Is the commonplace a good place?

Jamie’s Question 3

On page 169, a definition of a commonplace is given: “a commonplace serves everyone as a touchstone, an instrument of recognition. It is rarely quoted, but it is constantly present; it is behind thought and speech; it is behind conversation. It is the common standard that enables people to understand one another.” (Jacques Ellul). Commonplaces are links that connect people of a common cultural group and are important when identifying an audience. If commonplaces are the basis of audience identification, is it troublesome that they often remain unspoken? Does the fact that commonplaces are “constantly present” yet “behind thought and speech,” make it more likely that audience values will be incorrectly generalized? Should we engage more in conversation about what our true beliefs are to avoid possible mistakes?

Response:

The internal struggle of what to share and what not to is ever present in our quotidian. We fear that we might be burdening others with too much information, or leaving them underwhelmed with too little. We try not to bore, offend or harm while still wary of the need to input our own thoughts, ideas and feedback. In such a process that often occurs over a time span of mere seconds, messages are bound to get lost or neglected in the process. We often admire those who speak their minds without restraint, emitting a sense of confidence in their words as well as a disregard for how the listeners might react. But what allows them to feel this way? Is it a sense of belonging to a commonplace? How might this attitude be received in an environment they are unfamiliar with where the audience cannot be clearly identified? For this reason, “locating the right commonplaces is vital.” (W & D 169).

The commonplace seems to fit in the same category as the set of unwritten rules common in a large number of social setting, communities, groups, etc. The assumption that those we are communicating with have a similar general knowledge base facilitates interaction and often makes room for more fruitful and insightful conversation. I might even use the word efficient to describe this sort of interaction. It is so because in a commonplace, we do not need to present lots of background information about certain subjects, assuming those we are interacting with already have the same knowledge base. For example, in talking about health care in the United Sates today (amongst adults principally), it can be assumed that most people are aware of the general debate around this heated issue and some of the basic information about it, and this way the speakers can spend more time discussing the issue’s current standing and their thoughts about it instead of explaining its background.

However, Jamie’s concern here is certainly legitimate as it can be troublesome that commonplaces remain unspoken. Continuing with the example of the discussion around health care in the US, it is rather likely that some people don’t know where the senate stands on passing the latest bill or how the bill is actually going to affect citizens, whether it will fix the fundamental problem of the system that causes the bankruptcy of many and the confusion around insurance plans. The list of things to be ignorant about is long. Not everyone is wiling to admit their ignorance and this can often lead to discomfort within this so-believed commonplace and to a stunted exchange of ideas.

The presence of a commonplace is natural in any society because living in a similar environment inevitably leads to common behaviors, ideas, customs, etc. so it is often assumed that people are aware of the community’s on goings. This incites people to stay updated on the news, significant government issues, cultural events and so on. It is also what allows for rather superficial connections if you will; “commonplaces are useful…precisely because they are so unremarkable…” (W & D 170). For this reason, I think that engaging more in conversation about what our true beliefs are as to avoid possible mistakes about audience values should occur amongst smaller groups, or more specified commonplaces. The commonplace described in the textbook makes reference to general groups mostly where conversations are not in depth and where core values are not addressed. But it is this main commonplace that allows for a general understanding of people we share national and cultural customs with.

“Some social theorists have noted hat we are less a ‘melting pot’ that blends variations than a culture that more or less accommodates differences” (W & D 165). This is perhaps what best describes the American commonplace and explains the difficulty of reaching a common understanding that allows for correct (or closest to) generalization and time to listen to evaluate everybody’s differences.

Deliverer V. Receiver: The Eternal Battle

Response to Gina’s question I (Questions for Week 4)

Product placement has become such a regular part of the American media and because so many celebrities have become spokespeople for various products, and because of this, it seems obviously unbelievable that each of them would be a veritable supporter of the advertised merchandise. Undoubtedly, their status and supposed use of the product at hand influence its sale and general success, but it is clear that their incentive is money, and/or exposure (and I will not speak of campaign advertisement, like supporting the fight again breast cancer). In regards to Woodward and Denton’s claim that "the person who has been the most effected by a persuasive message is the advocate who delivered it,” I would argue that the person referred to here is the actual producer of the product. They have to tell the advertising department or agency why they want to sell their product, who in turn will create a means to do so. It is the public relations team or the advertising group that has to believe in the product, be its advocate, in order to deliver it successfully. Of course, whether or not they really advocate it is indefinitely unknown. Is this ethical? Such is the open-ended and often heatedly debated question around the industry of advertisement and public relations. Take a look at this advertisement produced by the Corn Association;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q&NR=1

It seems rather unlikely that the deliverers, the producers, of this ad were unaware of the detriments of high fructose corn syrup, yet they found a way to deliver their message in a manner that might convince people that it is really is reasonable to consume. Would Aristotle consider their manner of presentation open-minded or objective? Would he consider the source (the Corn Refiners Association) to be fair, honest or reliable? Does the persuader “seem to have honorable intentions toward the audience?” (Woodward & Denton 109). This to me seems like nothing more than reputation management after a well-publicized debate over the hazardous health effects of high-fructose corn syrup and its high content in most food products sold in the United States. In retaliation to this, check out one of many parodies of this advertisement posted on You Tube made by unknown citizens as well as by organizations such as the HolisticOption.com;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiEFu54o1E&NR=1

Though this is poor video production and less aesthetically pleasing than the first commercial, the message delivered includes the facts left out in the campaign launched by the Corn Refiners Association. Of course, this video does not have valid credibility, which is what would limit its circulation outside of the realm of the Internet. What is important to note here is the difference between the two messages and the importance of delivering one message that includes both points of view so the audience is well informed. Additionally, in watching these two videos, the audience will likely already have their own opinions of high fructose corn syrup and their reactions will depend on their preconceived ideas. As Woodward and Denton mentions, “an audience’s awareness of an advocate’s place and character is often the first important moment in the communication process.”

The Value of Rhetoric and Dramatization

Related to this week's readings and the Seattle Times opinion piece by Ellen Goodman is Monday October 5th's edition of Talk of the Nation on NPR titled "What's the Value of Extreme Rhetoric?"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113506887
(This includes the show and its transcript - hosted by Neal Conan)