Make That Change

A couple links relating to music. The first of South Korea’s version of “America’s Got Talent” where one young man shows how much music means to him and how much it has affected his life. The second are brief clips from the meeting yesterday regarding the change in schedule for the Central Bucks School District middle schools where teachers and students alike rally together to try and evoke change from within.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BewknNW2b8Y

http://doylestown.patch.com/articles/video-ef4b2bd0#video-9214970

A Postponed Blood and Lazere post

As I was reading, I recognized much of what was in both Blood and Lazere’s pieces to be in other works I had read. I am also taking a Contemporary Issues course at the same time, so I did not have the opportunity to be informed of other issues coming into this class. However, now that we are several weeks into the course, I can see a great many similarities between the readings we do. 

In Lazere’s piece, it begins by stating several rules regarding, essentially, debate and argument. One of the rules that stood out to me was the one where it states that one must accurately summarize the context of the texts and passages. Recently in my Contemporary Issues class, I read several works where the subject of the article’s story was not told in full or it was told in a manner that is false because of the author choosing to omit key facts and ideas. In case anyone does not know what pieces I am talking about, I am speaking of Karim Karim’s article “Journalism After September 11th” largely regarding terrorists, Muslims, the Islamic nations, etc. I also speak of Julia Dahl’s piece regarding what it actually means to tell someone’s story. You can tell someone’s story or you can “tell someone’s story”.

I remember discussing Blood’s piece in the first few classes of this semester. I remember that we discussed the fact that even though people are not required to write with proper grammar and impeccable spelling all the time, if one wants to be taken seriously in a conversation that they believe in online, such things are imperative. I believe I shared a brief story of how I kicked my roommate’s boyfriend’s ass on Facebook in a debate regarding many things, but including the fact that he does not type properly (without use of y, u, r, and other text talk forms) because of the fact that he does not need to and it is just faster and easier not to type out the full words. Yes. Because the .1 millisecond it will take to type in the ‘wh’ before the ‘y’ or the ‘yo’ before the ‘u’ is going to make a huge difference. In a conversation such as ours, regarding intellect or rather, his lack of thereof, his points would have been taken more seriously had he actually used proper spelling, proper capitalization, grammar, and the like. At this point, I should hope that it is clear I hold the proper use of grammar and the English language in a very high standard, and while I do agree with many people that not everyone needs to use proper English all the time, I would argue for the fact that if one wants to be taken seriously in an argument, proper English is a necessity.

More About Reading, PA

I just wanted to share The New York Time‘s article I was referring to about Reading hitting the number one charts in poverty. This issue was interesting to me since it spawns from a variety of smaller problems regarding budget cuts, educational issues, and loss of employment. I think this city needs to make some serious changes and attempts to “frame” these approaching  issues before it’s too late. Reading just reminds me of a carcass of a city that once was so aspiring for people, especially immigrants. Obviously politicians’ decisions are not doing enough for this city as it sinks further into disparity.

Here’s the article if you’re interested!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/us/reading-pa-tops-list-poverty-list-census-shows.html?pagewanted=all

Curious Fung

In Archon Fung’s article, I saw layers of Lippmann within the first few paragraphs. Fung, like Lippmann, possess the possibility, nay, the concrete fact that most people do not want to spend their time and energy in political discussions and decision making. This, I believe, makes participatory and deliberative democracy unrealistic in several facets of society. I also believe, though, that education at all levels would raise more people’s political awareness.

It also makes sense that because our country’s minorities are undereducated and underpaid, they would be excluded. Some perspectives are favored over others and dominate the political spectrum. Fung asks many questions that address  inequality, whether it be race, ethnicity, gender, or the difference between the regular citizen and the elected official. Isn’t that politics most of the time?

A way with words

One of the common threads I found between many of the readings is that the authors examine individual words and how people who are trying to actively make change use words a certain way. On Monday, many of the presentations concerned using words that not everyone would agree mean the same thing. Here is a German DJ living in America who spends more time evaluating idioms and expressions than he actually does making music. What he has to say isn’t political but he the way he examines words almost mirrors Alinsky’s way of critiquing the way we use words.

Here Flula explores the idea of a “Party Pooper”

The Political Power of Words

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-psychology-behind-political-debate/201005/the-political-power-words

This site is basically includes a lot of the things we’ve been reading about and talking about in class. In addition to our earlier discussions on the power of words, it includes jawn about framing and getting people to think a certain way just through the words you use.

Summarizing SOPA for Public Engagement

This video was created by TotalHalibut, a fairly famous Youtube-based videogame commentator and journalist. He also happens to have graduated with a law degree from a university in England.

The video shows users just how SOPA works and gives TotalHalibut’s point of view on the issue. Even though it’s not from a government expert, I found the video incredibly informative. Enjoy!

Alinsky

Well for starters, other then the rules Alinsky points out in “Tactics”, I really had a difficult time reading it just because it was so long and wordy. Some of his examples were good, like the farting example or the one about the blacks eating watermelon. My favorite rule was the first one which is power is not only what you have but what the enemy things you have.

I liked Alinsky’s “A Word About Words” because he focused alot on different words that have gained a reputation of having negative meanings, when in actuality they mean the complete oppostie of what people believe. By changing the way we use words, we take away from the meaning. I like the quote “The moment the word power is mentioned it is as though hell had been opened exuding the stench of the devil’s cesspool of courruption.” It makes me laugh because of how ridiculous it seems that people view words such as power, compromise, self-interest in such negative ways. I never really took notice to society’s views on these words till I read this article.

Alinsky- My First Enjoyed Article(s)

Finally, after many grueling hours of reading writing techniques and fighting techniques, my eyes feasted upon a writer whose style I actually admired and agreed with tenfold.

I started off reading a Word About Words and immediately the writer’s brilliance jumped off the page at me. His ability to convey a point about the power of words, using the word power itself blew my mind metaphorically and conveyed its point concretely at the same time. He stressed on the importance of perfect word use when trying to put across a point and he used a word (power) that could be seen in two different, relative, beautiful contexts.

As a writer I’ve always appreciated meaning behind specific word use and that “that word” used in “that” situation. It was put there for a reason, so changing “that” word could subtract the power or meaning in exactly what you are trying to say. Never sensor your work for those who won’t get it, or won’t deem it appropriate…write it perfectly for you.

I have disagreed and kind of just accepted the techniques the past few journalists have used for Civil Discourse just because I had to. They had good points. They had good background. And their argument…good. But in order for their argument to be great, they needed to throw everything else out and speak from the heart. Attack the other side with passion and “In your Face” style writing!

Alinsky believed in what was different. Alinsky spoke from the heart. And I applaud him for that because he stole the words right from my closed, terrified of Civil Discoursed mouth.

Joe Walters

Braun and Alinsky sitting in a tree, tossing rocks at the institutional storefronts

In Alinsky’s essay “A Word on Words,” he has great points about how language and word choice play heavily into our culture and our politics. If we begin to soften our speech and confine ourselves to a certain space in which to work, write, and think, “we begin to dilute the meaning.” Even if we did take the passion out of our language, especially in terms of politics, I wonder whether whatever changed would take place of the old, using the term “harnessing the energy” instead of power. He says, like in most things in life, we should strive for simplicity: E=mc².

Although many people think of power and immediately connect it to Machiavellian principles, there should be more consideration as to its meaning when using the word: “The power of a gun may be used to enforce slavery, or to achieve freedom. This goes for all words that usually carry negative connotation. Yes, to deny that man does not act accordingly to the principles of self-interest is to deny the true nature of man. It’s not selfishness. It’s reality.

Alinsky uses strong language that is so crisp and clear there is little room for misreading: “The moment the word power is mentioned it is as though hell had been opened, exuding the stench of the devil’s cesspool of corruption.” His language is concise and powerful to the point where no one can dispute his passion. I would not feel the same way had he chose different words.

Power is something that comes up a number of different times in “Tactics.” When he says, “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have,” I felt the hair on my arms and neck stand erect. He says that in a fight, almost anything goes. The Have-nots, it seems, have no other choice but to get down in the mud, as it were, with the Haves. His ideas on how to turn the Haves against each other are so brilliant that it seems obvious what needs to be done. A big problem, as he and I both see it, is identifying the enemy and how blame can simply be passed to the next. Focus on your target, he says, and ignore the rest of those who are responsible for the time being. Nearly fucking died laughing at the fart tactics. If gas is all you have, by all means use what you’ve got.

Braun’s analysis of the anti-democratic institutional culture functions in “Against Decorus Civilty” was very keen on the notion of free market. The way in which he brings Adam Smith’s ideas about economy in a democratic system is great. I do believe that universities should have the freedom to educate as they see fit, by which I mean the professors should have that right. A Student Bill of Rights is a fantastic idea, and now that I’ve head the idea, I think there should be one.

Unfortunately, that’s not how institutions are run. They are run like businesses in which the “academic’s ‘word’ becomes divorced from the ‘world’ in that her contribution to knowledge-making is confined to the privatized space of scholarly production.” It hits a nerve. Maybe some of Alinsky’s tactics should be employed here, huh?

True Perspective

While reading the responses of both Young and Mansbridge to the first question concerning deliberative democracy, I began to form some questions of my own. While deliberation in essence is an efficient way to come to a decision, can we trust the perspective of the public to be honest and unbiased? Thankfully, Fung addressed my concerns in the next question in more concise language, and the responses made a number of suffient arguments. My fear was more or less an imaginary circumstance which involved a room full of participants in deliberation over the issues of a local community. Being from a smaller town, I am very familiar with the fact that popular issues tend to take priority over the less popular issues. Admittedly, I may have just made the most obvious point about politics (or human nature in general), but what I was actually attempting to reach was the idea that change comes from public perspective, and group perspective is attained when power has been displaced to it.

The questioned Fung asked was basically, “what about the little guy?” I was likewise worried that while the idea of a deliberative democracy is in the interest of benefiting the little guy, it could also be equally useful in creating multiple little guys. I know that my opinion seldom stretches the limits of my roommates attention let alone the powers that be, but an individual can be made to feel awfully small pretty quickly in a town that is ruled by the influence of a popular group. Mansfield mentioned the idea of “Trained Facilitators” to ensure that the balance of consensus was fairly maintained. I agree completely with this idea. It is likely that in the instance of the small community i mentioned that consensus is usually gained through credibility, and a credible faciliator would function to ensure that something like the tenure of a lifelong townsman is not mistaken for credibility and perverted into a tool to gain influence.

Other than the importance of honest perspective, the idea of deliberative democracy is something that I find hard to disagree with. Though I know little about politics, I am aware of the way community interacts whether its a small town or an entire county. Deliberation and discussion is an excellent method of informing communities and I believe that it would promote participation which could only benefit communities.

Tactics

I thought that Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals: Tactics” was a very interesting read especially because her rules were ones that aren’t considered a fair fight. Rules like “Aim directly for the person by insulting them,” and “Wherever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat” are things they teach you not to do. Alinsky seems to have perfected the art of winning and in my opinion as long as you win,it doesn’t matter how you get there.

To switch over to his article on words, I feel like we think about words to much which is why over time certain words such as “power” become scary and effective tools in an argument. The two articles work well together because one tells you which words to use and what meanings they can have while the other tells you what situtations to use them in.

Fung

I really really enjoyed reading this article.  While I’m definitely interested in the topic it is sad but important to say that I know very little about the topics that are at hand.  It was very interesting to see what both Iris Marion Young and Jane Mansbridge had to say in response to Archon Fung’s questions.  I particularly appreciated the fact that they mentioned that not everyone does have time to fully partake in a democratic society and offered possible solutions to aid these problems.  Another thing I really appreciated in this article was the mention on page 49 by Mansbridge, “It’s crazy to have all of these “patriotic” holidays and nothing that celebrates, and facilitates, the practice of democracy itself”.  Although I did not agree with a few things she had to say this was definitely not one of them.  For example, Columbus day, what’s all that nonsense about?  We should be learning how to gain control over the things that are happening to us not celebrating the coming of some man who may or may not have slaughtered and raped countless amounts of people.  Overall though, great article.

Braun, Fung, and Alinsky

About these readings…I was trying to analyze them at midnight last night so my head wasn’t exactly functioning properly at that point. A lot of what we read went in one ear and out the other, but I was able to focus my attention, at least in part, on the MJ Braun article, “Against Decorous Civility.” I thought the subtitle was interesting “Acing as if You Live in a Democracy”. It seemed almost snide and satirical in a way, in that is felt as though it was asking, “Do you mean the lack of read impace we can make in our society?” It reminded me of one of the articles we had read either last class or two classes ago in which one of the messages the author was trying to convey was that, as an individual, we cannot make a difference. This article is saying something similar, though I feel as though it is insinuating more than even as a collective group, there is little we can do against those in power. Something in the article I found ti back that point up is on page 139 where it states an example that “the dean on liberal arts ordered the postponement of this course [a course that would require students to ‘read and writer critically about difference in the context of antidiscrimination law and discrimination lawsuits’”. The author criticizes this act as cowardly and merely an attempt to protect the university instead of allow both student and professors alike a kind of course they would be interested in. I found this also relating to one of Alinsky’s articles that talked about things like ego, self-interest, power, etc. This move seemed to give fuel to the negative aspect of “self-interest”, as it was done in the self-interest of people who, to my sleep-deprived mind, seemed afraid of the consequences should students learn more about these discrimination laws.

Fung’s article was too dense and a bit difficult to sift through what with two different people voicing their opinions in no clearly defined way. Italicizing something does not count as making a distinct definition between three different speakers. Therefore, I won’t even make an attempt at Fung’s.

In many aspects I agreed with  Alinsky’s first article “A Word About Words” and in many aspects I disagreed with it. Alinsky claims that the words “power”, “self-interest”, “compromise”, “conflict”, and “ego” are words with bad connotations. While this is true for the reasons that Alinsky gives along with many others, I disagree in that power does not necessarily mean corruption, self-interest is not a bad thing, the world cannot exist without compromise (ex. if neither the US nor the USSR would have made the COMPROMISE that they would not resort to nuclear war, the entire would, or at least most of it, would have become a nuclear wasteland), conflict is part of our everyday lives that makes it interesting, and the word “ego” does have to mean that you have a big head…although for some that is true. The word “ego” in Latin, means “I” as in referring to oneself. Ego, in psychology terms, also is the logical self, the organized self, the self that provides a voice of reason midst the chaos of our world. If “ego” is really as bad as Alinsky makes it out to be, then well shoot. I guess we can throw logic out the window, now can’t we? On a side note, on page 51 of this same article, in the “power” section of her article, Alinsky states how “it is unacceptable in our present Madison Avenue deodorized hygiene, where controversy is blasphemous and the value is being liked and not offending others”. I took this to mean that Alinsky is suggesting that we live in a flowery world (the deodorant) where everything is sugar-coated (the not offending others part). I feel as though this is both an accurate and inaccurate description of our society today as we do sugar-coat a great deal of what we hear about through the media, papers, etc. It is either that or we have become so desensitized to the controversy and the insults that it does not even phase us anymore.

The very last paragraph of this article is made up of a reference to music, and as something who is deeply involved in music, it is a reference I understand very well. Alinsky states that “conflict is the essential core of a free and open society. If one were to project the democratic way of life in the form of a musical score, its major theme would be the harmony of dissonance”. In other words, Alinsky is saying that if we were to take the democratic way of life (OUR way of life) and but it into musical terms, there would be a shitload of dissonance. Dissonance for those who are unaware, is when musical notes clash with each other to create a sound that is, generally, displeasing to the ears. In other words, our way of life is extremely dissonant, chaotic, and disjunct. it is a wonder how we’ve been able to survive in such a way for so long. No wonder the French kept having revolutions and overthrowing their governments. Democracy, while better than a dictatorship and communism, still kinda sucks.

A lackluster response to Luntz and Civil Disobedience

Even though I was intrigued by the points posed in both of the articles, I don’t find myself so moved to respond as I did with Bernays or Blood.

Why?  I can’t really say.

It was interesting to think of how ineffective civil disobedience can be in a totalitarian society.  If a strong, violent response to a questioning of authority is the norm, then when a protest is put down no one will think much of it.

On the other hand, if a democratic society puts down an assembly of people, the public will be outraged.

In the totalitarian society, no change will occur without excessive international pressure, but in the democratic society that pressure would be felt sooner and change would come quicker.

My thoughts on Luntz were far more personal.  As a writer, I found his ten rules a great basis for “How to Write Well.”

Though they weren’t anything new to me.  In some cases, they were simply better illustrated.

Lakoff and Luntz

My favorite quote from Luntz is “It’s not about what you say, it’s about what you believe.” I really liked reading him because he was easy to understand and it was interesting. He stresses the importance of the way you use language when speaking to an audience and gives the 10 rules for effective language. As a writer myself, it gave me alot of tips and insight into how I should write when addressing an audience on an issue. I like how he began talking about being short, simple and to the point. I feel like people respond more postively to things they can easily read and understand. Just like the article we read, Luntz uses language that is easy to relate and comprehend. Brevity and simplicty really seem to be imporant factors when writing. I think it was also funny when he talked about using small words, but followed that statement with a bunch of giant words I couldn’t even pronounce.

Lakoff was also pretty easy to read and understand, even though I didn’t like him as much as Luntz. However, just like Luntz, Lakoff stresses the importance of language. He says that framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. For people to believe something, the facts they hear must fit their frame of mind, otherwise they won’t believe what you say. Lakoff says that you don’t want to use their language, but use framing to try and change the minds of people who have a set mind on certain issues.

Lakoff and Luntz

Luntz’s article spoke a lot of the same stuff I’ve been silently, subconsciously preaching ever since I started matching pen to paper.

“Your Style should never be taller than you are.”

I could write all day about a beautifully true quote like this one.

Be who you are, speak the way you speak, and illustrate answers the only way you know how…your way. You may read big scholarly articles preaching in the most complicated way possible, speaking in basically another language, and they might get nominated for “Piece of the Year” but that doesn’t make him right. That doesn’t make him the best because if you can’t understand what Mr. Egghead has to say, then he’s not the best to you. Chances are you’re not the only one who can’t read it either, so why try to be him? Mr. Egghead received “Piece of the Year” not because of his use of his large practically unreadable vocabulary, but because he explained and illustrated an answer the only way he knew how…his way. So go ahead, copy him. Copy his technique and become your own “Piece of the Year” nominee and write the only way you know how.

Following Luntz’s ten rules could be helpful to any writer, even you Mr. Egghead. From sloganists, to storywriters, to newspaper journalists, if Luntz’s rules were followed, I’d have a much easier time reading these darn science textbooks. Writing is an art, so grab your paint brush, and draw just what you see in the mirror.

Lakoff didn’t hit home in the writing department as much as Luntz did, but his analysis on what triggers the human subconscious to think was definitely worth noting. QUICK.

DON’T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT.

Impossible.

 

Joe Walters

Dimock, Lakoff, and Luntz

Regarding George Lakoff’s article, “Framing 101″, I thought it was very clever in that his definition of framing is different, at least on a certain level, than the meaning the word “framing” evokes. While we think of framing as placing the blame on someone else, Lakoff’s definition of framing is, essentially, finding the broad group of words that encompasses a given topic…and in some cases, using that frame to turn a certain person’s or party’s words against them. In Lakoff’s own words, “[f]raming is about getting language that fits your worldview”. In his article, he references one of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union addresses during the time in which he was president in which Bush says that “‘We do not need a permission slip to defend America.’” Lakoff later explains that the use of the word “permission slip” invokes an image of school in which the student who must get a permission slip from the teacher to go to the bathroom, the nurse, home, etc. By evoking the image of school and then stating that America does not need a permission slip from another country to do something gives the impression that America is better than the other country and we are going to defend our country at any cost. In the same article, it talks about the United States being “the best and most powerful country in the world” who “knows the right thing to do. [It] should not be asking anybody else”.

As a side note in the same paragraph, it talks about “rogue nations” and “friendly nations” and that every country is a metaphorical person. I see a similarity to a popular web comic. Hetalia Axis Powers? Anyone?

In Dimock’s “Civil Discourse as an Argument Form” article, I found it a bit difficult to keep all the different ideas in order so I made a brief outline about it:

Civil disobedience is described as a non-violent form of protest

• Claim

1. This is motivated by protesters’ convictions that there is an injustice

• Premises

1. A willingness to accept the consequences of their actions

• Setting

1. Includes the assumptions that must be there beforehand including the fact that some type of harm will come to the protesters and there is a common conception of justice shared by said protesters. The absence of a sense of justice essentially means that the protesters cannot appeal to those in power.

A point that is repeatedly stressed is that the protesters are willing to undergo some type of harm in order to achieve their goals.

Civil disobedience must be public and must make the argument that the injustice threatens the social contract. Dimock gives an example of student occupying labs where animal testing is being done.

Lastly, there is the fact that the audience, people who are not involved in the protest but are still watching, can make a change by seeing how far these protesters are willing to go for a cause they believe in.

In Luntz’s article, a point that spoke to me that he stressed multiple times was the fact that simplicity can often make or break an argument. He gives the example of many politicians who used fancy Harvard level words that the average person who did not attend Harvard would not know. In case you weren’t aware, Harvard is just a tad difficult to get into. Just a tad. At the very end of Luntz’s article however, he talks about an 11th point that is not included in his “Ten Rules of Effective Language”. The importance of visuals. He talks about a reporter that attempted a critique of President Reagan…but kind of failed in said attempt. Because of the images and clips of Reagan that were shown (basically, him being what a good president should look like), her audio and true message behind her critique was drowned out.

Bernays and Lippman

As I mentioned in class on Wednesday, I found that I like Bernay’s piece more than Lippman’s. Something else I found interesting and that probably affected how I thought of his writing was the fact that he was Freud’s nephew. This was apparent on page 52 when he talked about people’s motives for changing public opinion: self-preservation, procreation aka sex (a very Freudian concept), political personal ambition, and love (did I mention Freud?). As we also ended up discussing, I found it also interesting that Bernays didn’t consider propaganda to be a bad thing. In fact, the opposite. We only consider propaganda to be a negative thing because of how it has been fed to us through history and even today (if you need an example, just look up WWI and WWII propaganda posters. Many of them depict our enemies in that war, such as Germany, as an evil looking Gorilla, climbing the Empire State Building, holding a young, beautiful, innocent woman captive).The main thing I pointed out in class previously was the fact that even in society today, over 80 years after this was written, man is the same way. If we see famous models, actors/actresses, fashionistas, etc. wearing certain clothes or holding certain bags (Coach, Gucci, etc.), then we feel as though since these “beautiful” and successful people are in possession of a simple thing like a bag, if we have a Coach bag, we will become more “beautiful” and successful as well. Also, I would like to point out that the concept of “beauty” is in the eye of the beholder. The “six most beautiful girls in New York” may not fit the concept of beauty we have nowadays. As a loose example, Marilyn Monroe. She did not have the same body shape that models today have (six feet tall, 90 lbs.). In fact, she was a little on the heavier side, and yet she stood as a sex symbol during her time.

As for Lippman’s article, I found it interesting that he posed the idea of control. Many aspects of our life make it seem as though we, as individuals, can make a different. Perhaps this is the cynic in me talking, but I believe otherwise. As an individual, you can do nothing. In America alone, you are one of over 300 million people. Face it. You aren’t that important. However, the government and even our secondary education schools make it seem otherwise. If one person votes for a candidate no one thinks will win, well whoop-di-doo, one person voting for that candidate doesn’t mean that candidate will win. However, if many more of the other 300 million people in the US vote for that candidate, it’s a different story. High schools and their election processes work in a similar fashion. Even if the most popular kid in school is elected as President, Vice, Secretary, etc., that doesn’t mean that they, as individuals, can run the school. That is still left up to the school board.

The Importance of Informality

The most disappointing thing, for me anyway, about watching televised political speeches as a kid was the importance my father placed on reminding me of the existence of speech writers. That, it was important to pay attention to the points in the speech that most closely resembled the candidness of a candidate. Otherwise, it was difficult for me to understand the character of the speaker at all without hearing a speechwriter’s elegant reconstruction of what they are trying to say.

Granted, as a ten year old I didn’t exactly match the ideal of the target audience, but my dad makes a good point whether or not he realizes it. Luntz, being undoubtedly a better writer than my father articulates this point in that the majority of listeners would much rather be spoken to than lectured. Its interesting that Luntz refers to Aaron Sorkin because one of the main problems that President Bartlett faces in The West Wing, is the overall public opinion that his tendancy to present himself as an intellectual gives off the impression of not being “tough” enough.

In Luntz’s “Ten Rules…” he outlines that the importance of effective speech isn’t always what is said, or even how it is said, but rather the importance of realizing the informality of the audience. Whether its a television audience that is less than half full of college graduates or a ten year old, words that are unfamiliar or lack the sound color that gives them that “sticking” ability, will roll of the backs of whoever is listening.

Civil Disobedience, Framing 101, and Rules of Effective Language

Interesting points are brought up about the arguments against civil disobedience in a democracy: “…civil disobedience is inherently wrong because it violates the law and, especially in a democratic society in which laws are enacted with the consent of the governed.” Although I see what they are getting at, I couldn’t help but to think of Occupy. The people did not consent to the unfair practices going happening on Wall Street. Most people didn’t realize what was going on until it was too late.

The idea that it “encourage[s] anarchy” also came up. This point seems deflated when looked at from the concept of civil disobedience laid out in the article. Being disobedient in this sense doesn’t mean defying all laws; it means defying unjust laws. If the law is not truly unjust, therefore, there will not be enough push behind changing the law anyway. Where, then, is the threat?

Something else that made me think of Occupy was the third point on what civil disobedience is: a nonviolent, public act. People are willing to commit themselves to their beliefs and are willing to accept the punishment to defend them. What was hard to swallow about this idea that if protesters knowingly face expulsion (the Campus University example given in the text), their acts express a greater commitment than if they would be punished by small fines. It is scary to think that the only way civil disobedience can be effective is if high governing forces come crashing down on the people advocating change.

I was trying to figure out how this fits into Lakoff’s article “Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse.” It seems to me that the ways in which conservatives frame their arguments could be useful for those looking to be civilly disobedient. Many argue that civil disobedience is an ineffective way to promote change, but in the article, it was also mentioned that it is “an appeal of last resort in democratic society.

Framing these articles doesn’t exactly fit in with the broader, more accepted views of, say, conservatives. But if a group of people who are challenging society to address the perceived faults can appeal to a broader segment of society through framing the ideas of the movement, the chances of making a difference increases tenfold. One of the main obstacles to getting people to recognize civil disobedience as a democratic argument form is this: “It is too easy for mainstream mass media to dismiss those who engage in civil disobedience as ‘anarchist/narcissists.’” It is the conservative framework that once again trumps anyone on the left arguing against them. To concisely sum up Lakoff’s 11 tips on how progressives can take back public discourse, play the game, but on different terms.

Moving on, the simplicity of Luntz’s rules can easily be expanded in their practice. They are easy-to-follow guidelines on how to improve your language to form stronger arguments. Rule four, consistency matters, starts as such: “Repetition. Repetition. Repetition.” This rules falls right in line with one of the points in “Civil Disobedience as a Democratic Argument Form” in the part talking about how “civil disobedience becomes more persuasive through repetition…”

In general, if you are trying to be an effective communicator who is trying to reach a large audience, you should be as proficient, clear, and easy-to-understand as possible. Circumstance and context matters. The combination of these, the rules for effective language, and as well as a well-framed argument will make it more likely for people, the people, to hear, understand, and act on the ideas being presented.

Lakoff, Dimock, and Luntz

Lakoff

I really liked how Lakoff related our political system to family values. I completely agree with everything he said in this piece. He showed how conservatives follow more of a “strict-father model” while progressives follow more of a “nuturant-parent model”. I agree with his statement that to negate a frame is to evoke a frame. He says, “Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame – and it won’t be the frame you want.” I also agree that conservatives have an advantage over liberals when it comes to this. He brings up the “conservative think-tank” as something progressives should adopt. It’s like conservatives are better at manipulating the public, by evoking the proper frame, than liberals. A good example that he used was “the President’s tax-relief”. I think his whole piece was very intelligent. I agree with all claims made.

Dimock, Eckstein, and Dimock

I think that civil disobedience is a big part of the culture in a democratic society. When the right to peacefully protest is taken away, there will be a public outcry. Civil disobedience, I believe, is a citizens right to envoke the Constitution.

Luntz

Luntz’s article was very interesting to read. I found it to be very true. He used the rules to teach you how to tell people what they want to hear. When you want a certain audience’s attention, I think these rules are very important to follow. I really agree that in order to get a people’s respect and attention you need to cater to their wants and needs while speaking.

 

Civil Disobedience and Framing

I think civil disobedience is important in a democratic society. If citizens don’t feel like they’re allowed to peacefully protest then they will fight even harder, possibly even with force. When citizens peacefully protest they aren’t saying that the whole society is unjust; they are fighting against an unjust practice. I thought it was interesting that Dimock/Dimock/Eckstein brought up that the more harm happens to a protester the more it showed their dedication to the cause. I believe that you can see that happening right now with the Occupy movement. Many people didn’t really know what was happening or they thought it was a bunch of young kids trying to “stir up trouble with their liberal agendas”. But since the videos/images of many of the protestors being pepper sprayed citizens have  paid more attention to the movement. The physical harm happening to these protestors make everyday citizens want to learn more about the cause that these protestors are willing to take a beating for.

Lakoff’s article was really smart and eye-opening. Lakoff says that if you are fighting against a point dont use their language. I never thought about it that way. When conservatives talk about abortion they use terms such as “partial birth abortions”. No one (pro-life or pro-choice) wants the image that paints in their heads. Liberals don’t say that they’re “anti-life” because that would be using conservative rhetoric and therefore give a really negative image. With the strict father method, it implies that social programs are bad. It says that you are not supposed to reward “bad/lazy” behavior. This method really bothers me. Most poor people are working and trying to make ends meet. No one can say that the guy who’s always had a job at the factory for 10 years and then one day suddenly loses his job is lazy.

Emily Butz

Luntz

While I couldn’t find any of the other readings due today for some reason I did manage to find Words that Work on the eReserves.  Firstly, I thought it was really interesting when he said, “what matters is not what you say, but what people want to hear”.  I believe this is absolutely true in regards to getting people’s attention.  His rules were as followed:

Rule 1: Simplicity for acceptance and understanding.  I was really happy this rule was number one.  It gives credibility to people who follow it, rather than shmucks using big words in order to hide their blunders.

Rule 2: Use short sentences.  Self Explanitory really..summarizing lengthly sentences into smaller catchier phrases can say more than that sentence ever did.

Rule 3:  Credibility is as important as philosophy.

Rule 4: Consistency Matters.  I liked this rule on one end because it referenced to politics.  While speaking of politics they said that repitition of slogans ensures the voter they know what they’re getting when they elect that person.  I also didn’t like this rule because while referencing Coca Cola they had mentioned that they were always changing their slogans which was a bad thing but never mentioned anything of significant lose of profit.  I think the fact that they switch things up and aren’t so boring all of the time is a great attention catcher.

Rule 5:  Offer something new.  Seems like this is a good rule but this didn’t work when “New Coke” came out, seeing as they stopped manufacturing  and had to go back to the original formula.

Rule 6:  Sound and texture matter.  Both of these items helps it stick to your mouth.

Rule 7:  Speak Aspirationally.  Here he is telling the reader to try and humanize with the audience.  I think this is one of the best out of the list.

Rule 8:  Visualize.  Visualization through pictures or small phrases is key.  Nothing sticks in your mind better.

Rule 9:  Ask a question.  In this rule he states that asking a question, such as “got milk?” is underused and very successful.

Rule 10:  Provide content and explain relevance.

Overall, I believed these rules to be very helpful if reaching a certain or large group of people is what you’re trying to do.  Otherwise  , in my mind this man is teaching the propaganda of public speaking.

 

Alexandra Catizone

Luntz, a man of simple brilliance

I’ve concluded, at various points in my life, that communication is the most valuable weapon in the game of demand and obtain. Growing up as a child, I learned that if I elevated my voice to a point of overwhelming agitation, I was granted whatever I desired. For a time, that worked brilliantly. Unfortunately, once I reached a certain age, the whining technique began to wear off and I was left to learn the fundamentals of respect and persuasion. Luckily, I didn’t encounter much difficulty. I learned that respect was acknowledged by simple words, such as please and thank you, and persuasion was just another form of deceit and conquer.

As I grew older, I began to wonder what communication really meant for the world of today. It hit me, suddenly, that in order to achieve proper communication, I would need to examine a group’s ideas and interests, as well as their desires and dreams. This realization arose after many awkward conversations and encounters, in which I was usually left standing, like a fool, in front of people who didn’t seem to care what the hell I was saying. It wasn’t that my language was ineffective, it was the fact that some people just wouldn’t relate with what I had to say, no matter how hard I tried to get them to.

Despite all this, I still made a lot of friends, which brings me back to our main discussion.

Luntz tells us that if you “want to reach people; you must first speak their language.” I totally agree, and who wouldn’t? I’m sure we’ve all been in that situation where we can’t seem to get our idea through a person’s thick skull. I believe it’s a futile attempt if they don’t cooperate, so my advice is to move on to the next group and hope that they’ll approach you with similar perceptions on life.

He then states, “My job as I see it is to keep my personal opinions from infecting my work.” Sure, people have opinions, but do you honestly believe that the government cares what you have to say? Unless you get the majority to protest against something and somehow cause a change, I’m certain that your sole opinion isn’t going to defeat the policy at hand. Vote or die, basically.

Furthermore, we both agree that we should respect people for who they are and what they want to believe in. It’s a shame that the whole world doesn’t abide to this peaceful standard, but, oh well, I suppose…

Anyway, Luntz’s whole article revolved around the notion of simplicity. The following rules are his guide to that.

1. Use small words.
2. Use short sentences.
3. Don’t lie, just tell the truth.
4. If your ideas work, don’t change them.
5. Shock and surprise are always in demand, so offer something new.
6. The snappier and catchier, the better.
7. “People will forget what you say, but never how you make them feel.”
8. Use words, like imagine, that contain images.
9. Ask a question.
10. Find out what people really want.

So, essentially, if you follow these simple rules of communication, you’re bound to hit a home-run. I wouldn’t pour 100% faith into this, but I’m willing to believe that it’s a good start.