Response to question #1 from Aarons Nov. 24th posting:

1) In the textbook written by Wood ward and Denton, the authors claim “Persuasion is a tool of communication. It can be used by both good and bad people for equally good or bad purposes…It is the motives of persuaders that determine if the use of specific strategies is good or bad. These motives provide a context for judgment” (342). Furthermore, the authors provide the example of academics and politicians using strategic emotional appeals to produce certain reactions from the audience that some might deem unethical or diverging too far away from statistics and logical appeals to prove a point. Woodward and Denton use the example of fear appeal to produce a teenage anti-drunk driving ad and deem it appropriate because of the ethical intentions of the message. Do you agree with the use of overtly emotional appeals rather than rational appeals? Can you think of an example to support your claim?

How do we define a good or bad purpose in the first place and who are we to decide what that means? What one deems as a good purpose another person could see as a bad purpose. If an anti smoking agency puts out an advertisement about smoking being dangerous and causing cancer then according to these rules we could deem the advertisement to be in good moral standing. However, if you consider the tobacco industry and that if the advertisement put out against smoking is successful causing a huge decrease in cigarette sales that hurts working class Americans employed by the tobacco companies, then the message could be seen as having a bad moral standing. It just depends on who is viewing what is said and how it is viewed.

I agree that Woodward and Denton make a relevant point in that politicians and academics can sometimes stray away from a good or bad moral framework to prove a point. I think that after a while it becomes too difficult to discern what is considered to be in a good or bad moral standing. As for the example of using fear appeal in producing a teenage anti-drunk driving advertisement with the use of overtly emotional appeals rather than a rational appeal, why not appeal to the emotions of teens? I don’t see anything wrong with it but consider what it means. This brings up the point of fantasy theme in the sense that if teens actually feel like drunk driving affects them directly they are more likely to take the issue seriously. However, in the end I don’t think it matters because in most fantasy theme instances the person playing out their fantasy eventually comes to realize that it is just a fantasy. Let me give you an example.

During my senior year in high school just before graduation my school put on a drinking and driving simulation using fear tactics to try and scare all the seniors about understanding the risks of drinking and driving. The simulation was based largely on fantasy theme. Basically, the senior class president was the prom king and the vice president was the prom queen. All of us knew them both on a personal level and they were friends to many of us. We came out to a car that was completely smashed with three people inside and the prom king who was supposed to be drunk had fake blood all over him. The prom queen had blood all over her inside the car and both the people in the back seat also had blood all over them. Fake of course. My high school actually had the fire department come and use the Jaws of Life to get the rest of the passengers out of the car and then a helicopter landed on the soccer field and actually air lifted the prom queen and passengers in the back seat from the field. As seniors we didn’t know that the school was going to make it that real. Everyone was shocked and many of us believed that it was real due to the great lengths our high school went to show us the dangers of drinking and driving. According to Woodward and Denton this example would be considered to be an emotional message with good ethical intentions.

This is a great example of using emotional appeals in the constructing of a teenage anti-drunk driving advertisement. The entire school was at the event so it wasn’t just seniors but we were obviously the target because we were going to graduate and many high school graduation parties involve alcohol. For several days everyone was really affected by the event. This was even after the senior class president was in class the next day. However, after a couple of days the fantasy was dismissed as exactly that, a fantasy. People still drank and drive on graduation and several reported instances from other schools in the area were about high school student fatalities. I guess my point is that it doesn’t matter whether you use emotional or rational appeals because in the end, people are going to do what they want to do. Even if you consider the message to be morally good in nature, the fact is that the demonstration offended some students. Not everyone is ready to handle a scene like that with blood and death. So, while it was morally good in the sense that the demonstration was trying to tell us to not drink and drive, it could still be considered offensive and a form of negative manipulation. After all, not all drinking and driving crashes result in brutal fatalities like the demonstrated one we observed. What are you thoughts on this?

CMJR 350 Week 7 Questions:

Questions for week 7 readings:

IN CHAPTER 6 OF PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE:

            On page 135 the concept of attitudes are discussed and the idea that some phobias or personality traits may cause people to be “predisposed toward certain attitudes” (Woodward & Denton 135). The next few pages then discuss the link between attitudes and behavior. At the bottom of page 135 three factors are listed as possible link between attitudes and behaviors. The first is the idea of situational factors being the strongest influence. The argument is that social roles and values guide “what we say and how we say it” (Woodward & Denton 135). The second factor is defined as individual differences and the last factor is the specificity of linkage as having the ability to influence behavior based on attitudes.

My question is: do you think it is possible for a person with phobias and personality traits that are predetermined to change their behavior based on any 1 of the 3 factor listed for determining behavior based on attitudes? What I am getting at is the idea that just because someone is “predisposed toward certain attitudes” doesn’t mean they will necessarily adopt those beliefs and act out accordingly. If this is true how strong do you think the 3 listed factors are in determining if an attitude is responsible for a human action? Take the example of a mentally ill patient and put logic aside, which factor do you think would be the most influential in determining how that person acts out a behavior based on an attitude. Or do you think that behavior and attitudes can be completely unrelated and unexplainable for the actions of some people?

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RHETORICAL IMAGES BY CHARLES A. HILL:

            At the bottom of Page 26 Hill states that, “If images, by their nature, prompt irrational and unreflective responses, then they are best avoided rather than studied closely, and they certainly have no place in the classroom, where the goal is to help students develop useful and sound reasoning habits” (Hill 26-27). Do you agree with this statement? My question is: how can anyone determine if an image prompts irrational and unreflective responses? Unless, I missed something, telepathy isn’t one of our human qualities. At least not on this plant; so how is it possible to know if an image promotes an irrational and unreflective response? I didn’t see Hill discuss this any further in his chapter and I’m anxious to know how this was determined? Can it also be argued that these so called images that are best avoided STILL have a place in the classroom to be studied? After all, how can students be taught that visual images promote irrational and unreflective responses unless students are told and shown that certain images DO promote irrational and unreflective responses? Is it possible to construct an image solely for the purpose to be viewed as irrational and unreflective? What might that say about the image and the study of rhetoric pertaining to that idea?

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RHETORICAL IMAGES BY CHARLES A. HILL:

            Another interesting concept I discovered was the idea of presence in visual rhetoric (page 28). Presence is the idea that certain objects or concepts are emphasized more than others in the consciousness of audience members in a rhetorical situation. In other words, depending on the audience, they might have a tendency to take certain objects, ideas or concepts into account more than others. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca argue that, “skillful rhetors attempt to increase the presence of elements in the rhetorical situation that are favorable to their claim because they know that elements with enhanced presence will have a great influence over the audience’s attitudes and beliefs” (Hill 28). It is even argued that a really good rhetor is able to get the audience to focus on only the presence of events that the rhetor wants the audience to focus on. This essentially allows for an audience to only see what the rhetor wants them to see in a given rhetorical situation. This ties into the idea of attitudes influencing behavior discussed in question 1 on chapter 6 in PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE.

My question is: how do you think Barack Obama has used presence in his presidential campaign and how much do you think that influence will impact the actual voting behavior of specific target audiences where presence might have been used more exclusively? Maybe by the time you answer this question you will have a much better idea of JUST HOW effective the Obama campaign has been in using presence. Watch for the results of this Tuesday night and see if you can offer some explanation using the idea of presence to influence attitudes and beliefs that might lead to voting behavior! 

Week 6 Response

Response to mccrayk’s Posting for week 6 readings:

In chapter 10 of the text, Hauser discusses the argument of psychologist Jerome Burner who says that are lives are made up of stories that shape who we are as people. Hauser states, “Bruner makes the point that these culturally influenced cognitive linguistic processes that shape the telling of our life story also condition the way we perceptually experience, remember, organize, and ascribe purpose to the events of a life,” (188). As I was reading and thinking about this, I realized that it is indeed true. The stories that I find to be important about my life, and that stick out beyond all the rest, are truly the ones that shape who I am as a person, and come up most in conversation. Here is my concern though, because these stories and events that have happened in the past shape our lives in such a way, does this keep us from experiencing certain things that may be important in the future? If Burner’s argument is correct, we are always wearing blinders to the things we deem non important, when later in life, those could be the stories and experiences that could shape who we want to be then. Do you believe that with Burner’s argument, we could actually be hurting ourselves by paying attention to stories and events that we think are the more important for us to remember?

 

         I agree that our lives are made up of stories that help shape who we are as people; but our perceptions about who we are and the experiences that have shaped who we are can be viewed differently throughout different points in our lives. This allows for the possibility of us to look at the same situation differently depending on our situation, audience and etc. By doing this we can change our own view of what we previously understood as our own vision of who we constructed ourselves to be based on previous stories. In other words, we can see how we have changed and how our own life narratives have shaped our life but we can change how they continue to shape our life. We don’t have to be constrained by understanding specific stories in one light because our understanding evolves as we do. We also have to ability to determine if those choices we made in understanding and shaping ourselves based on personal narratives have had a positive or negative effect on who we have become. In short, I do think that if we don’t allow for an open mind and competency in viewing certain narrative stories about ourselves as open to being interpreted differently, we limit how we can experience certain events that may be important to us in the future.

            Personally, I have an understanding of how certain stories have shaped my life but I also try to keep an open mind about those personal narratives in order to try and be competent. I can usually see how a specific story or life narrative may be negatively or positively affecting areas of my life. However, sometimes this connection isn’t made until after the situation occurs. It also depends on the situation and the audience. We have the ability to choose which stories we tell and I always try to tell personal narratives that relate to the person or audience that I’m involved with at the time. This means that while certain stories may have a tendency to come up I try not to favor one over another even if I feel that it shapes my life more. The reason for this because my personal narrative doesn’t matter, what matters in that situation is building a common bond with the other person and that might require adopting other stories or narratives that can be identified with by the other person.

This is why I believe personal narratives can affect your ability to define your own life only if you let them. After all, the experiences you have had in your life are all in your mind. You have the ability to choose and designate which ones are defining moments and which one’s are not. In the end that choice is up to you but you still have the ability to choose. That makes you liable for not being competent or hurting yourself by paying attention to only specific stories that may not be relatable to another audience even if they seem more important to remember. 

CMJR 350 Week 5 Questions:

ON CHAPTER 4 IN PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE:

 

I’d like to raise an important point I don’t feel is discussed and then ask a question based on that discussion. On page 90, the differences between factual and judgmental claims are discussed. Woodward and Denton define facts as not being able to be proven true or false. My understanding is that facts are facts and can’t be argued one way or another. Judgments are said to “…express priorities, preferences, or values that may justifiably differ from individual to individual” (Woodward & Denton 90). My question is: do you believe there are judgmental facts?

            First I think it’s important to distinguish between different kinds of facts. There are facts such as scientific facts. Statements such as the sky is blue, humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes and various laws of physics as understood remain constant throughout time and within different cultures. Then there are facts as offered in the book on page 90. These facts include the boiling point of water at sea level, the New York Yankees having the most expensive roster in baseball and North Korea as capable of launching missiles with nuclear weapons. Each of the facts offered on page 90 (at least to me) imply a sense of judgmental claims and yet they are given as examples that can be true “regardless of your own beliefs” (Woodward & Denton 90).

For example, the boiling point of salt water and fresh water are different at sea level, the New York Yankees may not have the more expensive starting roster next year and North Korea may eliminate its nuclear missile program preventing them from having nuclear missile capabilities. These might seem a bit far fetched as North Korea is probably not going to do away with their nuclear missile program but it’s still an example of how these so called, iron clad facts can be changed. I guess my point is: there are different kinds of facts that can change over time and there are other facts that don’t change over time. In each and every culture around the world, the laws of physics, color of the sky and understanding of the number of chromosomes present in humans are universally understood. Do you think this distinction and difference is important when considering judgmental and factual claims? Explain your answer.

 

ON CHAPTER 9 IN PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE:

            Chapter 9 discusses how rhetoric is used as a form of mass media persuasion in campaigns. The idea of situation analysis is discussed as being critically important for social movements to have successful campaigns. The point of doing a situational analysis is to “…gather needed information that will become the basis for designing the persuasive message, strategies to make the message public and the execution of the desired action” (Woodward & Denton 257). This is supposed to be the first step in understanding your audience that will allow a campaign to produce a persuasive message. I would generally agree however, I would add that it’s also critically important to do continuous situation analysis when planning a campaign. For me situational analysis is a process that is continuously done. From the statement made in the book it sounds like campaign analysis is only done once to get the campaign going. However, audiences, environments and the impact your campaign has can change how you need to construct messages in their role of continuing to be persuasive. How important do you think situational analysis is in determining the success of a campaign? Do you consider it a process? Do you think factual or judgmental claims have more importance?

 

 ON CHAPTER 11 IN PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE:

            Chapter 11 talks about political campaigns and describes all political campaign as having 4 elements. Those elements include: short-term orientation, specific objectives, they are primarily mediated and audience centered (Woodward & Denton 315). My first question is what you consider to be short-term orientation? In this last presidential election with Barack Obama running again John McCain for president I would consider it to be anything BUT short-term orientation. I would agree that candidates do have certain objectives they are trying to accomplish within certain time frames where public discussion of the messages they present are discussed. However, the audiences, topics and objectives of the politicians seem to change almost daily and it’s an ongoing process that seems hardly short-term. What are you views on this and what would you consider to be a short-term time frame for political campaigns?

            Another aspect I find interesting is the idea of evaluating how persuasive political candidates messages are within a given audience. This also ties into the idea of judgmental and factual claims as discussed in question 1. Chapter 11 claims that, “Messages are typically planned, prepared, and delivered with an eye to immediate outcomes” (Woodward & Denton 315). I guess my question is: how can candidates find out their immediate impact on a political message delivered to a public audience?

            The debates are a great example that have recently played into this theme. It’s extremely important in politics to know where you stand with the public. That way you can continuously adjust your campaign to try and gain public popularity. It’s part of the rhetorical process. In the recent debates one of the new ways that the media has tried to determine the effectiveness of messages delivered by political candidates is to show ratings of how men and women viewed the messages during the debate as being persuasive. Another recent way to find out the effectiveness of arguments delivered by candidates is to ask viewers to text message their votes about who was more persuasive in the debate. Then, based on this data, the media gives a projected percentage of each candidate and shows whether they are leading polls.

            I find this to be extremely entertaining as the polls and views of candidates being ahead or behind can differ by different news media. My last question is: do you think these polls accurately represent how people received a persuasive message delivered by a presidential candidate? Why or why not and explain your answer. So far do you think the Obama or McCain Campaign has met the criteria of a political campaign as answering specific objectives and being audience centered? If so why or why not? Do you think this attributes to the current success of the campaign? Would you consider the campaign process or be well mediated? Why or why not?

CMJR 205 Week 5 Q's

Questions for week 5 readings:

ON FOSS, “FRAMING THE STUDY OF VISUAL RHETORIC: TOWARD A TRANSOFRMATION OF RHETORICAL THEORY.”

 

On Page 308 Foss discusses visual rhetoric and states that, “function is not synonymous with purpose, which involves an effect that is intended or desired by the creator of the image or object” (Foss 308). Foss then goes on later to say that scholars don’t see the intentions of the creator as determining a correct or incorrect interpretation of a work. Foss argues that when a visual artifact is created it stands by itself independent of the creator’s intention. She claims that this is why function is not synonymous with purpose. I’m not sure I understand this part of her argument?

            From my understanding, the argument is that a creator may create visual rhetoric with one intention in mind but once the artifact is created it can be interpreted differently by each individual. This is because each individual applies some kind of psychological connection to the object based on life experience and each person’s life experience is different. However, take Hitler and the example of the visual rhetoric involved in the creation of the swastika. Hitler created the swastika as a sign of power and to represent the values, beliefs and dominance he represented during the reign of the Nazi’s. It can be firmly argued that he created the sign of the swastika in this manner.

 I would argue that every person in Europe that viewed the Swastika (after Hitler’s creation of it) understood the meaning of the symbol in the same context as the creator (in this case Hitler). My question is: how does the explanation Foss offer apply to an example such as this one? Can an artist (although I wouldn’t call Hitler an artist by any means) create visual rhetoric with an intention that is universally understood by other people? Is it always the case that function is not synonymous with purpose? Would you consider the symbol of the swastika to be iconic as defined by Foss on Page 308?

HAUSER CH 11-

            In this chapter Hauser discusses the idea of identification in rhetoric and argues that “the principle of identification creates an ongoing cycle of joining and dividing, creating the need for a new effort to join that will also divide us from something else” (Hauser 214). From my understanding this means that when we adopt an identification that means something we are dividing it from the opposite of what we adopt as the identification. For example if we come to adopt a picture of our house to represent OUR HOUSE, we are at the same time dividing the picture because we know other pictures of houses are not the same picture as OUR HOUSE. This indirectly implies that identification is identification WITH something else. This is why Hauser argues that identification can occur through any symbolic means.

My question is: can non-verbal communication be used and understood on a universal level to create symbolic interactions other than “…wearing similar clothing, exhibiting common tastes, espousing the same cause, buying into the same ideology and playing by its rules” (Hauser 214). I don’t feel this is discussed to the extent of importance it implies. Hauser emphasizes a lot of language interactions as symbolic but what about the non-verbal communication that comes with language. After all most of communication is non-verbal. Can you develop a symbolic interaction with another person using only non-verbal interactions with no language at all? If so, how is this still possible and how do you think Hauser would respond to your answer?

HAUSER CHAPTER 14-

            Hauser touches on Aristotle and his form of syllogistic theory as a way to evaluate an argument as having a valid or invalid conclusion. Basically, Aristotle believed that the value of an argument could be tested, “by examining the relationships among its premises” (Hauser 264). In understanding Aristotle, Hauser states, “Depending on the type of premises and how they are related, we either can or cannot deduce a conclusion” (Hauser 264). Premises are considered to be parts of arguments that have been previously stated or assumed as the basis for further argument. Several examples are given with conclusions that are valid and invalid.

            What I found interesting was Aristotle’s understanding of how a rhetor (speaker or person trying to persuade an audience) can use premises that appeal to their audience’s psychological beliefs when conducting an argument. Aristotle defines these premises as “enthymemes” when used in a way to psychologically persuade an audience (Hauser 265). Aristotle realized that using enthymemes was a very powerful way of persuading an audience but still argued that the same system of syllogistic theory could be used to deduce whether a conclusion was considered to be valid or invalid. The reason why this is interesting is because; an audience can be psychologically persuaded using inner beliefs to understand a constructed argument in the manner the rhetor wishes to construct the argument.

            What I don’t understand is how the conclusion of an argument can be valid or invalid using Aristotle’s Syllogism theory. If validity comes down to using enthymemes to persuade an audience then doesn’t that mean the validity of an argument’s conclusion can be different depending on audience? If you use the same enthymemes on a different audience that don’t have the same psychological beliefs then that audience might not be persuaded to see your argument as valid. If validity comes down to audience, how can Aristotle’s syllogistic theory ACTUALLY determine if an argument is valid or invalid? How is it possible to EVER know the validity of an argument’s conclusion if validity is capable of changing in the presence of one audience over another? Can you clarify why or why not this is true or not true and offer an explanation to support your argument?

Week 4 Response

Response to blog titled, “Along the way – reflections & essays.” Question on PRESENTATION OF SELF: MORAL OR IMMORAL? Question: In your opinion, is it morally right or wrong to have different versions of one’s “self”? If it is morally right, cite concepts in the readings that would justify your position. If it is morally wrong, what might the flaws in, say, Larson’s argument that effective communication requires the presenter to adjust their language or tone of their message in response to the audience’s response?

 

This is a good question because I don’t believe the answer lies in a definite sense of the issue in question being a moral or immoral issue. Communication is about the grey area most of the time. It’s the area in between what is morally right and or morally wrong. Getting the opinion to change from being morally right to morally wrong can be as simple as asking one person or another. The possibilities for the change from one side to the other are as limitless as the evolution of communication itself as understood through or by multiple people in multiple contexts either simultaneously or at different times.

 

With that being said, my opinion leans toward the characteristic of a person to have several different versions of one’s self as being morally correct. I would say it’s more an issue of being morally competent depending on the relativity of the situation. Hauser and Bitzer both discuss this. Hauser defines relativity as referring to the meaning of an event based on the perspective of the individual (Hauser 41). When talking about having different versions of one’s self it’s important to consider perspective in determining if having different versions of one’s self is morally right or wrong.

 

Perspective can be the perspective of the audience and the perspective of the presenter as they view the audience, viewing them. The looking glass self or self-monitoring is another way to understand this. In other words, how do we construct an understanding of our performance based on how our performance is being interrupted by the audience. Just because you have different versions of yourself doesn’t mean that your manipulating or using rhetoric in a morally unacceptable fashion. The reason for this is because the perspective of your audiences DOES OFTEN change. If you know what aspect or value of yourself you are trying to make others see then showing different versions and changing how you present yourself doesn’t mean that you aren’t presenting the same version of yourself. It just means that the context is different and in order for you to show your audience the characteristic or version of yourself that YOU understand it might require slightly altering your perceived version of yourself.

 

For example, say you have an understanding of yourself as someone who stands for justice and equality.  Depending on the group you are talking to, what is understood as just or equal might be different but your understanding of those concepts don’t change. You can change how you present your ideas about justice and equality to others in an attempt to find a common ground with the group of people. If you are talking to a group of people who believe in same sex marriage and you are in a heterosexual marriage you might say that same sex couples should have equal marriage rights. That same stand on gay marriage might be presented differently to a group of religious conservatives. You might say that you believe same sex couples should be entitled to marriage rights but don’t acknowledge the union of two same sex individuals. Each situation shows a sense of equality but a different version of yourself is required because the context and understanding of each group is different.

 

The other reason I don’t think it’s morally wrong to present different versions of yourself is because people have a tendency to judge based on very small inconsistencies. Goffman talks about this when he discusses the audience and how they might judge a politician if they pronounce a word wrong or stutter or forget a point. We are being constantly judged and evaluated and in order to protect ourselves in many environments that might even include our future well being (such as a job, to pay our bills) we have to create alternate versions. This is why it isn’t morally wrong. But again, I would say the issue is about competence of the intended audience in the interaction.

CMJR 350- Week 3 response to YSCHO'S BLOG QUESTION 1

In Response to YSCHO’S BLOG Question 1: “...Are there any other medium besides images that show “clash of civilization”? If yes, what are they? Do you agree with Cloud that the USA had a paternalistic attitude toward Afghan women? Explain why? Can another tactic be more effective to rally the public than using the image of a savior who is helping the hopeless? And in your own words, define how you understand the burden of “white men” and how it can be used in a rhetorical manner to convince people of something.”

Please excuse this response, it might be a little longer than the conventional response but more questions are being asked and I would like to respond to each in an effective manner.

In response to the first part of the question, yes I believe there are other mediums aside from images that can show “clash of civilization” but they will not be easy to find, they won’t present the “clash” as clearly and will take a level of competence that most Americans don’t have.  In reading a recent article by Gary Brown titled, “The Power of Saddam Hussein’s War Rhetoric” another effective medium that was used and represented was the medium of radio and newspaper journalism. I think it will be universally agreed that Saddam Hussein doesn’t represent the ideas of western capitalism for many reasons but that is another conversation. The point is that Saddam Hussein’s radio broadcasts in themselves are perfect examples of the “clash of civilization” as described by cloud. They are religious in nature and encourage other Islamic leaders to fight against the idea of western capitalism. However, this also ties into the second and third part of my answer. The question is: How will the American people hear Saddam’s Rhetorical address to the people of Iraq. The answer is: most American people won’t and or don’t care to be competent and read an article such as the one published by Brown on understanding how Saddam used rhetoric to gain support of the Iraqi people. This isn’t to say that American’s are dumb but the sources of Saddam’s radio address probably won’t be on the 5 o’clock news or easily accessible. Secondly, it would be in another language and would require translation. This is why the medium of radio or journalism isn’t used in American mainstream media. This is why you see images instead but I do believe that there are other mediums besides images that show this “clash of civilization”.

Does the USA have a paternalistic attitude toward Afghan women? I would say that the US portrays a paternalistic attitude toward Afghan women but it misrepresents the images due to lack of cultural competence. The images and rhetoric the US used to justify the war according to Cloud imply an interesting image toward Afghan women. It’s an image that these women want to be a position of leadership and show their strength but are suppressed by the men with guns. It implies that Afghan men have a disrespect for the place of women other than having children and looking after them. Women are seen more so as objects and nannies. These last few sentences are the general American understanding of women as viewed from the eyes of Afghan men in an American context. This is not culturally competent. Afghan women may still be viewed by Afghan men as respected and honored but the contextual understanding is much different. This is coming from a culture where it is socially acceptable for men to beat women if they misbehave and have power over them. Americans view women as having a much different purpose. They view them as the person in charge of running the family and that holds a very paternal aspect. This is the reason for a paternalistic bias.

            Another effective image other than “…the image of a savior who is helping the homeless” might be the image of an Afghan woman protecting her child by holding them. This could evoke the idea that Afghan women are protecting the future and literally holding the future in their hands. I feel this image would be much more effective due to its emphasis on the future and the role of women as protectors of that future. It encourages Americans to “act now” to change the future and we live in a high context society that is future oriented.

            Lastly, I understand the burden of “white men” as having great responsibility to promote justice and equality. Statistically, white, middle class men represent the majority (or controlling) power in society. Women have made great advancements such as: the right to vote, increased pay and positions in the corporate world. However, it is still (sadly, because women have a much different and better psychological understanding than men as to the purpose of working together to achieve a common goal) true that fewer women in the corporate world are in positions of power. It is still true that a woman with the same qualifications (or in some cases better qualifications) then men earn less money. It is still true that women are expected to: dress, act and possess a different and more socially judged/accepted behavior then men. The list goes on. The point is: women aren’t held to the same standard as men and men can get away with far more and it is still considered socially acceptable. All of these are reasons why I feel the burden of “white men” is to promote justice and equality. I feel I have used this point IN A RHETORICAL manner to illustrate the point and I think it can continue to be used in the SOCIOLOGICAL FACTUAL manner to justify the position. It is the responsibility of MEN to identify these inequalities and use our SOCIETAL power to MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE. 

Questions for week 3 readings: On Irving Goffman CHAPTER 1- PERFORMANCES

1)    In chapter 1 Goffman discusses how people can be seen as performers. How we have incentives and ideas about how we act and understand how observers understand our interactions as part of our performance. On page 22, Goffman defines “performance” as referring to all the activities of an individual that happen during a continuing period where the individual remains present in front of observers and the individual exerts some influence of the observers (22). I would generally tend to agree with this notion of providing a performance. I like to call it “wearing different hats.” Each one of us goes through a process of feeling out our environment, determining how we want to be viewed and then acting at some end to achieve the intended image we were trying to embrace or project. Some other interesting terms I found useful to explain this are the differences between the projected & reflected self. The projected self is the image we want to project for others to see and the reflected self is the image we see ourselves projecting to others. This also ties into the idea of Cooley’s “looking glass self” or the idea that a person’s self grows out of societies interpersonal interactions and how others perceive those actions. Goffman later goes on to say that, “when an individual offers a performance he typically conceals something more than inappropriate pleasures and economies” (page 43). Do you think it’s possible to adopt norms & values of a performance so much that the performer becomes incapable of concealing something from the audience? Can a performer lose the ability to self-monitor him/her self in how they are viewed by the audience? If so, how do you think that might change the performance of the actor?

2)    Another interesting concept in chapter 1 is the idea that “…there is hardly a performance, in whatever area of life, which does not rely on the personal touch to exaggerate the uniqueness of the transactions between performer and audience” (pg 50). Goffman then goes on to talk about manners and offers an example that I understand but also disagree with. He discusses how the personal touch could relate to welcoming guests into a home. For example, say you are having a party and say to one of your guests that are you really glad to see them. They are likely to take this greeting personally, meaning that are you glad to see ONLY them.  If this same gesture were to be exactly repeated to another guest in the presence of the first guest, then your greeting could be seen as meaning less to the first guest or in genuine because they would know your greeting wasn’t ONLY directed towards them. I understand Goffman’s point and it’s quite obvious that you don’t say the same greetings to everyone. You might alter or slightly change the greeting so that each person feels a sense of that, “personal touch” that you have for them. However, it is also possible to have close friends or family at a party and tell them all at one time you are truly glad to see ALL OF THEM. This wouldn’t be viewed as offensive or meaning any less because THE SAME GREETING was directed at EVERYONE at one time. What are your views on this idea? Do you think it’s possible to say the same greeting to multiple people without making them feel like the greeting means less because it was said to multiple people?

3)     Lastly, is the idea that when a person moves into a new position in society and they obtain a new or different part to perform, they aren’t given implicit instructions on how to perform the part (72 at the bottom). I would agree with this notion. Goffman also argues that, while we may not be given implicit instructions about how to play the part we come with other skills about how to play the part that were developed when we acted in other roles. A great example of this is the transition from high school to college. As a freshman when you come to college, no one tells you HOW to be a college student. You may know what it’s like to attend classes and do homework but chances are there’s a lot about being a college student you don’t know. Some people may not know how to do their laundry or budget money for college expenses. But you may watch other college kids do their laundry or take a class on accounting and with “…only a few cues, hints, and stage directions…” (Pg 72) you know how to play to part. Goffman argues that, “In short, we all act better than we know how” (pg 74). Take this idea to another level and apply it to getting a new job or something completely unrelated to what you think you know about how to perform. I think it holds true. Do you think we all “act better than we know how?”