Ahmed's article on affective economies of fear was in itself fearful -- how people groups can identify with certain actions and words, and be incited to fear or hate at the smallest movements. Yet beyond that, Ahmed's ideas about affective economies spreads to almost every other thing outside of just this affective economy in fear, from politics to media to education and everything in between. If it's true that any statement is rhetorical, impacted from previous affective means, and going to impact future rhetoric, then it gives the implication that almost everything is connected.
Ahmed's research into affect is quite different from Brennan, who focuses much on the physiological transmission of affect, but no less important. Different words are connected together in meaning or connotation, and then connected to different images -- all creating a certain economy of terror and fear, passing on to more and more terms and images in identification. Truly, the spoken rhetoric of Ahmed's affective economies takes the forefront, whereas Brennan's transmission of affect can happen almost independently of actual rhetoric with words.
This was a question that I had when reading Brennan -- what is the place of words in this affective theory? Does meaning no longer count toward anything if physiological affect is in everything? Ahmed answers with this article, showing example after example and connection after connection in the words and rhetoric surrounding this global affective economy of fear. It helps us to understand why it has escalated as such, and why it will continue to grow. As Ahmed says, "The impossibility of reducing hate to a particular body allows hate to circulate in an economic sense, working to differentiate some others from other others, a differentiation that is never “over,” as it awaits for others who have not yet arrived" (Ahmed).
This, again, like pretty much every author we've read during this class, is a profound idea. We can never reduce a whole affective economy down to one body, and thus it circulates and grows, giving potential with things that haven't even be uttered or written yet. The connectedness and continuity of ideas in rhetoric is indeed a fearful thing -- and it is likely how we've shaped or expanded all of our views on any topic in life... through an affective economy.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Brennan: Transmitting Some New Ideas
Reading through Brennan the first time left me in a lot of confusion, lost in a flurry of new vocabulary and new ideas and new authors. However, reading it again in the context of the rest of the authors on affect in the rest of the courses helped me to understand what Brennan was saying more clearly. If the implications about affect and its effect on social theory are true, then Brennan's research may be just as important as any other theorist's.
What caught my eye the most out of the book was Chapter Three: Transmission in Groups. This almost parallels Ahmed's affective ecologies and Rice's affective economies. As Brennan says, "the theory of the transmission of affect is always and already, given this definition, a theory of the group" (Brennan 51). Without the group, there would obviously be no transmitting of affect. But given that almost everything that we do, understand, and experience is influenced in some way or other by a group, the transmission of affect has a profound impact. Brennan goes on to say that affects can be influenced by different cultures, interests, and many other phenomena that are all around us. Brennan, like many other social theorists and psychologists, has found something intriguing about the "group mind," except that Brennan labels it as affect.
I think one of the most insightful things from Brennan's book was the amount of importance on the physical during the transmission of affect. In a group or social setting, pheromones, hormones, and other physiological details like visual cues from one individual can spread to the whole group. Brennan uses the example of crowd violence being "attributed to the action of images in the first instance, and it is clear that an image itself will trigger an increase or decrease in certain hormone levels" (Brennan 72). These hormone levels will then spread and transmit to the rest of the group.
For me, this was a really significant discovery. Very simply, it makes sense -- many people can "feel" the mood of a room when the walk in or pick up the same attitude as those around them. But to know that affect is transmitted physiologically and influences how we think or act is something profound. And we can't really control it. The implications of Brennan's discoveries are just as important as any other writer -- Massumi, Rice, Ahmed -- and really set the precedent for our class in the rest of the semester to move on from pathetic appeals to affective ones.
What caught my eye the most out of the book was Chapter Three: Transmission in Groups. This almost parallels Ahmed's affective ecologies and Rice's affective economies. As Brennan says, "the theory of the transmission of affect is always and already, given this definition, a theory of the group" (Brennan 51). Without the group, there would obviously be no transmitting of affect. But given that almost everything that we do, understand, and experience is influenced in some way or other by a group, the transmission of affect has a profound impact. Brennan goes on to say that affects can be influenced by different cultures, interests, and many other phenomena that are all around us. Brennan, like many other social theorists and psychologists, has found something intriguing about the "group mind," except that Brennan labels it as affect.
I think one of the most insightful things from Brennan's book was the amount of importance on the physical during the transmission of affect. In a group or social setting, pheromones, hormones, and other physiological details like visual cues from one individual can spread to the whole group. Brennan uses the example of crowd violence being "attributed to the action of images in the first instance, and it is clear that an image itself will trigger an increase or decrease in certain hormone levels" (Brennan 72). These hormone levels will then spread and transmit to the rest of the group.
For me, this was a really significant discovery. Very simply, it makes sense -- many people can "feel" the mood of a room when the walk in or pick up the same attitude as those around them. But to know that affect is transmitted physiologically and influences how we think or act is something profound. And we can't really control it. The implications of Brennan's discoveries are just as important as any other writer -- Massumi, Rice, Ahmed -- and really set the precedent for our class in the rest of the semester to move on from pathetic appeals to affective ones.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Final Project: The Inception of Affect.
Steven Chang
Davis
5/5/11
RHE 330E
Final Project: The Inception of Affect.
Inception. Here’s me planting an idea in your head: the reason that people love dramatic and action-filled movies like Inception so much is not only because of what we interpret about the content, but how we respond emotionally and affectively. Unfortunately, this idea is not my own, but a radical portrayal of rhetoric, emotion, and affect from authors like Nussbaum, Walker, and Massumi. It is also not a simple idea. But perhaps by the end of this exploration into Inception and affect, we may just take away a simple enough idea of rhetoric to be called our own.
Inception was one of the great movies of 2010, opening #1 at the box office, receiving high critical acclaim, and reaching the position of 25th highest grossing film of all time. The film was regarded for its stunning visual and sound effects, the emotional performances from its actors, and its innovative concept and plot. Roger Ebert says that the idea and plot of Inception is “wholly original, cut from new cloth, and yet structured with action movie basics” (Ebert). James Rocchi from MSN movies calls Inception, “an expensive, expansive emotional film, a nested set of tricks and stratagems with parallel plotlines leaping tracks to affect each other” (Rocchi). Inception also took the Academy Awards for Best Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Visual Effects, while being nominated for several other categories. Altogether, Inception was highly enjoyed and highly popular, for a wide range of reasons.
Here’s a clip from the movie at its climax. Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, the protagonist Dom, is overcoming his biggest obstacle as the rest of the team is spread out through different settings, enacting their intricate plan all at once. Their efforts and planning throughout the movie come to fruition as their mark, Fischer, has a cathartic moment with his father, successfully achieving Inception. With their purpose accomplished, the members of Dom’s crew simultaneously activate a “kick” in order to escape the dream world and return to reality.
This clip, as the climactic peak of the movie, is indicative of why Inception is an entertaining and memorable experience for the viewer. As we saw from the critics, the common interpretations of why this movie was enjoyable include its deep plot, the innovative concept of a dream world, or the dramatic moments throughout the movie. However, rhetorical theorists have another explanation of why we are so engrossed with Inception and other kinds of dramatic, thrilling movies: pathos and affect.
Teresa Brennan explains that “the term ‘affect’ is one translation of the Latin affectus, which can be translated as ‘passion’ or ‘emotion’” (Brennan 3). She goes on to say that, “by an affect, I mean the physiological shift accompanying a judgment” (Brennan 4). What makes affect, this physiological shift, interesting is “the notion that passions and affects are themselves judgments” (Brennan 4), with or without any conscious response. So, for a movie like Inception, do our responses in emotion, physiology, and affect determine how well we receive the movie?
In this clip, we can see three major appeals to pathos and affect: the emotional appeals, the auditory appeals, and the affective interruption. These appeals directly influence our movie-watching experience, and although the common public doesn’t traditionally think of these aspects as criterion for movies, Brennan, Nussbaum, Walker, and Massumi will describe the heavy impact of affect in all forms of communication.
Drama and emotion are crucial parts of entertainment media, and the creators of movies, television, and music focus on drawing out a strong “feeling” from their audiences. In the visual, these emotions and feelings are transmitted from person to person, as Brennan describes: “sights and sounds are physical matters in themselves, carriers of social matters, social in origin but physical in their effect. Every word, every sound, has its valence; so, at a more subtle level, may every image” (Brennan 71). Brennan goes on to describe an experiment in which subjects were shown visual images of people with certain types of emotion in their faces, e.g. “anger and tension,” and this caused a physiological response in the subjects like an increase in testosterone and raising their aggression (Brennan 71). From these experiments, we can see that there is a transmission of affect and emotion even with looking at a certain form of a person’s face.
In this clip, and really throughout the movie, the actors portray their characters in a constant tension and intensity, reflected in their expression of their faces, vocal inflection, and general body language. Dom’s character, dealing with an impossible situation and an insurmountable challenge, has a perpetual look of concern and focus. His jaw is clenched, his eyebrows furrowed, and he rarely smiles throughout the movie, transmitting this tension and concentration to the viewers. However, the transmission of emotion from Leonardo DiCaprio’s character is only one of the many emotions portrayed, even just in this clip.
In this climactic portion of the movie, the viewers are bombarded with a flurry of emotions – Fischer (Cillian Murphy), the group’s target, experiences a deep emotional catharsis, reconciling his strained relationship with his father and receiving his acceptance. Dom (DiCaprio) simultaneously mourns the “death” of his projection wife Mal, while being released from the guilt of his involvement in her suicide. Even the more minor characters have a mix of emotions: Eames (Tom Hardy) gives a slight nod of triumph, knowing the team has achieved their goal, Ariadne (Ellen Page) shouts advice to Dom with panic and conviction, and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) shifts back and forth in the elevator, knowing the implications of his role in the team’s “escape.” In just four minutes, the viewer experiences catharsis on multiple levels, reconciliation, acceptance, mourning, freedom, panic, nervousness, and victory. According to Brennan, these emotions are all transmitted to us through the visual and auditory cues in the movie.
Martha Nussbaum gives us some insight on why emotion makes a difference, by giving us the view of ancient Greek theorists that intimately connect emotions with awareness and belief (Nussbaum 304). The transmission of affect and emotion from the actors to the viewers affects us in a deeper way than just “feelings” at the moment of the movie. Instead, “these emotions have a rich cognitive structure. It is clear that they are not mindless surges of affect, but discerning ways of viewing objects; and beliefs of various types are their necessary conditions” (Nussbaum 309). Emotion is deeply tied in with how we view things, and even directly connected with our beliefs. These emotions impact how we view the movie as a whole. We may subconsciously or cognitively attribute these cathartic and positive emotions (e.g. the reconciliation of a relationship or the achievement of a goal) to the movie, resulting in a positive feeling toward the movie in general.
Although Inception didn’t receive the award for Best Picture, it earned four different Academy Awards and several more nominations, including wins in Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing. Hans Zimmer, the composer, was also nominated for Best Soundtrack. Zimmer, well known for combining an epic, orchestral sound with a variety of synthesizers, created an electrifying soundtrack that was important in driving the pace and tone of the movie (Segerson). Inception has also been associated with a synthesized, body-shaking, deafening sound effect (see: here), and the movie is laden with highly stimulating auditory appeals. Music and sound effects have a huge part in how we experience movies – and it’s because of affect.
Jeffrey Walker explores Aristotle’s theory on music influencing emotion, and explains how “different kinds of music will produce different kinds of emotional states, and different kinds of souls will have different emotional predispositions, making them more or less responsive to one or another kind of music” (Walker 77). According to Aristotle, certain types of music will directly affect our emotional states. Walker gives an example that “‘angry’ music would create a corresponding ‘motion’ in the soul of the hearer and in consequence would ‘stir up’ the bodily state of anger, especially in a person whose bodily nature was inclined already to greater than average ‘heat around the heart’; and at that point, the hearer would in fact be angry, albeit groundlessly” (Walker 79).
In the same way that the cast of Inception portrayed a constant tension and intensity, the music and sound effects added to the viewer’s experience in the suspense and drama of what was happening in the movie. James Sergeson, in a review of Inception’s soundtrack, lauds “the music itself is an actor portraying intensity and emotion, furthering the story like a plot element of its own all while slipping in unobtrusively” (Sergeson). Sergeson goes on to note that the accents, crescendos, flowing strings, and clashing tensions add to the movie’s tension and emotion (Sergeson). These aspects of musical tension and emotion are indeed affective appeals, resulting in the viewer taking away a feeling of intensity and excitement from the movie.
Creative cinematography is an essential part of making a movie original and remarkable. Inception boasts epic landscapes, fight scenes in zero-gravity, entire created worlds, and an artistic flair in even the simplest settings. The timing and positioning of camera angles directly influences how a viewer experiences a movie. Even in cinematography, affect is at work in creating a suspenseful and vivid movie environment.
Brian Massumi, in The Autonomy of Affect, takes a look at interruption as an affective influence. Massumi gives the example of Ronald Reagan’s speech style, famous for his jerkiness and lack of fluency in his body language. Surprisingly enough, this interruption resulted in an affective influence. The reason, Massumi explains, is because of potential of movement: “At each jerk, at each cut into the movement, the potential is there for the movement to veer off in another direction, to become a different movement. Each jerk suspends the continuity of the movement, for just a flash, too quickly really to perceive but decisively enough to suggest a veer” (Massumi 41).
The cinematography in Inception uses this idea of interruption, specifically in this one clip of the movie. The movie has already been filled with plot twists and unexpected obstacles, and the creators of the movie use this built-up suspense to heighten the experience at the climax. The characters are spread throughout four levels of the dream world, each fulfilling their own role and with their own personal obstacles. The creators mix and cut each scene together in quick succession, with different angles, close-ups, broad views, and all across the different settings. With all the different cuts, we don’t know what to expect, and it’s physiologically affecting our bodies and preparing us for many different scenarios. Each cut adds to the suspense and intensity, resulting in an increased affective experience.
When we watch dramatic movies like Inception, we aren’t just mindlessly enjoying cool visual effects, but experiencing the emotions that the actors portray, physiologically responding to the auditory aspects, and being influenced by the cinematography and interruption within the movie. This is not to say that meaning and content have no part in our interpretation of movies, but that affect is an inseparable part of movie-watching and other forms of communication.
Indeed, these three elements of pathetic and affective appeal are vital in our interpretations and experiences of the movie. Although affect may be a relatively new area of study, we’ve seen throughout several different theorists and authors that affect has everything to do with how we understand and receive a certain message or feeling from different sources -- be it movies, social groups, speeches, sign posts, or any variety of things. These different strategies of appealing to a person’s affective responses are used throughout the movie industry, but when they are all combined in such an effective and powerful way, we see something new and exciting, like Inception.
Entertainment media is just one part of what Jenny Edbauer calls an “affective ecology” (Rice 22), where rhetoric is not just speech or writing, but affect and rhetoric encompass all encounters. We communicate through physiological, affective, pathetic, and rhetorical means, and these become an essential part of our experience in movies, despite our lack of awareness in the realm of affect. The makers of Inception captured these appeals in their movie, resulting in an unforgettable film, and making us wonder about the importance of meaning versus affect. Both are undoubtedly important, but as we can see from the views of Brennan, Nussbaum, Walker, and Massumi, affect is undeniably a crucial part of our experience in communication and response.
Works Cited
Brennan, Teresa. The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell UP, 2004. Print.
Ebert, Roger. "Inception :: Rogerebert.com :: Reviews." Rogerebert.com :: Movie Reviews, Essays and the Movie Answer Man from Film Critic Roger Ebert. Web. 02 May 2011. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100714/REVIEWS/100719997>.
Edbauer, Jenny. "Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.4 (2005): 5-24. Print.
Gross, Alan G., and Arthur E. Walzer. Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2000. Print.
Massumi, Brian. "The Autonomy of Affect."
Rocchi, James. "Inception (2010) - Critics' Reviews - MSN Movies." MSN Movies: Movie Listings, Showtimes, Movie Reviews, Trailers, Movie Clips, DVD and More. Web. 01 May 2011. <http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-reviews/inception/>.
Sergeson, James. "Album Review: Hans Zimmer – Inception OST." LA Music Blog. Web. 02 May 2011. <http://lamusicblog.com/2010/07/uncategorized/album-review-hans-zimmer-inception-ost/>.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Massumi: The Revolution of Affect.
I just read the first chapter of Massumi the second time through (several weeks later), and I am still not close to comprehending the entirety of his concept of affect. It starts off simply enough: the strange results of the snowman film research show us some dichotomies between content and affect, the physiological and the conscious, intensity and qualification. For someone who's foundations of thought and epistemology are on a simpler plain of thought, this is an intriguing proposition. The different examples and stories that Massumi gives clearly challenge the traditional line of thought: apparently content and meaning weren't the only things that matter in communication and understanding.
Massumi moves very quickly from a specific challenging our traditional forms of thought and expands it to the realm of our entire understanding. I can accept the theory that the physiological, the intensity of affect impacts the way I respond separately from consciousness, but before Massumi fully hashes this out, he starts to bring in several philosophers and new terms: Spinoza, Kant, the "virtual," the "potential," Deleuze, "emergence," and even quantum mechanics! It's likely that I will never be at a point of fully understanding the concepts that Massumi presents, but I do believe that he is offering a theory of knowledge that transcends the traditional -- as he says, "Affect is the whole world... and needs to be taken into account in cultural and political theory" (Massumi, pg. 43-45).
But for the sake of discussion, and for my own comprehension, I'd like to park on a smaller chunk of Massumi's huge claim of affect -- simply that the response of physiological intensity is just as important as a cognitive, conscious response in content. Both the snowman and Reagan examples challenge the common sense view of understanding, that all understanding comes from meaning and content. Yet we can see that this clearly is not the case; affect influences everything, as Ahmed and Edbauer Rice both theorize as well, and sometimes, affect goes even against the common sense view of content. Even though neither Reagan's delivery nor content were solid, let alone stellar, he "was an effective leader not in spite of but because his double dysfunction... and that is why the majority of the electorate could disagree with him on major issues but still vote for him" (Massumi, pg. 40-41).
This is just shocking to me. Seeing as how the rhetoric of Presidential speeches is a whole category of importance and much of what the American people see and decide off of, it seems that someone who was bad at delivery and content shouldn't be in the running. But simply the jerkiness, the interruption, the suspense, and the fact that each interruption had the potential to be something different made it so that Reagan's greatness was actualized through the interpretation of the media. And in the end, it was Reagan's confidence that put it all together; as Massumi says, "Confidence is the apotheosis of affective capture" (Massumi, pg. 42).
So what are we supposed to take away from this? I think what Massumi is saying (and I emphasize, "I think") is that affect opens up a potential for many different perspectives than just the speaker's original meaning. I'm not really sure what that means pragmatically -- it doesn't even seem like this is something that can be controlled. If affect really is this important, what are we supposed to do about it? I think somewhere in the chapter Massumi talks about "an idea of the idea of the affection" having a "doubling over the idea on itself" (Massumi, pg. 31), but even then, through all the different concepts I'm still not sure what to do with that. Perhaps it just means that our interpretation of things isn't as simple as we think. That the common misconception of "emotion is not logical" can be explained by your response in affect. Who knows. Suffice it to say that affect deserves a deeper look, and it could quite possibly be the new foundation for how we communicate and interact in social environments.
Massumi moves very quickly from a specific challenging our traditional forms of thought and expands it to the realm of our entire understanding. I can accept the theory that the physiological, the intensity of affect impacts the way I respond separately from consciousness, but before Massumi fully hashes this out, he starts to bring in several philosophers and new terms: Spinoza, Kant, the "virtual," the "potential," Deleuze, "emergence," and even quantum mechanics! It's likely that I will never be at a point of fully understanding the concepts that Massumi presents, but I do believe that he is offering a theory of knowledge that transcends the traditional -- as he says, "Affect is the whole world... and needs to be taken into account in cultural and political theory" (Massumi, pg. 43-45).
But for the sake of discussion, and for my own comprehension, I'd like to park on a smaller chunk of Massumi's huge claim of affect -- simply that the response of physiological intensity is just as important as a cognitive, conscious response in content. Both the snowman and Reagan examples challenge the common sense view of understanding, that all understanding comes from meaning and content. Yet we can see that this clearly is not the case; affect influences everything, as Ahmed and Edbauer Rice both theorize as well, and sometimes, affect goes even against the common sense view of content. Even though neither Reagan's delivery nor content were solid, let alone stellar, he "was an effective leader not in spite of but because his double dysfunction... and that is why the majority of the electorate could disagree with him on major issues but still vote for him" (Massumi, pg. 40-41).
This is just shocking to me. Seeing as how the rhetoric of Presidential speeches is a whole category of importance and much of what the American people see and decide off of, it seems that someone who was bad at delivery and content shouldn't be in the running. But simply the jerkiness, the interruption, the suspense, and the fact that each interruption had the potential to be something different made it so that Reagan's greatness was actualized through the interpretation of the media. And in the end, it was Reagan's confidence that put it all together; as Massumi says, "Confidence is the apotheosis of affective capture" (Massumi, pg. 42).
So what are we supposed to take away from this? I think what Massumi is saying (and I emphasize, "I think") is that affect opens up a potential for many different perspectives than just the speaker's original meaning. I'm not really sure what that means pragmatically -- it doesn't even seem like this is something that can be controlled. If affect really is this important, what are we supposed to do about it? I think somewhere in the chapter Massumi talks about "an idea of the idea of the affection" having a "doubling over the idea on itself" (Massumi, pg. 31), but even then, through all the different concepts I'm still not sure what to do with that. Perhaps it just means that our interpretation of things isn't as simple as we think. That the common misconception of "emotion is not logical" can be explained by your response in affect. Who knows. Suffice it to say that affect deserves a deeper look, and it could quite possibly be the new foundation for how we communicate and interact in social environments.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Final Project Draft
Steven Chang
RHE 330E
Davis
Final Project: Inception and Affect.
Inception. Here’s me planting an idea in your head[1]: the reason that people love dramatic and action-filled movies like Inception so much is not because of our own cognitive action, but how our bodies respond affectively. Unfortunately, this idea is not my own, but a radical portrayal of rhetoric and affect from authors like Massumi and Kennedy. It is also not a simple idea. But perhaps by the end of this exploration into Inception and affect, we may just take away a simple enough idea of rhetoric to be called our own.
Inception was one of the great movies of 2010, opening #1 at the box office, receiving high critical acclaim, and reaching the position of 25th highest grossing film of all time[2]. The film was regarded for its stunning visual effects, powerful soundtrack, and the emotional performances from its actors. [Some examples from critics: http://www.brianorndorf.com/2010/07/film-review-inception.html, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/movietime/stories/2010/2961205.htm, etc.]
Inception took the Academy Awards for Best Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Visual Effects, while being nominated for several other categories. [more description]
One of the reasons Inception was so enjoyable was because it drew people in for the entirety of the movie. The plot is always fast moving, with breathtaking landscapes and fierce gun battles going on throughout. People commented on the intensity of the movie, that they were “on the edge of their seats,” or that the movie was dramatic and climactic.
Here’s a clip from the movie that I thought was one of the most intense parts – it’s the climax of the movie, with the protagonist facing his deepest obstacle and the plot coming to a crucial peak.
Again, critics and generally moviegoers alike mention similar reasons for why they enjoyed the movie: captivating visual effects, a soundtrack that shakes your whole body, impassioned acting by the whole cast, and a plot and concept that makes your mind spin. We see all of these elements in this one clip.
[here I’m not sure if I should break down those 4 elements into paragraphs and really expand on the common sense view of why people like this movie, or do more reasons from critics, or if that’s not that important and I should keep it to one paragraph so I can move on to Massumi/Kennedy]
However, Brian Massumi and George Kennedy explain our attraction to dramatic movies and our emotional responses to almost anything with a single term: affect. Teresa Brennan explains that “the term ‘affect’ is one translation of the Latin affectus, which can be translated as ‘passion’ or ‘emotion.[3]’” She goes on to say that, “by an affect, I mean the physiological shift accompanying a judgment.[4]” What makes affect, this physiological shift, interesting is “the notion that passions and affects are themselves judgments[5],” with or without any conscious response. So, for a movie like Inception, does our physiological response in affect determine how much pleasure we receive from the movie?
Massumi gives a clear example that it does. [Snowman example.]
In the snowman movie scenarios, we can see that there are three different aspects of judgment: the child’s qualification of the movie, the physiological response, and the skin reaction. We can clearly see that, in some cases, the physiological and skin responses are different from the cognitive response. Although the child may have ranked one movie the “saddest,” it also gave the highest physiological response of pleasure.
[show parallels to Inception… not exactly sure how I’m going to do that.]
I will definitely incorporate one, if not two more authors here that will talk about physiological affect over cognitive rhetoric and try to apply that to our experience of Inception. I'm leaning towards Kennedy, but his examples don't line up well with a movie and I would have to twist his concepts to fit what I'm trying to say.
I might also try to give a broader generalization of why we like any thriller/dramatic/action movies, but only if the paper with Inception only doesn't quite reach 8 pages.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Edbauer Rice: Rhetoric is now in everything.
Edbauer Rice's writing on affective ecologies was an extremely intriguing read. The entirety of this course has been expanding my horizons on what the realm of rhetoric actually is -- and Rice expands it even further. What we learned in lower-division rhetoric classes of the speaker-text-audience triangle is far too simple now; Rice has colored in the triangle and connected it on a page full of rhetorical triangles.
For me, it's always been true that rhetoric was more intricate and complex than the simplistic vocabulary we had for it. In order to "take the audience into account," it would be necessary to understand all of the context and kairos and details and connections to really understand who it is you're writing to and how to frame your text towards what they need to hear. An exigence was never just a problem or a call to action: it included the history, the potential, and all the other details.
Rice has given a framework to what we already knew but didn't know how to describe -- a rhetorical situation is movement, complexity, encounter. But now it is an affective ecology, the context and the history, the speakers, the counter-rhetoric, the movement: all an amalgamation of events and encounters too complex to be explained away simply.
I think in the end, Rice offers up the correct takeaway for this new way of thinking in rhetoric -- this radically changes our rhetorical pedagogy. The way we learn about rhetoric can no longer be the simplistic rhetorical triangle, but we must now look at "rhetorical situations [as an] amalgamation and mixture of many different events and happenings that are not properly segmented into audience, text, or rhetorician" (pg. 16). Rhetoric now "also engages processes and encounters" (pg. 18).
However, I think that the implications of this new rhetorical pedagogy can reshape the connotation and understanding of what rhetoric is to the general public. If rhetoric really is an affective ecology, an amalgamation of all encounters and movements and processes, then it reaches much further than what we generally believe. Not even just about persuasive speech and argument, but even beyond just communication -- rhetoric is a study of the entirety of movement in reality. Connections, encounters, speech, audience, context, situation are all a part of rhetoric. We engage in rhetoric with every word, every movement, even the reactions in our bodies. It is something that we DO. With this understanding, perhaps rhetoric is no longer a minor study, no longer something that only Presidents and preachers use, but something that deeply shapes the way that we understand and move in the world.
For me, it's always been true that rhetoric was more intricate and complex than the simplistic vocabulary we had for it. In order to "take the audience into account," it would be necessary to understand all of the context and kairos and details and connections to really understand who it is you're writing to and how to frame your text towards what they need to hear. An exigence was never just a problem or a call to action: it included the history, the potential, and all the other details.
Rice has given a framework to what we already knew but didn't know how to describe -- a rhetorical situation is movement, complexity, encounter. But now it is an affective ecology, the context and the history, the speakers, the counter-rhetoric, the movement: all an amalgamation of events and encounters too complex to be explained away simply.
I think in the end, Rice offers up the correct takeaway for this new way of thinking in rhetoric -- this radically changes our rhetorical pedagogy. The way we learn about rhetoric can no longer be the simplistic rhetorical triangle, but we must now look at "rhetorical situations [as an] amalgamation and mixture of many different events and happenings that are not properly segmented into audience, text, or rhetorician" (pg. 16). Rhetoric now "also engages processes and encounters" (pg. 18).
However, I think that the implications of this new rhetorical pedagogy can reshape the connotation and understanding of what rhetoric is to the general public. If rhetoric really is an affective ecology, an amalgamation of all encounters and movements and processes, then it reaches much further than what we generally believe. Not even just about persuasive speech and argument, but even beyond just communication -- rhetoric is a study of the entirety of movement in reality. Connections, encounters, speech, audience, context, situation are all a part of rhetoric. We engage in rhetoric with every word, every movement, even the reactions in our bodies. It is something that we DO. With this understanding, perhaps rhetoric is no longer a minor study, no longer something that only Presidents and preachers use, but something that deeply shapes the way that we understand and move in the world.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Final Project Proposal
Overview:
In my final project, I will do a rhetorical analysis on the affective and pathetic appeals of one of this year's most popular films, Inception. This analysis will result in the equivalent of an 8-10 page research paper. The movie is generally regarded as one of high intensity and a forceful dramatic feel, and likely connected to appeals to affect and pathos. Using the theories of affect from the various readings, I will argue that the viewer's captivation towards the movie is a result of both visual and aural affective appeals. I will condense this analysis to a 5-minute presentation in class, and post it to my blog.
Specifics:
1. I will choose a single clip to analyze and to act as a model for the rest of the movie. By exploring the areas of cinematography, the actor's movements and words, sound effects, and music, I hope to show that the affective appeals in these areas are the cause of the viewer's pleasure and heightened intensity.
2. I will use at least 3 of the authors from this semester to connect the appeals in Inception to the claim that the affective appeals in the film are what give the viewer a heightened emotional and affective state.
3. Using a presentation software like Keynote or Prezi, I will present a clip of Inception with an analysis of the affective appeals in both the visual and aural realms -- this presentation will last no more than 5 minutes.
4. There will be an oral workshop on Tuesday, April 26th, and a formal peer review on Thursday, April 28th that the analysis will go through.
5. The final project will be completed and posted on the blog/webfolio by May 5th.
In my final project, I will do a rhetorical analysis on the affective and pathetic appeals of one of this year's most popular films, Inception. This analysis will result in the equivalent of an 8-10 page research paper. The movie is generally regarded as one of high intensity and a forceful dramatic feel, and likely connected to appeals to affect and pathos. Using the theories of affect from the various readings, I will argue that the viewer's captivation towards the movie is a result of both visual and aural affective appeals. I will condense this analysis to a 5-minute presentation in class, and post it to my blog.
Specifics:
1. I will choose a single clip to analyze and to act as a model for the rest of the movie. By exploring the areas of cinematography, the actor's movements and words, sound effects, and music, I hope to show that the affective appeals in these areas are the cause of the viewer's pleasure and heightened intensity.
2. I will use at least 3 of the authors from this semester to connect the appeals in Inception to the claim that the affective appeals in the film are what give the viewer a heightened emotional and affective state.
3. Using a presentation software like Keynote or Prezi, I will present a clip of Inception with an analysis of the affective appeals in both the visual and aural realms -- this presentation will last no more than 5 minutes.
4. There will be an oral workshop on Tuesday, April 26th, and a formal peer review on Thursday, April 28th that the analysis will go through.
5. The final project will be completed and posted on the blog/webfolio by May 5th.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Written Pathetic Appeal Revised
Steven Chang
RHE 330E
Davis
4/12/2011
Written Pathetic Appeal: Human Trafficking
Fourth customer tonight. Still a long night ahead, anywhere from six to ten more before she’s finished. Like a zombie, she climbs into the shower with the hope of washing away anything left behind, but it is a cathartic cleansing more than anything. A zombie is a good comparison – a mindless object, simply a body without its own thoughts – that is what she is. The youth and vitality of a 12-year-old girl is missing completely, and only a drained and broken husk remains.
As she steps out of the shower, she is again overwhelmed by the smell. The musky, moldy stench of the hotel room, tinged with the scents of lotions and perfumes and cigarette smoke wafting through the air. She resists the impulse to retch. Four months here, and still the smell catches her off guard every time.
The syringe is prepped on the nightstand, next to a few cotton balls and a bottle of cleaning alcohol. She hesitates, debating and resisting what she knows to be evil, but the damaged side of her wins. She doesn’t have the strength anymore to get through the night on her own. In the first couple of weeks, the memories of her past life were enough to take her away from the dimly-lit room and that overwhelming smell. The images of the beautiful sunset over the rice fields or the thought of dinner with her grandparents after a long day of work used to be enough, but not anymore. That was now a past life, and to get through the reality of misery she is in will require a more potent solution.
She swabs her arm gently with the cold alcohol, takes a deep breath, and feels the cold prick of the needle pierce her skin. The warm flood of bliss washes over her, and the fear, the disgust, the despair is all swept away with that penetrating warmness.
And finally, numbness. This is her temporary escape. She sits on the edge of the creaky mattress, embracing the emotional paralysis, as the next man walks through the door.
Fifth customer tonight. Still at least five more to come. Between the showers and the syringe, she will endure the rest of the long night, but for what? She is convinced: no one is coming to save her, this is now her permanent reality – she has long since given up on hope.
_______
There are 27 million slaves in the world today[1], more than at the time of the transatlantic slave trade in the 17th Century. Men, women, and children are stolen, deceived, and sold into unspeakable horrors all around the world. Forced prostitution in Thailand, wage slavery in India, and child labor in Colombia are some prevalent examples, but the list extends far beyond that.
The story of the young girl above is just one possible story out of millions. Hoping for a better life, the young girl is deceived into taking a “better job in the city,” and forced into prostitution with no hope of rescue. Every single day, unfortunate victims experience these injustices all around the world. Perhaps the most tragic elements of these stories is how these young and gullible children are tricked or kidnapped into a life of unimaginable suffering. What could have been a bright and happy future is now one of despair and hopelessness. The misconception is that these things only happen in developing countries like Thailand or India, but the influence of human trafficking reaches broadly, even to our own city limits. Just last year, a human trafficking and vice unit from the Austin Police Department shut down a brothel in north Austin where women were forced into prostitution against their will.[2] The threat of human trafficking is a closer reality than we would hope to believe.
According to the U.S. State Department, anywhere from 14,500 to more than 17,500 people are trafficked into the United States every year.[3] Worldwide, the U.N. estimates that the market value of the human trafficking industry surpasses $32 billion annually.[4] Human trafficking exists in some form or fashion on every one of the six major continents. The social problem of human trafficking is as much a reality to us today as civil rights in the 1960s or slavery in the 19th Century. Yet somehow, in the 21st Century, the atrocities of human trafficking are hidden from the view of the public.
The problem of human trafficking reaches broadly, affects its victims deeply, but is widely unknown. Many times, even when we do learn of these inhumane and heart-wrenching stories, we are outraged or disgusted, but we feel detached from the problem. What could a college student do about these problems an ocean away? It seems that these things aren’t related to our lives in any way at all. However, the U.S. State Department estimates that “200,000 American children are at high risk for trafficking into the sex industry each year.” We also know that “Texas has more calls into the national human trafficking hotline than any other state.[5]” How far would you go to save your sister, niece, or best friend from this tragic fate?
As college students in the U.S., we have the capability, the resources, and the power to fight towards ending human trafficking, even in our own lifetime. Here are a few first steps of what we can do:
1. Educate yourself: Research trafficking and find out how deeply and broadly it actually goes – www.notforsalecampaign.org, www.stopthetraffik.org, www.humantrafficking.com, www.antislavery.org
2. Educate others: Post this video about human trafficking to your facebook or youtube account – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZTN0TbsRYA
3. Take action: Support organizations like the International Justice Mission or World Vision that are devoted to ending human slavery, donate your time and money, and write to your Congressmen to support anti-trafficking laws.
We have the power and the resources to end slavery in the world. Dr. Kevin Bales, an expert on modern slavery and the President of Free the Slaves confirms this: “We could eradicate slavery. The laws are in place. The multi-nationals, the world trade organizations, the United Nations, they could end slavery, but they're not going to do it until and unless we demand it.”[6] Our efforts have the ability to save lives. The responsibility lies with each one of us. Will we be known as the generation that took action and ended modern slavery? Or will our passivity be our legacy to future generations, that we let this deep social injustice run rampant?
_______
It is almost dawn. She is broken and beaten, a shell of a person after 12 men have had their way with her. She can barely move, but reaches towards the nightstand and the only thing that can comfort her now – the needle. But before she can immerse herself in the numbness, suddenly, the sounds of a door crashing down in the hallway reach her. The voices of men yelling and of women screaming pierce through the quiet morning of the city.
Adrenaline floods her body. Confusion and anticipation overtake her, and the smallest tinge of hope enters into her mind! Could it be? But she steels herself. No reason to deceive herself, to get her hopes up for nothing.
The door opens. A police officer, gun raised, takes a look at her and motions behind him. An older woman comes through the door with a disarming smile. She doesn’t know what to think, but the woman embraces her, whispering assurances of her safety and her rescue. The woman picks her up and carries her out through the broken down entrance of the hotel. The first rays of sunlight peek over the horizon, warming the little girl’s face. For the first time in three months, she breathes in the freshness of the morning air. For the first time in three months, she has a hope and a future.
_______
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Visual Argument Final
As you can see, the purpose of this visual argument is to highlight the prevalence of child labor and human rights abuse in the manufacture of products by some very big-name companies. Many corporations like Nike, Nestle, Gap, Calvin Klein, Apple, Wal-Mart, Hanes, Ikea, and many more have been accused of (or found evidence against) for practices like abusive child labor, repression of worker’s rights, violations of health and environmental laws, and labor discrimination. The claim is simply that many of our favorite products and brands are tainted by the use of morally unacceptable practices.
As we look at advertisements from each of these major companies (Nike, Nestle, Gap, Calvin Klein, and Apple), we can see a corresponding image of child labor or a sweatshop. These are the origins of the products that many of us own and purchase regularly. The purpose of this back and forth is to connect the reality of how these products are created – not just simply in a factory in North America, but most likely in a third-world country and through the abuses of human rights. The emotions that are hopefully evoked are surprise, anger, sadness, discomfort, shame, and indignation. Many times, we buy products without hesitating for a moment to think where it came from or how it was created. However, when we see these corresponding pictures of young, malnourished, and dirty children making the products that we love, we are surprised at this shocking truth. Hopefully, that surprise turns into anger, indignation, and sadness with this interpretation: “it isn’t right for other humans to be abused so that corporations can get more money.”
The photos of the glamorous advertisements are such a stark contrast to the grim realities of the living and working conditions that people in third-world countries endure. Gap and Calvin Klein show you flawless models representing their clothes, but children in Uzbekistan as young as five picked that cotton and young women in sweatshops in China worked 16-hour days to make the clothing. Apple has given such a prestigious aura to their products, but the factory that manufactures their chips in China has to put nets around their building to prevent suicides. These are heart-wrenching truths that the pictures can hopefully convey.
In the end, guilt is not the primary emotion I’m aiming for, but it may also be a by-product of this realization. For example, the viewer shouldn’t feel guilty for buying Nike shoes if they did not know about the immoral practices – it could have been just as easy to buy Adidas shoes. However, if we know that corporations are abusing human rights in order to create products and increase revenue for themselves, we should not continue to buy these products in ignorance.
My purpose is to create an awareness in the viewers, as well as move them to an action, whether continuing to research what companies are morally questionable, petitioning companies to change their practices, or just boycotting a product altogether. We, as consumers, should not be comfortable with products created from the abuse of human rights. These products are tainted.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Visual Argument Draft
For some reason, blogger isn't letting me post my blog post that I wrote in Word, so here it is in a Google Doc. Sorry for the inconvenience. The link to the prezi is in there too.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Visual Analysis Revised
This image is part of a series from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) portraying wild animals in homeless situations. They are found in landfills, under bridges, and huddling around cans on fire – the places we would typically associate with homeless people. The series of WWF ads was on speckyboy (http://speckyboy.com/2009/04/16/55-inspiring-creative-and-potent-ads-from-the-wwf/), an online design magazine. The context of a design magazine tells us that those readers probably were not the ad’s original intended audience.
A first look at this image provokes the emotions of sadness, pity, disgust, and surprise. The makers of the ad likely wanted readers to primarily feel the emotions of pity and sadness towards this situation. We generally relate to tigers as noble, elegant, and almost regal, but in this image, the tiger is laying sadly and helplessly in the open. It is a debilitating and humiliating position for any animal, just as it is for any human: surrounded by trash in a lackluster environment. It seems like a high-traffic pedestrian area, and most people are just passing by, with one person looking down on the tiger. The image is in black and white, emphasizing the contrast between harsh light and gloomy gray. We miss all of the rich colors of the tiger, contributing to the dreariness and feelings of helplessness in the picture. The ad contains all the emotions of pity and sadness that we would feel towards a helpless and homeless person. However, the element of surprise comes as we see the tiger take the place of a homeless person.
The phrase at the bottom of the advertisement also serves as a pathetic appeal. It states in four succinct words: “mindless deforestation wrecks homes.” The message is clear: human deforestation destroys the natural environments of wild animals. However, the authors use powerful and emotional words to evoke more emotion and dilemma out of the viewer, just in a simple phrase. Deforestation isn’t just bad, it is mindless. It gives the connotation that deforestation isn’t necessary, and that the people responsible for deforestation aren’t giving any thought to the plight of the wild animals. Also, animals don’t just lose their homes, but their homes are wrecked. This simple phrase of emotionally charged text coupled with the mix of emotions in the visual appeal clearly states the argument of the advertisement: deforestation causes tragedy for wild animals, driving them away from their homes, and you should do something about it. As we understand that humans are responsible for the deforestation of animal homes, we also experience the feelings of guilt and shame. At first, our emotions are of pity and sadness towards the tiger in a polluted environment, but as we realize that we are to blame for its plight, we feel the shame of responsibility.
From these emotional appeals, the advertisement urges the viewer to do something to help the tiger. Obviously, it’s not a real situation, and even if it was, you couldn’t physically go to the place to help the tiger. The only logical behavior left is surely what the authors of the ad intended: to support their cause of wildlife preservation through the donation of money. Other than the phrase at the bottom, there is no additional text on the ad, but the brand and logo of WWF are in the top left corner. The everyday viewer does not have a direct hand or influence in deforestation, so it’s clear that donation is the simplest path to supporting the cause.
The authors create the analogy of a homeless person versus a homeless animal – they are in parallel situations. We interpret the situation of homelessness as pitiful and saddening, but these feelings are amplified with the presence of a noble animal like the tiger. The tiger clearly does not belong in this degrading environment. To add to these emotions, the writers of the ad show us that deforestation is the fault of humans, implying that we cause the homelessness of animals in our mindless hording of resources for ourselves. Our interpretation is: “This is wrong! A tiger shouldn’t be subject to conditions like this, but deserves to be in the wilderness.” It is emphasizing the reality that animals deserve to live in their natural habitats, and deforestation destroys that possibility. In order to stop this, the World Wildlife Fund is asking the viewer to donate to their fund in order to save the animals.
As for Aristotle’s stereotypical types, this advertisement doesn’t really appeal directly to any age group or even any certain class. It could be argued that young people who are quickly passionate and believe in goodness fit the mold of who this advertisement might appeal to, according to Aristotle. The anger and passion evoked from this situation of an animal in the place of a homeless person, if strong enough, could spur a young person to take up the cause of wildlife preservation in a radical way. Of course, more generally, the WWF would prefer that the advertisement moves wealthy people to donate to their cause, but nothing in the ad is particularly targeting wealthy people. As with most all of the WWF advertisements, they hope to target people who have high regard towards animals and their conditions, and who want to make a change through their advocacy and donation.
In general, this advertisement is memorable because of the surprise factor of seeing a wild animal in a position of humiliation and homelessness. We should feel sadness and disgust towards this situation, and therefore the advertisers from the WWF were successful in arguing their point, but perhaps the deeper question is why we are shocked at animal “homelessness” and not humans in homelessness. A simple ad exactly like this but substituted with a person would not have the same effect.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Pathetic Appeal -- The Reality of Human Trafficking.
In my written pathetic appeal, I'm exploring the issue of Human Trafficking; it is real, it is widespread, and it is an atrocious injustice. My claim is that human trafficking can affect us more than we think, and that there is something that we can do to help end it. The emotions I aim to evoke with the appeals in my enargeia are disgust, hopelessness, anger, and sadness towards the injustice of human trafficking. However, I also hope to empower the reader into knowing there is hope if only we will take action. Hopefully these emotions will be strong enough to move the reader to action, and I list some practical ways people can begin to get involved. This is a very real problem, but has a solution that we can all be a part of.
Go here to read it.
Go here to read it.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Kennedy: Rhetoric and Animals? Really?
The Kennedy reading was pretty difficult for me to take seriously. At first, I was interested in what Kennedy had to say about the physical energy of rhetoric, that rhetoric is largely focused on the emotional and physical energy of what is said or of the actual speaker. However, when it became clear that his illustration on "animal rhetoric" was not just an illustration but the core of his theory, I began to question more and more the foundation of what his many theses were built upon. Not that I am such a great rhetorician or even that I did an extremely close reading of Kennedy's "Evolution of General Rhetoric," but my natural intuition is to basically reject almost everything he said about rhetoric.
First of all, Kennedy predicates all of his theses on the assumption that rhetoric is some kind of "energy," whether the physical energy of speaking the words or the emotional energy motivating the speaker. However, Kennedy does not do a good job establishing this premise of energy, simply giving a few examples and explanations. In general, the majority of Kennedy's theses and thoughts on rhetoric are relatively contrary to the traditional sense of rhetoric, so one might think it would be important to establish the foundation of rhetoric as "energy" well before building upon it. The idea of rhetorical "energy" in itself is an interesting theory, but when Kennedy tries to legitimize it with examples from "animal rhetoric," that is when he begins to lose me.
Somehow, Kennedy makes the jump from rhetoric to mean the basis of all communication, when the traditional sense of rhetoric would likely fall under the umbrella of communication. There are clearly ways to communicate beyond vocal noises -- touch or movement or what have you. Although the thesis of "rhetoric is prior to speech" may be an idea to explore, Kennedy's reasoning of seeing it in animal communication doesn't do a good job of establishing it as a thesis.
Even disregarding the entire animal rhetoric and rhetorical energy points, I also cannot accept Kennedy's second thesis: "the receiver's interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker's intent in determining the meaning." Kennedy does not, at all, persuasively establish the truth of this theory. Again, it is something interesting that could be explored, but not with the examples of songbirds. It is difficult for me to accept Kennedy's ideas that the most basic response without intent or belief is the most prevalent thing in rhetoric and communication. After taking a philosophy of language class, it's clear that language and communication is extremely complex, and the speaker's meaning has a lot to do with the meaning of a phrase of language.
Even assuming that Kennedy is speaking about emotion as a base response to rhetoric or the energy of emotion as the basis of rhetoric, he neither proves nor argues well for the most fundamental principles of his theories. Generally, he doesn't touch on emotion much. Although there may be insights to be drawn from animal communication, suffice it to say that it is probably a stretch to apply the observations of animal "rhetoric" to the full level of human rhetoric, which includes such intricate and complex parts as invention, memory, delivery, arrangement, and style. Perhaps I missed the point, but animal rhetoric just doesn't have that much bearing on human rhetoric as I know it.
First of all, Kennedy predicates all of his theses on the assumption that rhetoric is some kind of "energy," whether the physical energy of speaking the words or the emotional energy motivating the speaker. However, Kennedy does not do a good job establishing this premise of energy, simply giving a few examples and explanations. In general, the majority of Kennedy's theses and thoughts on rhetoric are relatively contrary to the traditional sense of rhetoric, so one might think it would be important to establish the foundation of rhetoric as "energy" well before building upon it. The idea of rhetorical "energy" in itself is an interesting theory, but when Kennedy tries to legitimize it with examples from "animal rhetoric," that is when he begins to lose me.
Somehow, Kennedy makes the jump from rhetoric to mean the basis of all communication, when the traditional sense of rhetoric would likely fall under the umbrella of communication. There are clearly ways to communicate beyond vocal noises -- touch or movement or what have you. Although the thesis of "rhetoric is prior to speech" may be an idea to explore, Kennedy's reasoning of seeing it in animal communication doesn't do a good job of establishing it as a thesis.
Even disregarding the entire animal rhetoric and rhetorical energy points, I also cannot accept Kennedy's second thesis: "the receiver's interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker's intent in determining the meaning." Kennedy does not, at all, persuasively establish the truth of this theory. Again, it is something interesting that could be explored, but not with the examples of songbirds. It is difficult for me to accept Kennedy's ideas that the most basic response without intent or belief is the most prevalent thing in rhetoric and communication. After taking a philosophy of language class, it's clear that language and communication is extremely complex, and the speaker's meaning has a lot to do with the meaning of a phrase of language.
Even assuming that Kennedy is speaking about emotion as a base response to rhetoric or the energy of emotion as the basis of rhetoric, he neither proves nor argues well for the most fundamental principles of his theories. Generally, he doesn't touch on emotion much. Although there may be insights to be drawn from animal communication, suffice it to say that it is probably a stretch to apply the observations of animal "rhetoric" to the full level of human rhetoric, which includes such intricate and complex parts as invention, memory, delivery, arrangement, and style. Perhaps I missed the point, but animal rhetoric just doesn't have that much bearing on human rhetoric as I know it.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Smith and Hyde: sinners altogether or just one sinner?
Smith and Hyde have a very in-depth and compelling reading of Aristotle's argument about emotions and also Heidegger's idea of "Dasein." I think, for the most part, I agree with both of what they say about Aristotle and the importance of emotions and how to appeal to the pathe within an audience, as well as Heidegger's arguments that there is no "alone" without a "Being-with-one-another." Smith and Hyde's argument, it seems, is to say that the two ideas of Aristotle (emotion is fundamental to the human's sensibility) and Heidegger (the idea that all people are in some way connected to a group, or "the public") are connected with one another. That is, a rhetor can more easily appeal to the pathe within an audience if he can appeal to the mindset of the "public" as opposed to just a single individual.
In order to show this, Smith and Hyde give the example of Jonathan Edward's famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." They establish that Edwards used the rhetorical tool of identification to get the audience, his congregation, to identify with the mass of people that Edwards was directing his sermon to, that they are all in the same boat. Edwards basically says that not one of the people in the congregation is far from the fury of God's wrath. Then, after establishing them as the "public" or the mass, he can use imagery and appeal to Aristotle's pathe to instill fear, misery, hopelessness, and eventually move them to action. Smith and Hyde say that this appeal to the pathe is more effective because Edwards was able to get the individuals in the audience to all identify as one body or situation.
Though it may be true that in some cases, having the empathy of many other people is a powerful tool in evoking emotions, I'm not sure if this is always the case. I can think of many cases where evoking the emotions in a single individual may be more efficient than using the power of identification to make the person feel that he must do it as a part of the public. Take the example of sinners repenting to an angry God, for instance. Using Aristotle's criteria to evoke emotions, I could possibly be more effective in establishing an individual's sinfulness and evoking those same emotions simply by using Aristotle's criteria and knowing the circumstances from which the person would come. A drug addict may feel guilty about his drug use, and therefore be more compelled to change than from some generic sermon addressed at a congregation of other non-drug users. The same goes for the adulterer or thief or cheater. In these cases, appealing to the pathe in the circumstances of an individual would seem more effective than a generic address towards a public.
Now, I may be understanding Smith and Hyde's argument wrong, or perhaps they are not making as bold a claim as to say that evoking the emotions in a public is always more effective, but I think it's worthwhile to think about the individual appeal to someone's emotions than just the public. Edwards, however, was able to establish to his entire congregation that they were on the brink of Hell, and therefore a great change came about from his speech. Perhaps if the rhetor is able to make the congregation feel a certain emotion to an intense enough level, there will be a great empathy and unification of emotion. That is, most likely, when great and profound movements begin from the words of a powerful rhetor.
In order to show this, Smith and Hyde give the example of Jonathan Edward's famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." They establish that Edwards used the rhetorical tool of identification to get the audience, his congregation, to identify with the mass of people that Edwards was directing his sermon to, that they are all in the same boat. Edwards basically says that not one of the people in the congregation is far from the fury of God's wrath. Then, after establishing them as the "public" or the mass, he can use imagery and appeal to Aristotle's pathe to instill fear, misery, hopelessness, and eventually move them to action. Smith and Hyde say that this appeal to the pathe is more effective because Edwards was able to get the individuals in the audience to all identify as one body or situation.
Though it may be true that in some cases, having the empathy of many other people is a powerful tool in evoking emotions, I'm not sure if this is always the case. I can think of many cases where evoking the emotions in a single individual may be more efficient than using the power of identification to make the person feel that he must do it as a part of the public. Take the example of sinners repenting to an angry God, for instance. Using Aristotle's criteria to evoke emotions, I could possibly be more effective in establishing an individual's sinfulness and evoking those same emotions simply by using Aristotle's criteria and knowing the circumstances from which the person would come. A drug addict may feel guilty about his drug use, and therefore be more compelled to change than from some generic sermon addressed at a congregation of other non-drug users. The same goes for the adulterer or thief or cheater. In these cases, appealing to the pathe in the circumstances of an individual would seem more effective than a generic address towards a public.
Now, I may be understanding Smith and Hyde's argument wrong, or perhaps they are not making as bold a claim as to say that evoking the emotions in a public is always more effective, but I think it's worthwhile to think about the individual appeal to someone's emotions than just the public. Edwards, however, was able to establish to his entire congregation that they were on the brink of Hell, and therefore a great change came about from his speech. Perhaps if the rhetor is able to make the congregation feel a certain emotion to an intense enough level, there will be a great empathy and unification of emotion. That is, most likely, when great and profound movements begin from the words of a powerful rhetor.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Nussbaum and Walker: Reasoning with Katharsis.
Nussbaum and Walker both make a similar argument towards Aristotle's system of rhetoric -- emotions are intricately tied in with reason. However, they go about emphasizing emotion in different ways. Nussbaum argues that every emotion we have is centered on certain beliefs. Walker, on the other hand, argues the the emotional foundation precedes our reasoning. I'd like to explore more of Walker's ideas, especially what he says about emotional katharsis.
Walker begins his argument with an exposition on katharsis, first introducing it through its role in music. Katharsis, as Walker explains, is a kind of "purgation" or "purification"; when we hear music, we respond to it with some kind of emotional release. For example, in horror movies, we know that something bad is about to happen if we hear some kind of dissonance or tension in the music, and we have an automatic reaction anticipating something fearful.
Walker also gives us the analogy of medical katharsis, where some kind of pharmakon or remedy would cause medial katharsis, or a releasing of the bad "juices" in a sick person. However, emotional katharsis isn't a purging of negative emotions only -- it is simply a "forcing out" of certain emotions. In order to appeal to these pathé or emotions in a person, the rhetor uses the tool of rhetoric to "force out" these emotions.
Walker states his argument as such: basically all reasoning is pathetic reasoning, and rhetoric is meant to guide such reasoning by appealing to the emotions -- rhetoric is simply the pharmakon to cause emotional katharsis. He also says that this was not Aristotle's intention, who would have much rather preferred to have reason reign supreme over any of the emotions. Inevitably, however, emotions are our foundation of reasoning, our quickest and basest response to the things around us.
I thought that this was an interesting and new way to look at Aristotle's Rhetoric, or pathetic appeals at all. We generally have the modern view that emotions are irrational and should be discarded in our reasoning, but it makes sense that emotions are the foundation of our reasoning. Perhaps they are not always right or appropriate, but we respond in these physiological and psychological ways for a reason; perhaps our body and brain work faster than our consciousness. Before we can say, "Oh, there is a masked man standing next to me with a big knife... I think I should be scared," our body does the work for us with a knee-jerk reaction of fear and panic. The brain has already processed it: run for your life.
Rhetoric has such a bad rap as a manipulating and persuasive tool used by bad people to make the masses do what they want. People are right to be afraid: if an effective rhetor has the ability to raise up emotional katharsis in people, that rhetor can control an audience's base reactions. That is likely why Walker also talks about an ethical approach to this idea of emotional katharsis; the rhetor must be responsible with how he uses his pharmakon of rhetoric, just like a doctor must be responsible with how he administers medicine to his patients. This is perhaps a topic for another day. For now, I think that we can agree that emotion is intimately tied in with any type of reasoning or reaction that we have. Whether it is a good or bad thing, depends wholly on the situation and the rhetor.
Walker begins his argument with an exposition on katharsis, first introducing it through its role in music. Katharsis, as Walker explains, is a kind of "purgation" or "purification"; when we hear music, we respond to it with some kind of emotional release. For example, in horror movies, we know that something bad is about to happen if we hear some kind of dissonance or tension in the music, and we have an automatic reaction anticipating something fearful.
Walker also gives us the analogy of medical katharsis, where some kind of pharmakon or remedy would cause medial katharsis, or a releasing of the bad "juices" in a sick person. However, emotional katharsis isn't a purging of negative emotions only -- it is simply a "forcing out" of certain emotions. In order to appeal to these pathé or emotions in a person, the rhetor uses the tool of rhetoric to "force out" these emotions.
Walker states his argument as such: basically all reasoning is pathetic reasoning, and rhetoric is meant to guide such reasoning by appealing to the emotions -- rhetoric is simply the pharmakon to cause emotional katharsis. He also says that this was not Aristotle's intention, who would have much rather preferred to have reason reign supreme over any of the emotions. Inevitably, however, emotions are our foundation of reasoning, our quickest and basest response to the things around us.
I thought that this was an interesting and new way to look at Aristotle's Rhetoric, or pathetic appeals at all. We generally have the modern view that emotions are irrational and should be discarded in our reasoning, but it makes sense that emotions are the foundation of our reasoning. Perhaps they are not always right or appropriate, but we respond in these physiological and psychological ways for a reason; perhaps our body and brain work faster than our consciousness. Before we can say, "Oh, there is a masked man standing next to me with a big knife... I think I should be scared," our body does the work for us with a knee-jerk reaction of fear and panic. The brain has already processed it: run for your life.
Rhetoric has such a bad rap as a manipulating and persuasive tool used by bad people to make the masses do what they want. People are right to be afraid: if an effective rhetor has the ability to raise up emotional katharsis in people, that rhetor can control an audience's base reactions. That is likely why Walker also talks about an ethical approach to this idea of emotional katharsis; the rhetor must be responsible with how he uses his pharmakon of rhetoric, just like a doctor must be responsible with how he administers medicine to his patients. This is perhaps a topic for another day. For now, I think that we can agree that emotion is intimately tied in with any type of reasoning or reaction that we have. Whether it is a good or bad thing, depends wholly on the situation and the rhetor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)