Observing Rhetoric in the Everyday...

In considering the way marketing works in the everyday space of our lives to move us toward more consumption, I realized that I couldn’t think of a single thing that isn’t marketed, not to mention heavily segmented. A quick trip to the grocery chain Safeway drove this point home even more, as I realized even commodities like water and eggs are no match for the world of marketing. I believe this is because we as consumers demand to have choices, but then don’t necessarily know what to do with them once they are given to us. In researching the topic further, I found an article written by Sabah Karimi entitled, “7 Deceptive Marketing Tactics You Are Falling For at the Grocery Store.” She asserts that, “Grocery stores are just one of the ‘Mecca’s’ of mass marketing, a warehouse of opportunity for branding and advertising giants to capture those sales and to entice you to spend, spend, spend.” With regards to the Safeway I visited, everything in the store seemed to promote consumption, from the layout of the store to the brightly tagged daily “Managers Specials.” Immediately upon walking in, I was greeted by the bakery and all the deliciousness that a bakery entails. Baguettes which are guaranteed to be warm at 5 p.m. daily were of no interest to me, but to my left, carts were racing towards them like they were free. Over in the produce section, samples were waiting for customers who couldn’t be swayed merely by the display of pomegranates. Neatly lined up salad dressings made choosing just one hard, so I ended up with two. This, as I experienced it is the paradox of choice. Not to mention, the “sales” are hardly much of a sale. For instance, a pyramid of Bounty paper towels engulfing an end cap promised customer’s great savings. What customer’s usually fail to realize is that the sale is really only saving you $0.50, and that the in-house brand, which probably works about the same, is regularly priced $4.50 less than Bounty to begin with. There were even persuasive appeals in the check-out lines. Soft drinks, gum, candy, magazines, newspapers, small gadgets, you name it, it’s for sale and at eye level with you while you are tiredly waiting in a slow-moving line watching everybody and their brother dig for coupons. “I just came in for a few basics” lamented the woman in front of me, “And now look! My cart is full!” Indeed it was. I asked her if she usually shops with a list, and she admitted that while she does jot things down, she usually puts whatever looks “interesting” in her cart along the way. A marketer’s true delight, these types of customers are their bread and butter, and thankfully, many shop the same way she does. Me, I’m more of a list person, just because otherwise I end up with a cartful of groceries that will spoil before I ever get a chance to eat them.

Week 6

Question 1
In talking about attitudes, the authors argue that, “The formation, maintenance, and evolution of attitudes are ongoing and life-long processes. Crime, for example, may not be viewed as a major problem until one becomes a victim. Direct experience, is one component in attitude formation. Attitudes on the emotional issue of abortion often result from our interactions at home and among friends. We form many attitudes based on vicarious or symbolic experience” (Woodward & Denton, 138). Do you think that some of the major global issues remain unsolved because we can’t get close enough to the issue, because our direct experiences are so far away? Further, could you think of a way to make issues like global warming, the war in Iraq, world hunger etc… more accessible to those of us to who have the ability to affect change? What would a successful PR campaign look like on the aforementioned topics (pick just one)?

Question 2
When discussing the Stimulus-Response Theory, the authors note that, “Focusing on the nature of the stimulus highlights factors of human motivation and conditioning. For example, what makes us recognize and value a Picasso painting more than one by Smith? Focusing on the nature of the response evaluates factors of choice and reasonableness” (Woodward & Denton, 144).
I know for myself, I tend to value more obscure, “off-the-beaten-track” types of things, especially with regards to art. This reminds me of the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Do you think this is true, or do you think we are motivated to like certain things because others like them? For instance, a recent trip to Europe left me at the base of Leonardo da Vinci’s most famous painting, the Mona Lisa. To me, the Mona Lisa is just an over publicized piece of art, like Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night. However, the Mona Lisa has, unlike Starry Night, become so famous, it must live behind several layers of Plexiglas, requires 24/7 security, and has the most visitors of anything in the Louvre. Starry Night on the other hand lives on a wall with several other works by Van Gogh in the Musee D’Orsay, which could easily be touched or damaged by any walker-by.
My question that remains: how did the Mona Lisa become so famous? Do the majority of people recognize the Mona Lisa as a true artistic masterpiece or does it just have a really good publicist?

Question 3
In discussing the Theory of Reasoned Action, I began to wonder whether or not there is a certain age at which people begin, as the authors’ state, “To calculate the costs and benefits associated with social behavior” (Woodward & Denton, 157) more or less. When I was in High School, I volunteered at the Pierce County Juvenile Court as a Diversion Board member, and more often than not, the teens I met with justified their behavior by saying things like, “I never thought it would end up this way” or, “In the moment, I wasn’t thinking about the future. I felt invincible.” I think to some extent we are all guilty of this, but perhaps as we get older we are able to put on stronger filters so we can better judge the outcomes of our actions. What do you think?

Blog Response #1

…Oh what a tangled (electronic) “web” we weave… In preparation to answer the question posed by Gina Kim, with regards to whether or not a system should be implemented to distinguish bloggers who blog truthfully with good intentions and notable credentials, as opposed to bloggers who have neither credibility nor authority, the first thing that popped into my mind was what the implications of restricting bloggers speech with regards to the First Amendment would be. A quick Google search on the topic returned 9,400,000 results within 0.11 seconds, the most interesting of which was an article by Chris Daly, a professor of journalism at Boston University entitled, “Should Bloggers Be Covered by the First Amendment?” In this article, Daly explains the beginning of pamphleteers (fundamentally what we would consider a blogger today), and discussed the effect of Thomas Paine’s infamous and anonymous pamphlet “Common Sense”. “Common Sense” said Daly, “And other pamphlets like it were precisely the kind of political journalism that Jefferson had in mind when he insisted on a constitutional amendment in 1790 to protect press freedom --- anonymous, highly opinionated writing from diverse, independent sources. In historical terms, today’s bloggers are much closer in spirit to the Revolutionary-era pamphleteers than today’s giant, conglomerate mainstream media. On those grounds, blogs deserve the full constitutional blessings that the First Amendment guarantees.” Of course, there are legal restrictions which do not grant protection to those for “libel, trespassing in pursuit of news, or the theft of trade secrets,” but basically, to restrict the speech of bloggers, or to implement any system which would do so, would be unconstitutional. With that being said, I think people should definitely take what they read in any given blog with a grain of salt, because the author, regardless of whether or not they have signed their name to their blog, could in fact be anyone. For some people who blog, the beauty of the practice is in the absolute anonymity of it. With that being said, I could see some sort of communications publication implementing a blog site which would require an application process or membership, but inevitably, political, economic and social factors would make said site biased and not what the average person is looking for when they sit down at their computer to read blogs on a certain topic. I suppose only time will tell how we untangle the “web” we have woven…

Entry 2 (From week 4 of Class)

1. Hauser introduces the notion that humans act with language and on page 204 of Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, states that we possess an identity which is developed through symbolic acts of criticism and encouragement. His entire paragraph reads;
“It is not absurd to say that Mother’s negatives invented us! As social actors, we possess an identity that has developed through symbolic acts of criticism and encouragement. ‘Shall – shall not’ serve the hortatory or inciting functions of urging us to make some choices and avoid others, but these choices themselves are open to criticism. The use of the negative to criticize anchors our mortality as ethical creatures in our ability to use symbols.”
Assuming for all intensive purposes that the above statement is true, what extreme criticism or encouragement do you believe mass murderers receive as small children that motivates their irrational behavior as adults? Moreover, do you believe observing the early communication patters of people like; Seung-Hui Cho, who violently killed 32 people at Virginia Polytechnic Institute on April 16, 2007, is an effective way to understand their actions?

2. On page 208, Hauser gives a definition for a model stating that “a model is a conceptual structure that shows the interrelationships among relevant elements of some phenomenon of study.” Usually when providing a definition, Hauser provides some kind of background story to make it easier to understand, however, he does not in this case. Can you come up with an example that will make this definition a little easier to understand?

3. On page 212-213, Hauser lays out the four main points about Rhetoric and Motives. First, rhetoric is an essential function of language. Second, rhetoric is a use of language. Third, rhetoric is a symbolic means of inducing cooperation, and forth, rhetoric is directed to beings that by nature respond to symbols. In your opinion, which of these is the most important in motivating language and why?

Entry 1 (from week 2 of class)

1. On page 40 of Hauser’s text Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, we are given a list of situations, both real and imagined in which the significance and outcome of the situations depend entirely upon our personal definition and thought process. After reading Hauser’s statement, I began to dabble in the philosophical notion of reality, and wonder if it is entirely possible for two people to share the same definition and thought process on any given topic. What if my reality is that my hair is blonde, but your reality is that my hair is black? Does that change the fact that I have hair? Does the color matter? In this case, probably not. What happens though when someone else’s reality costs someone else their life? For instance, over this past summer, a woman who was hiking on Sauk Mountain near Rockport, Washington was mistaken for a bear and fatally shot by a 14-year old hunter. Now, I’m not asking us to determined guilt or innocence on the boy’s part, however, I do feel that this situation presents an interesting case to be examined because in this situation, because of one person’s reality (and we will assume lack of malicious intent), another person died. Now, if and when this boy stands trial for murder, how will his reality alter the jury’s view? Is there a case to say that because the boy believed he was shooting a bear, he is not a fault for murder, or, should he have been quote, “more careful”? How then, when it is obvious that our realities can be so different, do we find common ground? Is it possible to separate reality from perception?

Please refer to (http://www.kirotv.com/news/17075002/detail.html) for further information on the story presented in this question.

2. On page 46 of Hauser’s text, after giving the example about the West Nile Virus case, he discusses how Mr. Gulotta’s response to the situation helped shape how the citizens felt. He says, “Had Mr. Gulotta said nothing about the county taking aggressive action, but instead used the press conference to praise the Mets’ attempt to win the National League pennant, people were likely to think, ‘He’s avoiding the issue because he has something to hide; maybe the virus can’t be checked’ ”. Hauser’s statement that avoiding the issue because he had something to hide reminded me of the first Presidential Debate between Senator’s McCain and Obama which took place on Friday, September 26th, 2008. The first question of the evening was in regards to the financial package and what they were doing to fix the economic crisis. In my opinion, both candidates blatantly ignored the question and talked only about how pleased they were to represent their respective parties and to further reiterate what they would do once elected, rather than handle the question at hand. In a time when it is beginning to look like a good idea to cash out at the banks and keep your money under your mattress, do you think the candidates choice to avoid the question was the best fitting response (as defined by Hauser as, “Not necessarily a successful response, but one that is addressed to resolving the complex of factors that define the situation.”)? Also, in your opinion, what were the needs of the audience and how did the candidates adapt to the needs of the audience through the constituent elements of rhetorical situations?

3. On page 13 of Bitzer’s article, The Rhetorical Situation, he states “In the best of all possible worlds, there would be communication perhaps, but no rhetoric – since exigencies would not arise.” Given what we have learned so far, do you believe this statement is true? Why or why not?