Ideas, stories, interpretations; all these things exist, but they only become relevant to us when they are part of our own existence। They come to life for us when we know about them। How we view an idea or a story depends on who its narrator is and how the narrator presents it। This is the notion alluded to in Chapter 9 of the text Persuasion and Social Movements, as the authors discuss a certain view of persuasion that “hinges less on changing beliefs, attitudes, or values than on integrating beliefs and behaviors into a story regarded by the audience as coherent, relevant, compatible, promising, and proper” (204)।
It is more effective, or perhaps easier, to adapt the narrative of a social movement to something that is relevant and applicable to an intended audience than it is to change beliefs and values of potential members. To change somebody’s beliefs implies that the narrator has to prove that whatever the audience believed before is a faulty way to think, whereas changing the discourse, or the narrative of a movement to adapt to an audience is less problematic. The emphasis here is on the word “adapt.” Because, as noted in the text, each narrative enacts a set of values that govern its audience appeal, it would be unrealistic to attempt to change the values of a wide range of individuals of whom many will not have a great level of interest in the narrator’s cause. Having an intended audience guarantees a higher likelihood for success because they will find good reasons to follow the cause that will affect them positively and create a change they want to see and experience. However, it seems that a decent narrator, given the story is believable and worthy of a fight, should strive to and succeed at changing the minds of those who may not be in line with its ideas immediately.
According to the text, the two main elements people will question before becoming involved in a story are its “coherence (does the story work?)” and its “narrative fidelity (does the story use the audience’s beliefs and values?)” (204). The story told certainly depends on the narrator, or the person creating the narrative because “it is the narrator’s vantage point in time, intellect, wisdom, values, and character that positions the story for the audience” (204). The narrator must be knowledgeable, inspiring, passionate, etc. in order to draw in an audience that will be stirred to join the cause and take action. There could also be a form of identification and/or identity, helping unite followers by highlighting their common attributes and by identifying an enemy figure against whom to fight. This inevitably leads to the creation of a reality unique to the social movement; a means of both unity and division – a dialectic notion of sort (Philpott, Class lecture 04/27).
Dr. Jeff Philpott’s presentation about the Hawaiian Sovereign Movement illustrates how much the discourse created around and within a movement depend on how the story is presented, the vocabulary used, the “enemy” created, etc. All stories have at least two sides, even if the cause or motive is similar and this seems to be true of all movements. The direction they take are also highly contingent on the storyteller, their background and their beliefs. There is no set formula for the success of a movement, clearly, but its narrative vision is a sure determinant.

Response to Shelsea; Mass Media - an open arena?

2.)“The mass media are the most effective channels to persuade people. Mass Media persuade us to buy products, to vote, and to take up causes. Why is this? One reason may be that there is only limited feedback in mass message systems (you cannot question, applaud, or respond), so certain ploys work that will not work in open arenas.” (Larsen). I think that this statement is not necessarily true today. With so many things online and so many ways for one person to respond to any particular situation they see on TV or hear on the radio, they have plenty of ways to express how they feel about something in the mass media. So my question is, is this statement true? Are we becoming just drains in mass media and taking what we hear and see for face value and believing in it? Or are we using our mass media resources to say what we think and get our opinion out there?

Today, more than ever before, we are very much involved in the media available to us and have a significant influence on what we read, see and hear in the media. The section the majority of us decide to click on in a newspaper’s website, for example the entertainment section, will likely cause the presence of more entertainment news on the website in the future as it will receive more “hits” and the producers will assume it is what the consumers want more of. This is to say that we, the consumers, have a fair amount of control over what we read, see or hear in whatever medium we utilize. Our participation does not end here.
Let us concentrate on the radio. This medium requires that we hear its content and could seem like a “hot medium” as described by McLuhan; a high fidelity or definition form that requires little participation. In this day and age, I would disagree with this claim as a fair amount of radio stations demand that its listeners participate. You can call, send emails or letters, and be heard on the station. You can input your opinion about certain discussed subjects or request that a song be played. You can participate in varying contests and send money during a pledge drive. This is to say that we have plenty of opportunity to give feedback.
Furthermore, on television, another medium that is considered “hot”, though we may appear passive, we have a say. If we don’t watch a certain show, it will be cut off the air. If we demand that a show continue, a new season will be produced. With the continuing growth of reality TV, we are now more able than ever before to be on the screen. We can call after watching an infomercial, or to ask a talk show host a question. We can be as involved as we would like.
The best and most appropriate example I can think of that demonstrates that we are not merely passive and that is most certainly an open arena is the worldwide web. The internet is perhaps the largest and most effective communication facilitator. It connects people across the globe and allows us to respond to anything in it and create our own content. It is a medium for the people, by the people. Because of it, we can engage in conversation with those trying to “persuade us to buy products, to vote, and to take up causes.” We post opinions and comments on various articles. We write blogs to share anything we wish to share with others. We join social media websites such as Facebook to converse with those we know, meet new people, network and show who we are and what we believe in. what is more, is that all this shared information is instantaneous and this makes us even more engaged and more connected.
To conclude, I cannot agree with Larson’s statement in this day and age. I think that we certainly do make use of our mass media resources to say what we think and get our opinion out there. Six-year-old children are just as involved in the online conversation as big corporate businesses are. We are definitely the “me” generation. We like to be heard, recognized and involved. This attributes to a near impossibility in filtering information in controlling media content, allowing for more transparency and a larger presence of faulty information. We chose to make our mass media this way and we must now master its use, which is not an evident and easy thing to do, but not impossible either.

Questions; week of March 1st readings.

1) Marshall McLuhan speaks of the states of high and low definition in categorizing the types of media. High definition, or a hot medium, is the “state of being well filled with data” and low definition, cool media, implies a provision of very little information where much participation and feedback is expected of the receiver of any message. Do you agree with McLuhan that certain media are more characteristic or appropriate to a certain culture as he suggests the radio is of oral tribal societies in Africa for example? Do you think that such cultures/societies will change over time with the evolution or introduction of new media? Will the oral tribal societies McLuhan speaks of become consumers of more low definition states of media? The American society seems to certainly evolve in conjunction with the media. Culture and media are now interconnected. What does this mean for the future of the society? What role do you think the Internet will play in the progression of our generations? Is it a medium of high or low definition?

2) Are you offended by the proposition “we [Americans] are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death” Neil Postman makes, or suddenly grasping the (possible) reality of the statement? Apparently, the City of Las Vegas is a metaphor for the national character and aspiration of the United States as it is a symbol for entertainment. Why is this the case? Is this image perpetrated on purpose? How has this affected the country’s image and is it relevant elsewhere? Postman makes it rather clear that he believes people are the creator of the media and the controllers of its destiny. “The news of the day is a figment of our technological imagination.” So are all media. However, as he mentions in a later chapter, television has become a myth, we take it as something completely natural and quotidian and are no longer amazed by its novelty and capacity. Has the audience become more passive or will the Internet continue to revive the audience and inspire curiosity and ongoing participation? Postman further claims “we are getting sillier by the minute,” that “our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense.” This must be our own fault. Are we ok with being silly? With the continual growth and highly visible impact of social networking and need for the input of individual opinions online, are we becoming sillier or will we try to shift towards a more serious tone again?

3) In the chapter The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments, Anthony Blair presents the concept of visual argument and discusses its complexity and truth-value. We are very visual, and at the same time heavily reliant on verbal communication as well. It seems as though we can hardly dissociate the two as one always helps us to effectively assert what we are communicating through the other. We live in the era of YouTube and careful selection of Facebook/MySpace profile pictures. However, merely pictures never satisfy us and we must add related information or a caption. Blair speaks of the immediacy visuals provide, but how about the immediacy verbal interaction provides? Images require interpretation, but when you have a text attached, any question or inquiry we may have can be instantly attended to. Do you believe we can argue visually? Can you think of an instance when you were convinced of something through use of visuals only?

Questions; week of February 2nd readings.

1. The conflict in Gaza has been an ongoing one for several decades now. Israel and Palestine have long fought over the Gaza strip, and now Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement out of Palestine is in control of this piece of land. On December 27th of 2009, Israel attacked Gaza, supposedly in response to the rocket fires launched into the southern border of the state by Hamas. Israel wishes to disarm the Hamas military and prevent further smuggling of arms from Gaza’s border with Egypt. Over the years, there have been a number of ceasefires. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the last one 22 days after Israel’s attack on the Gaza strip. However, both parties continue to break the ceasefire. Does this ongoing conflict classify as an argument as laid out by Brockriede? Does it lie “within the midrange of the more-or-less continuum” or does it have too much of problematic character? Consider his sixth characteristic; do you think Israel and Palestine’ views are virtually irreconcilable? Is it pointless to even consider a potential solution anymore?

2. Creativity is within us all but is difficult to articulate at times for a range of reasons. In speech writing, it is generally limited by our knowledge, our audience and what we are not allowed to say. In Chapter 6 of Hauser’s textbook, as well as in the majority of rhetorical reasoning texts, we are advised to judge the appropriate setting and to always consider the audience. But, in doing so, how much information can you leave out or skew – what do you leave in the commonplaces? Will being politically correct limit the content or general message of your speech? What if you want to attract “passersby,” as talked about in class? Furthermore, Hauser also places much emphasis on the role of the audience and on their creativity. Subjectivity and personal interpretations are expected after viewing an abstract painting or reading a certain poem, but are they after hearing a speech? Hauser claims it is “what we do with what he [speaker – Chris Rock] invents – in our heads and hearts and actions – that is at the core of rhetorical argument.” How much creativity do you think is expected of the receiver and how much room for interpretation should there be?

3. Why do speakers often include quotes in their speeches? Why do students include them in their papers? “Just quote somebody” students often advise each other when asked how to make an essay more interesting or creative. How do you distinguish then, in Kenneth Burke’s terms, those who are realistic strategists and those are not? Does a quote or a proverb simply “fill a need”? Proverbs, phrases that describe recurrent situations, as well as slang, are certainly part of our vernacular and change from culture to culture, often voicing what we cannot put into words; it is a better way to phrase “giving a word for it.” Would you agree with Burke in classifying this as a strategy? Is he being too broad in his sociological categorization of strategies?