catholics (the lesser) so he is therefore going to declare war on all religion (the greater). Also the health care requirements are true (the lesser) so is the declaration of war (the greater) true.

working through the Romney video

Here's the link to the video again...
http://bcove.me/mkhyv931

So I did a little research this weekend because I didn't know who Lech Walesh was. So for anyone else who doesn't know...he is the former president of Poland. He was a human rights activist in the 70's and helped end communist rule in Poland. In 1979 Pope John Paul II visited his home country of Poland and spoke to the people, saying "Be not afraid." Later, Walesh said that the Pope played a major role in the fall of the Berlin wall and the end to communist rule.

So I've broken the video up a bit...
In the opening scene a man asks..."Who shares your values?" - so obviously that's rhetorical and the viewer is supposed to say, "Mitt Romney! Duh!"
I also thought the words were chosen carefully. Although this video is obviously aimed at the catholic audience, it doesn't start out by asking who shares your religious values. Since Mitt Romney isn't catholic he doesn't necessarily share catholic religious values, but the viewer is supposed to stick the word religious in there themselves, making this question an enthymeme.

The next scene shows a not-so-flattering image of Obama in black and white with somewhat erie music. The colors, music, and emotion of the video segment all play into Pathos, aiming to induce fear and anger in the audience. Obama stands at a Podium, pointing his finger and frowning. This may be a stretch, but I thought he resembled a dictator a little bit, which may have been the aim of the people responsible for the film. I think it's possible they are drawing ties to the communist regime in Poland by using this image.

Here they say that Obama has used his health care plan to declare war on religion. So I researched the health care plan - I really don't pay much attention to politics or the news very much - I find it pretty depressing and prefer to spend my time enjoying life :) - but I researched a bit to better understand the accusation. So I'll share what I learned - again, in case there are other people like me in this class -

Obama's new health care plan requires insurance companies to cover contraceptives without a copay. In one article I read it said that churches, synagogues, and mosques are exempt from this requirement as well as church affiliated employers. Instead, women working for these companies would get contraceptive coverage directly from insurance companies at no extra cost to the company (I think I read that correctly.)

So the line, "war on religion" - here's my take - requiring insurance companies to provide contraceptive insurance disagrees with catholic values - the enthymeme here is that an action that disagrees with catholic views is a declaration of war against all religion. So maybe the film makers here are trying to reach a larger population that just catholic viewers...

Then the deep voiced gentlement adds, "forcing religious institutions to go against their faith." - Again, he doesn't say Catholic institutions, but religious institutions, willing the audience to believe that all religious institutions are under attack from the Obama administration. Also - again, maybe a bit of a stretch - the word "forcing" ties to dictators and situations of war - going back to the communist regime in Poland.

Then, "Mitt Romney believes that's wrong."
So the color, music, and emotion (Pathos) change, attempting to induce positive feelings in the audience when the video switches over to Mitt Romney's defense of religion. I think the word believe was chosen with religious viewers in mind.

And here's a question...does Mitt Romney believe that the contraceptive coverage is wrong AND that declaring war on religion is wrong? OR just declaring war on religion...? I think the audience is supposed to believe both...

Then the video goes to a speech Romney is giving where he talks about the speech John Paul gave in 1979 where he said words that would "bring down an empire."

So we're supposed to make the connection between the evil communist empire and the evil Obama empire...

Then there's a photo of Lech Walesa and the Pope, shaking hands. Then there's a video of Romney and Walesa shaking hands. So Romney is like the Pope and he's going to take down the evil Obama empire by protecting the religious institutions and requiring employees to pay for their own contraception...therefore restoring peace to the country.

When your religious freedom is threatened (when you have to be ok with insurance companies covering contraceptives at no extra cost to you) - you want Mitt Romney at your side...

That's all I've got so far...what do y'all think?

campaign video

I'm being completely honest when I say that this is the first campaign video I have watched so far. I really have fallen out of politics recently. Still, I found the first line in this video interesting. Who shares your values? Well, from what I've heard about Mit Romney, I don't think we share the same values...but I know he's aiming for a video that speaks to as many votors as possible. To people who are following politics, let me know what you think about this video...personally, I get the sense that Obama isn't threatening religious freedom, but since I don't follow politics I don't have much to back that statement on...
http://bcove.me/mkhyv931

hmmmm

Wow...this was a long and drawn out argument! I think Socrates did to Gorgias, Callicles, and Polus what he did to me. Sent my head realing in circles! I found myself much like Callicles thinking that Socrates' parallels couldn't be answered with a simple yes or no, but I felt a lot like Socrates was saying, "Let me ask you these questions" aka "Let me argue in my own way (the way in which I know I will win) and if you can refute me then, please, do so! But I'm going to ask yes or no questions all the time..." Many of his questions could have answers just as long and drawn out as his arguments. He made his points by using very simple examples and drawing parallels, but I just don't think life is that simple. Is life so simple that you should compare politicians to shoe makers? Not to say that one is better or more great than the other...but are they similar enough to make these arguments? I'm lost in a dizzy... :)

sup

What's up fellow students?
I like Carson's idea too! I like getting to know a little bit about everyone. So here's my delio. My name is Madeline but I usually go by Maddie. I grew up in Durham, NH where both my parents taught and still teach at the University of New Hampshire. Although I would have been wise to attend that college and receive 1/2 off instate tuition I had more of an adventurous idea in mind and decided to brave the wild wilderness of Montana! That was 4 1/2 years ago and I'm still here. I went from undeclared to liberal studies to spending two years on Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems (while also gaining residency, which included a semester just riding Bridger Bowl!). I left the sustainability program and landed back in Liberal Studies Quaternity, where I plan on finishing out this year and finally receiving my degree. I have always enjoyed writing essays for college, especially instead of taking exams, so I tried to take a few writing classes this semester. I want to improve my writing and figure out if there is any genre of writing in particular that I enjoy...we shall see...anyway I'm looking forward to many interesting conversations and learning from everybody.

Before you start your paper do this...

Brainstorming is the word I first heard for prewriting all the way back in middle school. "Jot down ideas." One teacher said. Another teacher...told us to create brainstorm "webs" where you start with one idea in the middle and then branch of with different little bubbles...I never did that. I would begin my papers and just write and revise (or sometimes never revise) all throughout middle school and most of high school. Late in high school I took the advice of one particular professor and started with an outline. The outline could help with the flow of the whole paper, I was told. Several of my professors critiqued the placement of my paragraphs or sections of the piece. They'd suggest this paragraph go more towards the beginning, or after a preceding section. So I started using outlines for some of my papers, especially when I experienced difficulty beginning the piece. The most useful prewriting exercise I practice today is to "free write," or simply start writing ideas and continue scribbling without worrying about structure, spelling, grammar, or whatever. This helps me get my ideas down and stretch my writing muscles - so to speak. More recently for college papers I have used a combination of free-writing and outlining to begin an essay and it has worked out pretty well for me.

Encomium of Helen
The one section I didn't really understand was #10.
"Divine sweetness transmitted through words is inductive of pleasure, reductive of pain. Thus, by entering into the opinion of the soul the force of incantation is wont to beguile and persuade and alter it by witchcraft, and the two arts of witchcraft and magic are errors of the soul and deceivers of opinion."