Paper

 

The Patriot

Directed by: Roland Emerich

Samantha Wolfgang

Advanced Composition

  Preface

            When at first faced with this assignment I had a very broad scope as to where I could take the conversation to further the rhetoric that we had spoken about before. What I was really interested in was how rhetoric works a source of persuasion. This sort of persuasion is seen in wars. Unfortunately I did not have the ability to actually see how that persuasion works in real life. So I scoped out a few movies that I thought I could compare. My choices were all Mel Gibson movies starting with Braveheart, The Patriot, and We Were Soldiers. After watching The Patriot I realized that this topic was too broad and time consuming.

            So I narrowed my topic. I know that there are some wars that were necessary. The revolutionary was necessary for the freedom of the American people. Although at that time we were not considered a nation this war did bring the idea of a nation. I also found out that this movie of the revolutionary war was very controversial it is a war many directors preferred not to portray. Critics had many problems with this movie. Also there was a complete conversation outside of the movie as to the attitudes towards the French and then the attitude towards slavery. Most importantly about this movie there is the spoken versus the unspoken attitude of the characters. Some characters choose their actions to show their attitude towards the war rather than speaking out. Women were not supposed to speak out in this time period so the characters of this movie are portrayed in that way. This conversation about whether or not it is better to talk or better to show with actions is better is very interesting to me so I wanted to spend a lot of time on that.

            All this came together for me and required a good amount of research and insight to portray both what I understood and what others had tried to show. Hopefully I covered enough to add to the conversation and to give an insight into this controversial movie.

  The Story of the Patriot

                In the beginning of the story we are introduced to Benjamin Martins family. He is a widow with seven children; he owns a plantation, in South Carolina, which he pays freed slaves to work for him. The movie opens with him saying “I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me and the cost is more than I can bear.” Such as strong opening is justifiable as the director takes you through the movie it becomes clear as to what sins he is paying for and the cost which is more than he can bear sometimes. The sins he speaks of, which I will expound on later, are the deeds he had done in the French and Indian War during the battle at Fort Wilderness.

            After showing the family receiving letters from a postman they are called away to Charlestown. This is where the Revolutionary War comes into the movie. Many people in South Carolina are upset about the Kings actions and other wrongs done to the colonies over many years. During a meeting a Charlestown Benjamin speaks out against this war and why he feels it is wrong.

            He says “If you mean by ‘patriot’ am I angry about taxation without representation? Well, yes, I am. Should the American colonies govern themselves independently? I believe that they can and they should. But if you’re asking me am I willing to go to war with England then the answer is most definitely no.”  Benjamin even tries to argue with them about trying other alternatives with the king rather than going to war. Colonel Burwell tells him that those methods have been tried. He says to Benjamin “I was at Bunker Hill. The British advanced three times. We killed 700 at point-blank range and still they took the ground. That is the measure of their resolve.” So war is the last resort to end this conflict. Benjamin later replies about this war saying “But mark my words. This war will be fought not on the frontier or on some distant battlefield. But amongst us. Among our homes. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes. And the innocent will die with the rest of us. I will not fight. And because I will not fight, I will not cast a vote that will send others to fight in my stead.”  Captain Burwell then confronts him about his principles. To which Benjamin tells him “I’m a parent. I haven’t got the luxury of principles.” This beginning scene is the ground work for the rest of the movie. Shortly after this speech the levy is passed, and South Carolina goes to war. Benjamin’s oldest son Gabriel signs up to join the war and goes off to fight.  Charlestown is then taken by the British two years later. Many left the town and moved to outside plantations.

            Then we see how Benjamin joins the fight. His oldest son Gabriel returns home badly wounded and a battle happens outside of the home. The family takes care of all of the soldiers from both sides. Colonel Tavington, the bad guy on the British side, comes along and burns the home, and kills all of the colonist army wounded. He then burns the home because they were harboring the enemy of the British. Then he takes Gabriel to be hanged because of the dispatch he was carrying. Thomas the younger brother then is shot for getting in the way. All of these actions turn Benjamin into a fighter. He kills 20 men who were taking his son to be hanged. He uses muskets and a tomahawk he used in the French and Indian War. Gabriel is then saved from being hanged but goes back to join the army. Benjamin does the same and he becomes a Colonel in the militia. The rest of the children go to stay with their Aunt Charlotte.

            Because Benjamin killed all those men to save his son he becomes what is known as the ghost of the movie. Colonel Tavington wants to hunt down and kill this ghost. He uses very brutal tactics during the war. At first he is reprimanded by his superior Cornwallis to stop these acts. Later after Benjamin insults Cornwallis, Tavington is then asked to reinstate these tactics focusing on the ghost. The French also are in this. At the end of the movie it is the French that help to win the war. During the movie when Benjamin Martin is asked to keep Cornwallis in the south by using militia he is aided by a Frenchman, Major Jean Villeneuve. The French have promised to send ships and 10,000 troops to help. Benjamin keeps Cornwallis in the south by using guerilla warfare. They hide in crops, swamps, and behind trees; they jump out and shoot at the redcoats rather than facing them in an open field.

            When Benjamin and his son Gabriel recruit the militia the men that they bring back are very different. This shows the difference in their opinion of the war. Gabriel brings back higher class loyal men from a town. Benjamin finds his men in a bar. Both groups of men disdain one another but are banded together by the common enemy of the British. Benjamin even has a slave that was signed on to him. This creates an interesting dynamic within the militia that serve him and also allows to touch on the slavery aspect within this time period.

            Benjamin fights hard for the cause but he is never rewarded well for his actions. He loses both of his oldest sons. He lost his home and everything he ever owned in the beginning. It is the loss of his eldest son that spurns him on to fight in the last battle. He finds the flag that his eldest son was mending. It is the symbol of what his son fought for. His son was the symbol of a true patriot. Even Benjamin remarks to Tavington before he kills him that his son’s were the better men.

  The Smithsonian Institute

            The Smithsonian Institute helped a lot in trying to make this movie real. Dean Devlin, a partner and producer at Centorpolis, was quoted saying “Every relevant department at our production company met with the Smithsonian” (Moore, 1). Which, is completely true, everything from weapons to costumes was copied from the Smithsonian to make it look real.

            In the part of the movie where Aunt Charlotte and the children have to be hidden away from Tavington the movie had a problem of where to hide them. The Smithsonian told them of the Gullah villages that slaves hid away in. Of course the movie took its own course of action with the script about the villages. But the village idea itself was true to the history of the time.

            Actors had to be trained specifically to do some of the action within the film. Mel Gibson arrived a month early to train. He learned how to make bullets, which, he does a lot in the movie. Battle formations in the movie were all done with CG, but the Smithsonian helped a lot with how the formations should look.

            Any sane person would ask why the Smithsonian would go through so much effort to help a fictional movie. The answer is simple. “Our goal,” relates executive producer Lee Woodman, “is to look for ways to deliver our resources to new audiences through commercial media, and that includes feature film, television, live theater, radio”(Moore, 2). “Overall, Ellis thinks the filmmakers have been very responsible. “There are some things they decided because they wanted to retain part of the story. I wish they’d had a garden somewhere because it was such an integral part of the community. But things they could change–when I got here yesterday, for instance, they had animal skins turned around with the fur facing the sun. Well, the sun’s not drying the furs, it’s during the hides, so we turned them around” (Moore, 5). So there should be no problems with the plot and how people are represented if there is help from the Smithsonian Institute. Right?

  Problems with the Critics

            Many problems arose with the depiction of certain things within the movie. One of the problems arose with the way that the British were depicted. The depiction of them even caused problems with showing the movie in England. Colonel Tavington is a very brutal character within the movie. He orders that no quarter shall be given, he burns homes, takes away freed slaves, and targets specific families of the militia to try to get the ghost to come out. All of these brutal actions are not a direct opinion of the British. No movie is successful without a good villain. This one just turns out to be a British Colonel.

            There are other British soldiers within the movie that are sympathetic and try not be so brutal. In the beginning of the movie one of the British officers thanks Benjamin for taking care of the wounded. It is only when Colonel Tavington showed up that the cruelties unfolded. When walking away the British officer looks sad of the cruelties that he allowed to happen. Unfortunately if he would have spoken out against Tavington he probably would have been shot.

            Even Cornwallis himself is a good leader until Tavington fools with him. Tavington takes 18 of Martin’s men telling Cornwallis that they are criminals not prisoners of war. After the exchange and Cornwallis is made a fool, he then tells Tavington to reinstate the brutal tactics that before he frowned upon. Loyalists are even put in a bad light when the church is burned with people in it. Captain Wilkins burns the church. He is told that the end will justify the means. At least he shows remorse for his actions. Colonel Tavington never shows that he regrets any of the evil things he has done.

            Another problem was the fact of slavery not being covered the way it should have been. Although that is not what the story was about. The story line was about the Revolutionary war and for that story it was completely true. There is a slave Occam who wins his freedom at the end of the war which is partly true to the times. Also the African Americans did not fight as equals with white people again until the Korean War. So slavery should not cause such a big issue when the movie played true to the times.

   Problems with the French

Benjamin: “Trust the French” 

Jean: “Yes trust the French. Where else do I get the opportunity to kill a few Redcoats? Perhaps a few wounded ones when you are not looking.”

            It is true that the French needed to be trusted, because they pretty much saved us when we needed it. If it had not been for the French we would have lost the war. Jean the Frenchmen in the film brings home the reality of the fact that as Americans we needed to put aside our prejudices and fight together. He is also a character that brings humor into the movie. At the end in the last battle he comes out of the tent dressed very well. He then says to Benjamin that:

Jean: “If I die I will die well dressed.” 

            Well fortunately he does not die within the movie. He does bring home to Americans the truth about the war. He fights along side of Benjamin even though not too long before this there was the French and Indian War. Any normal person or group would hold a grudge. The French did not. Jean fights with Benjamin in every battle and comes back to fight when he was told he could leave. This shows that the French were truly our allies during this war.

            The feelings are mixed now about the French. A lot of things have happened throughout history to cause mistrust between America and France.  It is hard to say what exactly Americans feel towards the French, because we are such a mixed nation. We have people here from around the world that bring their own prejudices, so it is harder to say whether or not we like or dislike the French.

  What is Said versus the Unspoken

            There is always a question whether or not a war is what is needed to solve the problem. Sometimes though there are things that are worth fighting for. Freedom is one of those things that is said to be worth fighting for. During a time of war some speak out, others prefer to keep quiet, and some only speak when it is time for words. In the case of women in this time period they were expected to keep their mouths shut. Anne Howard though does speak up about how only a true patriot does not just stop at words but acts upon his or her beliefs.

                “Dan Scott barely a week ago you railed for two hours about independence. Mr. Hardwick, how many times have I heard you speak of freedom at my father’s table? Half the men in this church, including you, Father, and you, reverend, are as ardent patriots as I. Will you now, when you are needed most, stop at only words? Is that the sort of men you are? I ask only that you act upon the beliefs of which you have so strongly spoken, and in which you so strongly believe.” – Anne

            She gave this speech when Gabriel was trying to recruit men for the militia. On a side note he does fall in love with her because of this speech. It is true though that actions are better than words. Like I said before Gabriel is the true patriot of this film because he acts out on his beliefs he fights in the war because he believes in what the war stands for. He is quoted saying to Occam:

Gabriel: “Don’t listen to them. If we win this war a lot of things will change…They call this the New World. It’s not. It’s the same as the old. But we’ll have a chance to build a new world. A world where all men are created equal under God.”

            Occam must have believed this because he stayed in the war. This was not his only motivation within the movie he is promised his freedom if he serves a year in the army. He serves for more than a year. When a white middle class man in the militia remarks on this he says:

Dan: “It’s October now.”

Occam: “I know.”

Dan: “It’s more than 12 months. You’re a free man.”

Occam: “I’m here now on my own accord.”

Dan: “I’m honored to have you with us. Honored.”

            This is an amazing scene since Dan throughout the movie has very negative feelings towards Occam. But I guess when a man saves your life and stays in a battle that he does not have to fight in, that changes the attitudes of people. It is good to see these two characters bond at the end of the movie. This bond I think shows the promise that the future may hold.

            Silence in this movie among the characters often poses a problem. Benjamin Martin for example is very quiet about his past in the French and Indian War. He tries to keep it quiet from his older son. Until one day his son confronts him about it. The director had a choice of either showing Benjamin doing the actions or having him tell his story. Luckily he made the choice of having Benjamin tell his story. The scene shows more about how Benjamin feels now about his actions within his voice you get this sense of regret. The scene plays out as such:

Gabriel: “Father. Wherever we go men always buy you drinks because of what happened at Fort Wilderness. Strangers know more about you than I do. Tell me what happened.

Benjamin: “Your mother asked me that question around about the time you were born. I was drunk and foolish enough to answer it. [pauses] The French and the Cherokee had raided along the Blue Ridge. The English settlers had sought refuge at Fort Charles. By the time we got there, the fort was abandoned. They’d left about a week before. But what we found was… They’d killed all the settlers, the men, with the women, and some of the children they had… We buried them all, what was left of them. We caught up with them at Fort Wilderness. We took our time. We cut them apart slowly. Piece by piece. I can see their faces. I can still hear their screams. All but two, we let them live. We placed their heads on a pallet and sent them with the two that had lived, back to Fort Ambercon. The eyes, tongues, fingers, we put in baskets. Sent them down the Asheulot to the Cherokee. Soon after, the Cherokee broke their treaty with the French. That’s how we justified it. We were heroes.”

Gabriel: “And men bought you drinks.”

Benjamin: “Not a day goes by where I don’t ask God’s forgiveness for what I did.”

            His actions show a lot of remorse. His feelings towards God and religion are repeatedly brought to light. In the end of the film after he loses his sons and the war is over. He seems to come to peace with his demons. Some others are not so lucky. John a man in the militia does not know how to deal with his losses. This scene in the movie is unforgettable for me. Tavington attacks John’s family. Tavington burn’s this man’s house, kills his wife, and his little boy. John is completely grief stricken in the entire scene he does not say one word he merely looks around wildly. As he starts for his horse with his gun in hand he is told that he should mourn and not look for vengeance. With tears streaming down his face he turns towards the militia and puts the gun to his head and fires. His grief was so great that he didn’t even have to use words to express it. As a viewer I felt shocked but I understood that the pain was too great for him to bear.

            Susan Benjamin’s daughter plays a middle ground between these two men. She does not speak throughout most of the film. Her actions speak louder than her words could. But at one point and time she is forced to speak so that she can get her point across. Benjamin is leaving to go back to the army. Susan disapproves of his choice. She tries the silent treatment when that does not work she screams and cries when he is riding away.

            Benjamin “Goodbye, Susan. Goodbye? Just one word is all I want. Alright.

            Susan: [silent]

            Benjamin: [gets on horse and starts to ride away]

            Susan: [running and crying towards him] “Papa! Papa, don’t go I’ll say anything! Please, Papa. I’ll say anything. Tell me what you want me to say I’ll say anything. I promise, Papa. Please don’t go.

            Benjamin: [comes back, gets off horse and hugs his daughter] “I promise. I’ll come back. I’ll come back. Do you believe me? You know you make me very happy.

            I still do not know which is better, to speak, or to act. All I know is that humans are called forth to do both. Sometimes one just works better than the other to accomplish the means. So it all comes down to a person’s personal choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Glancy, Mark “The war of independence in feature films: The Patriot (2000) and the ‘special relationship’ between Hollywood and Britain.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio & Television 25.4 (2005): 523-545. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.

Moore, Lucinda “Capturing AMERICA’S Fight for Freedom. (Cover story).” Smithsonian 31.4 (2000): 44. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.

The Patriot. Dir. Roland Emmerich. Perf. Mel Gibson, Jason Isaacs, Heath Ledger. DVD.

Notes: all pictures were taken from the movie of the patriot.

 

Beginning of final Project

Whether or not we’d like to believe it, each of us are influenced by the advertising industry every day. Multiple things such as television, radio, and magazines are bombarding our senses with almost anything imaginable. As we have seen on The Persuaders, the advertising industry is a multibillion dollar business, whose main goal is to persuade us to buy things through all sorts of techniques.  Luntz was even able to outline these techniques, which will almost surely work on the American people. One of the topics that have caught my attention is the ever growing diet industry. I know while watching our favorite TV shows, we are all witness to the commercials with companies and diet pills promising amazing results of weight loss. Even going through a magazine, weight loss advertisements and pictures of unattainable bodies are constantly thrown at us. Now, it is true that America is at a crisis with obesity being responsible for 300,000 deaths every year ( Cite). However, it is questionable whether this is the main reason so many Americans choose to go on diets and take pills. There seems to be a number of things at play.  One thing that is clear is Americans have been persuaded through claims and pictures of results and will spend their money to attempt to achieve the same results.

            Among the many fad diets such as The South Beach and Atkins diet, Jenny Craig and Weightwatchers have seemed to prosper. Both of these programs have been commercialized for many years, creating intrigue and popularity. Their use of before and after pictures has helped their campaign because it gives the public real people actually displaying results. Celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy for weightwatchers and Kirstie Alley for Jenny Craig have influenced consumers as well. These celebrities help show both the noticeable physical change and idea that these programs are for everyone regardless of social status. What makes these programs stand out from others however is that they are not just diets, but actual lifestyle changes.  Jenny Craig focuses on moderation, a balanced diet, and getting enough exercise (cite). It does not try to keep individuals in their program forever, but instead move them successfully through the program so that they develop long-term strategies for a healthy lifestyle.

Weightwatchers also promotes this idea that their success is because they are not just a diet but something that teaches people how to eat right and live healthy. They provide expert advice at meetings, where customers will be informed of the latest information on healthy lifestyles and learn practical strategies to reach goals. Confidential weigh-ins and interactive tools that help people stay on track between meetings are also offered.  To help with support, a 24 hour telephone line is available, as well online peer- support discussion groups to help you along the way.

 

 

Some more thoughts concerning research…

Based on a few of the suggestions in class, I’ve narrowed down some ideas to generate a better focus for my closing argument. I want to explore the future of mobile technology, not just the slick new looks of the devices, but the creation of new modes of connecting to the world. This includes both cellular and internet connections, which eventually will expand into mobile wireless gaming and a new method of telecommunications: WiMAx. This is a product being developed by Sprint, allowing wireless transmissions for completely mobile internet, at speeds up to 10 Mbit/s. This is the biggest disruptive technology being researched and targeted towards the future, because the company intends to offer prices based on subscription, without the need for a contractual plan. Without going to much more into this, there are other products in the making by other companies looking to launch the next disruptive technology, which is an innovation that surprises a particular market by unexpectedly  surpassing current marketed products. More to come….

 

A Few Thoughts on the Final Paper

Unfortunately, I was unable to make it to class on Wednesday, (splitting migrane), but I have made some progres on the fnal paper.

As I discussed in class on Monday I am looking at college-aged students and how persuaders and persuasuion is used. I am also looking at social networking sites as a media outlet that persuaders use to get through to college students.

I really liked the suggestions in class to go into how advertisers use pages that students can become fans as a way od advertising. It is very discrete and most of us belong to at least one or two of these pages, myself included.

I also want to go into how Facebook feeds through your interests, education, and employment status and posts ads in the right hand column related specifically to what you write. Many do not notice the use of these ads, but they are catered to your specific interests.

I think this paper could be something that I use in the future through my education and I am very excited to watch it progress.

This weekend I am hoping to complete the paper, and tweek throughout the next weeks of class till the due date.

 

feeling like hell, but posting anyhow

currently i feel like satan has punched me in the gut, and will not be in class today and i’ll leave it at that.

I’ve come to a topic for the final paper. It’s titled “Abercrombie & Fitch; Branding America’s Younger Generations. the title is clearly self-explanatory in what I will be discussing and arguing about. I primarily will focus my attention in Lippman, Bernays and the documentary, “The Persuaders.” I will focus on not only how the fashion of this national company has an effect on the nation’s younger population, but how the social and psychological norms and morals of today’s youths are influenced. I will also go in to how their advertising works, and how it is successful while also being a negative influence on todays younger people.

I start with a brief introduction of A&F Co. and its daughter companies as well as brief history to back up the argument in which I am proposing. I’ll then go into detail backing up my claims with textual information from Lippman, Bernays and “The Persuaders.”

 

…And that posted twice!  So sorry!

 

I am finally able to post to the blog!!

SO to catch up…

Here’s a couple of ideas I added to my paper.

While reading “A Propaganda Model”, written by Herman and Chomsky, my mind wandered back and fourth between the authoritative figures that control what is sent to the public, and the response the public has to the media being displayed.
Magazines in grocery stores have so many advertisements and so many pop-culture rumors flashing around; it is just so hard to believe everything they say anymore. I remember having a talk with my mom about Tom Cruise and his wife fighting about something ridiculous, and my mom telling me that it probably wasn’t true. This was in seventh grade, when I stopped reading magazines with pop-culture related stars on the covers.

Also…
It is said that “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace”(1). It is not said, however, that the mass media shares the one-hundred percent truth in these messages displayed for the public. Propaganda and advertisement, rumors and new expression of ideas are hard to decipher when the word is spread through various sources, almost like a game of ‘whisper down the lane’.

Then I started thinking about the public, and their thoughts and reactions to new information and media-fed facts.

“Working class and radical media also suffer from the political discrimination of advertisers”(16). The public can be excited, embarrassed, relieved or stressed from the mass media distribution. Depending on what is shown to the public determines the reaction from the public. Most harmful information is not addressed through the media very often, nor is it advertised as much if it can be hidden.

While reading “The Darker Side”, written by Fung, I paused while reading a reaction by Iris Marion Young. She was responding to a question asking if deliberation was a “waste of time”(53) or if it was “a counterproductive way to make decisions”(53). Throughout her answer she said “Let them do it. In general, in my opinion, the fewer the issues citizens deliberate about, the better the quality of the deliberations that they do have”(53).

I love that quote…it applies to everyday life. Most of the time, people do what they want to do first unless things that are needed to be done are put first.

Anyway, some ideas I have been toying around with for the final project float around technology, more specifically, cell phones.

I’m hoping to research the differences of lifestyles back then and now with the influence of cell phone use.

 

I am finally able to post to the blog!!

SO to catch up…

Here’s a couple of ideas I added to my paper.

While reading “A Propaganda Model”, written by Herman and Chomsky, my mind wandered back and fourth between the authoritative figures that control what is sent to the public, and the response the public has to the media being displayed.
Magazines in grocery stores have so many advertisements and so many pop-culture rumors flashing around; it is just so hard to believe everything they say anymore. I remember having a talk with my mom about Tom Cruise and his wife fighting about something ridiculous, and my mom telling me that it probably wasn’t true. This was in seventh grade, when I stopped reading magazines with pop-culture related stars on the covers.

Also…
It is said that “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace”(1). It is not said, however, that the mass media shares the one-hundred percent truth in these messages displayed for the public. Propaganda and advertisement, rumors and new expression of ideas are hard to decipher when the word is spread through various sources, almost like a game of ‘whisper down the lane’.

Then I started thinking about the public, and their thoughts and reactions to new information and media-fed facts.

“Working class and radical media also suffer from the political discrimination of advertisers”(16). The public can be excited, embarrassed, relieved or stressed from the mass media distribution. Depending on what is shown to the public determines the reaction from the public. Most harmful information is not addressed through the media very often, nor is it advertised as much if it can be hidden.

While reading “The Darker Side”, written by Fung, I paused while reading a reaction by Iris Marion Young. She was responding to a question asking if deliberation was a “waste of time”(53) or if it was “a counterproductive way to make decisions”(53). Throughout her answer she said “Let them do it. In general, in my opinion, the fewer the issues citizens deliberate about, the better the quality of the deliberations that they do have”(53).

I love that quote…it applies to everyday life. Most of the time, people do what they want to do first unless things that are needed to be done are put first.

Anyway, some ideas I have been toying around with for the final project float around technology, more specifically, cell phones.

I’m hoping to research the differences of lifestyles back then and now with the influence of cell phone use.

 

Ideas for My Final Research Project

SO, I’ve been tossing around a bunch of ideas lately on how to approach my research. I know I want to study the impact of various technology to the overall communication of humanity, I’m just not sure which I would like to focus more on. Mobile media (mostly cell phones) seems to be the the one device I’ve been finding the most information on, while probably bring the most relevant to our generation. The industry is booming, and I’ve found it to have the strongest detriment to the communication of people. I for one feel as if society is becoming far too reliant on this form of communication, and as a result, we are sacrificing our cognitive abilities to socially identify with others outside of these microwave transmissions. More to come…

 

Parameters for final research project

Hey all,

I thought I would post what I wrote up on the board today so that it was easy to reference in the days ahead.

Recall first that the metaphor we are using is that of a dinner table, or conference table, or seminar table…any big table that a lot of people can sit around and eat and talk.  The table represents the conversation we’ve had over the course of the semester.  That includes everything we’ve read, everything we’ve discussed, and even things that you’ve thought about in relation to this class.

Your final research paper is what you are bringing to the table at the end of the semester.  Here are the parameters for that project:

• situating yourself within the conversation
  • constructing the conversation
  • creating an opening for what you want to say
  • laying the groundwork for your project
• what are you bringing to the table?
  • how is what your looking into relevant to the conversation?
  • why should others pay attention and engage?
• what is the significance or value of your contribution?
  • extend, expand, supplement, critique, resist our conversation
  • goal of continuing the conversation

See you all on Monday!

 

Say Anything: Admit It!!!

Here is the link. I love this song. It speaks to levels of rhetoric and hypocrisy.

—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdlzATLsQmA

~Enjoy

 

Response to Ohailindsay’s CHOMSKY

I only skimmed one part. And that was the band part. Your take on NOFX, Bad Religion, etc. They focus on what hovers in our culture. I found a band, SAY ANYTHING, that poses the greatest song I’ve listened to this fall. I will post the lyrics, maybe a Youtube link on my next post.

 

Chomsky Response

In the song “Franco Un-American”, NOFX singer Fat Mike sings, “And now I can’t sleep from years of apathy/All because I read a little Noam Chomsky.” After reading a little Chomsky, I have a better understanding of how Fat Mike was feeling.

Chomsky points out that the government and big businesses control our media. They are working together to censor what we see, hear, and read. They use their power for agenda setting and force their views upon us.

The media are our biggest influence. We all watch TV, read magazines and newspapers, and we all listen to the radio of pod-casts. There’s no way of avoiding mass media. Chomsky states, “Perhaps the more important, powerful sources regularly take advantage of media routines and dependency to “manage” the media, to manipulate them into following a special agenda and framework.” So the fact that the government and big business have the most control over our most powerful influences is down right scary. The government’s regulation of the media, I understand to a point, but realizing how deep their control really goes is unsettling.

Chomsky’s goal, at least to me, is to get us thinking and to get us to start questioning what is going on around us. What I don’t understand is: why don’t we start asking questions? Why do we just sit back and let apathy get the best of us? Chomsky’s only trying to open our eyes and knock some sense into our heads. He’s got the right idea, so why don’t more people listen to what he has to say?

He mentions that, generally, we listen to those we give power. We listen to those we deem to have authority over us. This includes the government, our news anchors, and other people we are told are “experts”. I think we should start choosing our own experts. We should start listening to those who the public may not pay any attention to. Being force fed information that I may or may not agree with or from a source I don’t trust is not how I’m going to live my life.

To me, the most influential voices come from the bands that I listen to. My life revolves around music, so this makes total sense, to me at least. These are my “experts”. I trust them to not steer me wrong and to get me thinking about things in ways that may have never occurred to me. They put things into perspective and make as relatable as possible.

I listen to bands like Anti-Flag, NOFX, Bad Religion and Against Me! (just to name a few) who all challenge what  is going on around them. They write about the control of big business and the government. They sing about freedom of speech and standing up for what you think is right. They are my inspiration and are my motivation. They provoke us, like Chomsky, to start thinking about the world and how things are ran.

Bands like these give a voices to those who might not have thought they had one or were to scared to speak up. Chomsky writes, “The media not only suspend critical judgment and investigative zeal, they compete to find new ways of putting the newly established truth in a supportive light. Themes and facts—even careful and well-documented analyses—that are incompatible with the now institutionalized theme are suppressed and ignored.”  What has to be done is to stop this from happening.  Truth shouldn’t be suppressed and ignored. That’s what these bands are trying to do: keep the truth out in the open for everyone to see and hear.

It’s our job to really start listen to what they have to say.

 

final paper thoughts

I was thinking of ideas for my final paper and I thought of an interesting idea.  Ever since we were infants we have been being bombarded with advertisements and I think it would be interesting to see how rhetoric and persuasion differs with different age groups.

 

All Text After The Persuaders Response

Get Involved or Don’t Complain
How we feel and how we act upon decisions made for us is essential to a working and affective democracy. In order to be happy with new laws instated, new taxes, or pretty much anything the government throws at us, we as a nation, need to collaborate on certain subject matters. In college we are taught that we should care about what is going on around us, for us, and to us. The article,“Deliberation’s Darker Side: Six Questions for Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge” exemplifies these views. This article discusses how and why the whole nation should get together in smaller groups to make decisions. Since we all have our own lives to deal with, it is obvious that many Americans don’t pay attention to politics. Or, they may think that their view does not matter. However, in the Kennedy election, one vote per precinct made him president and one vote brought Texas into the Union. Therefore, each and every view on a subject does matter and should be heard from.
A solution to some unheard voices in subject matters chosen by the government, is to match what Nicohlas LeMann exposed us to in the movie, The Persuaders. People from different social classes, ages, and races should be called upon to discuss certain issues. It could also be secretive for those who are on the bashful side, in that, they could write down their views, and then those views could be read aloud. If the issue is important enough to the unheard, they will speak up to the louder people with more distinctive opinions. This could be one of the only ways that the minorities, rather than the majority, can have their voices heard.
In high school, I was invited to a forum for students to discuss with administrators and the school board to discuss certain issues. As I scaled the room, I saw the “smart kids”, the “popular girls” and “the athletes.” I didn’t see any representation of Vo-Tech kids, Learning Support students, and so on. It infuriated me that the school board would make decisions regarding the Vo-Tech kids, without any of them present. If we are to learn how an affective democracy works, shouldn’t we be exposed to it as soon as possible? Furthermore, when the school board went around the room asking the students present to vote on whether or not the Vo-Tech kids should be able to miss some of their classes to watch the assemblies at school, I was the only one to speak up for the Vo-Tech kids. If the majority of the school could participate in these sometimes fun, sometimes boring assemblies, why couldn’t the Vo-Tech kids as well. I am happy to say that I helped to make a major dent in that decision, and the Vo-Tech kids were allowed to see half of the assemblies. I didn’t win completely, but at least my voice was heard, and some action was taken.
In order to get more people involved in local and national governments, people are going to need to see the actual outcome of the involvement they put forth. I think it is a good idea to make a holiday for the nation in which they decide smaller matters for local governments by people from that small town. If it is they who are affected, they should want to be involved. This is the exact problem, getting people to come to the meetings. Young and Mansbridge brought up how night meetings interfere with mothers and fathers who work during the day, and so on. That is why the holiday would work. Higher up authorities should deal with budgets and more serious problems; they should not be bothered by minute decisions that make more sense for smaller groups to decide. With the nation as it is now, hopefully people will start getting more involved in what will happen to them, their kids, and future generations. If not, slowly and surely, we will lose even the little bit of power we still have.

 

So…Anyone Wish to Discuss Options for the Final Project?

Hey, I’m descending into a black hole of writer’s block & lack of ideas surging out for this Final Project. . .

I might want to discuss possibly the psychology & effects of Rhetoric/Hegemony or something. I’m winging this blog currently so maybe we might be able to shed light on what we all want to focus on. Dont hesitate to respond! Bounce ideas, let’s get this going, this semseter should end with a bang!

 

Response to Framing, Intellect, And Propoganda

As Gramsci says, “Each man finally, outside his professional activity, carries on some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a “philosopher”, an artist, a man of taste, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is, to bring into being new modes of thought.”

 This issue stood out to me amongst all the readings in that I feel that Gramsci is on the right track of theory that every person has some sort of intellect, whether it be moral or something as simple as a preference.  Every man, believe it or not, can be categorized in some shape or form as having intellect. Intellect doesn’t necessarily have to be something that is professional or even something that is considered to be categorized under a thought based only in the workforce of the individual’s lifestyle, but instead is a thought that is made on a daily basis while making decisions that reflect the way a person moves throughout their daily routine.

              According to Gramsci, there is no such thing as a non-intellect. Therefore, intellect is present in everyone’s brain in different forms. Some people may have more than others, allowing some people to be leaning more towards the “muscular-nervous effort” that is mentioned in the text. 

            Although intellect involves all five senses of the human brain, as well as the way we react to our surroundings, the brain must also use intelligence in order to deduce the causes that the intellect overcomes within the brain. Intellect gives the human brain the perception to make the right choice but it must coincide with the intelligence in order to perform the proper activity.

            Therefore that creates different categories of intellectuals in society, regarding the amount of intelligence that one conveys and the conscience to better our own personal lives. I feel that this is easily attachable to my own life in that I have dealt with decisions where my intellect has adapted to the surroundings and processed the information but it was the verdict of my intelligence and my conscience that helped me to make the correct decision. When I was unable to make the right decision I could not entirely blame my intellect in that my intelligence is also to blame for not providing my conscience with the correct information before I had acted upon it.

            My theory on intellect is that it doesn’t work alone. It must be associated with other characteristics within the human brain in order to be carried out as an intellectual action.

            For example, let’s imagine a situation based on peer pressure that teens go through on a daily basis in society. In order to make the right decision almost immediately, teenagers must use their intellect to scope out the situation and environment as well as their intelligence and conscience in order to make the appropriate decision for their individuality. Therefore, the example shows that intellect does not work alone in regards to specific actions or circumstances.

            After reading Gramsci’s writings I realized that the way people distinguish a type of intellectual person can be altered depending on the person’s preferences. Intellects can be categorized in a variety of different groups depending on what characteristics they choose to demonstrate to the public eye. However, when an individual attempts to place themselves into a group of intellects all on their own, many times they will find that they are really just a part of another group of intellects because many intellectual people hold a lot of the same features. Therefore many intellects share a lot in common. Different traits and preferences not only separate them into groups but also tie them together in numerous ways to the society.

            I have concluded that anyone that wants to be an intellect is capable of being one. Taking the time to look at your surroundings and deducing the way you reflect yourself to others is a sufficient start in becoming what Gramsci states is an “intellect”.

 

Response to Framing, Intellectualism, & Propaganda

It seems that some people gain a marginal view of the world. Some may not face the opportunities and consequentially lose perspective when it’s too late to make a decision during an election or during some sort of overhaul of the government. The public is entitled to know what the atmosphere is offering. The concepts a private person must grasp in order to understand the betterment of society may fuel a revolutionary change in outlook from insight of such writers.

America as a whole takes pride in having democratic faith while ensuring fortitude of its scope of knowledge on how to handle it. By means of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches an ideal system in the range of this can make everything even keel. There is no right or wrong answer in my opinion to how Americans operate, as long as we are far from collapsing in morals. Incessantly working daily, the average man or woman is caught in a tight spot when it comes to participation. Communities cannot adjust by an unrelenting schedule as Archon Fung declares in his article, Deliberation’s Darker Side. I also believe communities and individuals need to correspond effectively to not overstep boundaries on turbulent issues, but to reach out and synergize as a whole to augment what needs to be accomplished as town hall meetings are the prime examples.

Iris Marion Young brings up a point from Fung’s article that “deliberations are best done by a small committee of people, equal in status and power, who have a shared set of interests.” To trim controversy and garrulous qualms, society needs to forego a service to the people that verifies the importance of what is signified. A portion of this answer may lie within the machine of mass media.

There are certain problems delving into this that may expose some flaws merely on the surface. According to Chomsky and Herman, “Working-class and radical media suffer from the political discrimination of advertisers”. I feel that the world is marketed, watched, and presented from a dense orb of hidebound officers and corporate bellwethers to the naïve working class, herded into an inevitable frame of perspective that we are entrapped by.

Yet, this must be the basis for Americans or else I feel that a Civil War of opinions and decisions could ensue. From the summit of general news released by wave of (let us say) the USA Today, a springboard is there to bestow public reaction and consumption pertinent to local news. Both are corollary to each other I see it as a mold for oratorical balance. The example that comes across would be for a classroom of students. Rather than robotically processing information given by a book (the general wave of sourced information), employing individual response for sporadic feedback and comprehension increases awareness in a student’s life.

The case mentioned might tie into the clash of opposing experts. Flipping an unmarked coin, society is compelled to identify with one side. From what I’ve read and watched, it seems that an intellectual (from either side) has instilled confidence for followers in order to carry means of innovation rather than acting dependent. A group concentrating on certain ideology has the potential to create organic thinkers, the tail end and proliferation of that one side of the intellectual coin.

 

final topic…maybe?

i am focusing on the disenchatment of individuals and what lippman has to say – focusing on how fashion retailers such as hollister and a&F co. and american eacgle, etc. effect the mental of customers and potential customers. as a customer of each retailer i will try for an unbiased and objective view for this project.

 

final paper thoughts

I’m interested in showing how rhetoric is used in movies. So many great speeches have been given in movies not only to convince the audience but to convince the others within the movie. The speeches are given to persuade others to do something. These same speeches show how long rhetoric has been around. From the movies of 300 to the movies from the renaissance up until today and into the future rhetoric is being used and will always be used. I will also try to connect it to the times that the movies took place in. I will look at some speeches given by politicians or important figures to give some real context of how rhetoric fits into our lives, especially during war time.

 

Possible Topic For Research Paper *

I’m not positive I am sticking to this topic but I have a few ideas regarding these ideas.. It may be skewed to what I am actually going to plan on writing depending on the research and the perspectives that I am able to find on this topic…

My topic will revolve around the center idea of Repetition. I want to reflect the ideas of how repetition is essential to the advertisement and marketing industry in both positive and negative ways. Repetition can be useful as well as overwhelming or even annoying to consumers. I also want to look at repetition from the eyes of the consumer and find out how majority of consumers feel about repetition being used in commercial advertising as well as a means of persuasion. Is it effective?

      I was also thinking about possibly looking at repetition from the standpoint of an average American citizen. Maybe focus parts on how repetition is used in parenting styles and how apt children as well as adults are at taking in the repeating of products or services, or in parental styles, normal activities or the ability to decipher right from wrong. I want to somehow try to reflect the professional world of repetition to the everyday lifestyles of people…

 

Thoughts on my final paper

For the final project, I am going to zoom into how a company that does not advertise on television, through billboards, or through print advertisements can be so successful. I am going to examine the different strategies Bath and Body Works has implemented to help with their success. Whether it be how they train their associates, the use of promotions, or the affordability of the products, Bath and Body Works has become a household name. Being an associate myself, I can explain how word labs and carefully chosen rhetoric are used to turn a customer from “satisfied to loyal” (This is the company’s main slogan). This also relates to how people feel a certain pride and bond with a brand. I can interview customers to see how affective Bath and Body Works associates are. In addition, I can interview higher ups and the company to see how they were trained for the job. In a sense, I am going to try to crack the Bath and Body Works code for their enormous revenue and following.

 

A Few Thoughts on the Final Project

I think the response paper went very well. I focused on the key issue of people and the role they play in persuasion and manipulation.

This idea brought me to something I think would be a good focus point for the final project. Much of the class was very interested and peeved about companies like Lexicon and how much information they take from us to decide what it is they should try and sell us. I think it would make for a good paper on how these companies came into existence, the role they play in today’s media market, and add how this is merely an extension of what the writers discussed in class focused on for centuries. There is a lot that people do not know about these companies and their functions in the cycle of persuasion, and I think  it would be something everyone would find interesting to read about. Not to mention it equally interests me to find out what I can about these companies, and see what I can uncover while researching.

 

So I Decided to Just Post My Response Draft To All Three of the Articles…

Although I found “A Propaganda Model” and “The Intellectuals” to be quite difficult to comprehend, they quickly became very important elements to our classroom conversation. After discussing the articles in class, I was able to make various connections between these two articles as well as other readings from earlier in the semester. Fung’s article also proved to forge connections between the various articles and was the easiest of the three from this grouping of readings to understand.

            I took away very specific things from each of the three articles in terms of our classroom conversation. “A Propaganda Model” outlined a model for conversation that is often used but usually ineffective. The example in class that we used dealt with left wing media and right wing media. On news shows, there is a tendency to set left wing “experts” in opposition to right wing “experts” and have them discuss current political issues. The news stations bring these opposing “experts” on their shows to support the notion that every angle of expertise is being revealed to the public. However, the general public is subsequently duped, being forced to believe that every side of the issue is being discussed. By placing the emphasis on what makes right wing media and left wing media causes the public to miss the bigger picture, the idea that issue should transcend the people discussing it. This correlates to John Stewart’s appearance on “Crossfire” in which he debunked the belief that the show was based on debate and highlighted the fact that the show actually proved to repress true debate and discussion.

            After examining Gramsci’s article more closely in class, it became much more comprehendible.  The most interesting part of this article was the idea of defining an intellectual. Gramsci argues that intellectuals are socially constructed beings. Intellectuals are simply based upon their function in society and are only as useful as the construct from which they come. A good example of this ideology is a college professor. A professor is only as important as he relates to his department. A professor of physics is of no use to the department of music. Or on an even bigger scale, a professor is of no use to someone who is not involved with college studies. I found a connection between this idea of socially constructed intellectuals and Luntz’s “taxi driver” mentality, in which he recognizes the type of people who are of use to him in his profession.

            Fung’s article poses the question of whose opinions are truly valued in society. According to Iris Marion Young, the elites are the ones who set are priorities. This does not necessarily mean that their opinions are any more valuable or of any higher worth than the average citizen, it simply means that the people in power have the upper hand in making crucial decisions. There is a distinct connection between this section of Fung’s article and “A Propaganda Model” in that both highlight the idea that those in power control the realm from which they derive. In Fung’s case this is the realm of deliberation and in Chomsky’s case it is the realm of mass media.

 

Deliberation’s Darker Side

Ahh… (sigh of relief). A more modern read, not to mention the Q&A format made for an interesting style. The reading was rather straightforward, and by the end I wasn’t quite sure what to take from it. I think one of the most relevant points that is pointed out in deliberation is the perspectives of some are pronounced far more than others, even when a diverse group exists. Opinion and bias occur simply from representation, not just stereotypes.

The part concerning people doubting “the evidence of their own senses” was almost gross. How people can be so easily, without even realizing it sometimes, persuaded to think a certain way based on the majority’s opinion, is dangerous. People continue to lose the ability to think fro themselves, and in essence, create new ideas, instead of recycling the same reconstructed ones.