There are many good examples of visual storytelling out there. When I tried to think of examples, the Great Depression picture of the “Migrant Mother” immediately came to mind:
Taken by Dorothea Lange in 1936, this black and white photograph beautifully and simply captures an era of poverty and struggle. It symbolizes and stands for all of the difficulties that the American people faced during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The reason that this picture is so effective is because of its physical simplicity standing in sharp contrast to its emotional depth. The expression on the face of the mother immediately captures the viewer’s attention. It is one of pain, sadness, longing, and a million other expressions. The furrowed brow, the depths of her eyes, the asymmetrical frown on her face, all of them contribute toward the overall emotional impact of the picture.
The two small children also contribute to the effectiveness of the photo. Situated on either side of the mother, they are downtrodden, as evidenced by their faces burrowed into her shoulder. The child on the right has one of his hands showing, caked with dirt. Their clothes are simple and tattered. Also, the pairing of the mother with her children in pain is a nearly universal symbol that speaks to all people of all times. This powerful combination triggers an even stronger appeal to emotions than just the mother or children on their own.
It’s probably the one photo I can think of right now that literally sums up the hopes, fears, and dreams of a generation of Americans. The simplicity of the black and white photography really allows the viewer to concentrate on the subjects, drawing meaning from the depths of the photo. It’s not flashy or fancy, yet it says more than almost any other photo I know of. If I had to pick a photo that really did say a thousand words, this would be pretty high on my list of choices.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRf4R6RMR1M&feature=youtu.be
Overall, I think that my TED talk went pretty well. It’s definitely a much different experience watching yourself give the speech than it is to actually be up there delivering it. I’m glad that I get to view it from both perspectives, and through the process, come to a conclusion as to what went well and what didn’t.
One of the things that I thought I did a really good job with was the introduction. There was a clear, logical progression of ideas that culminated in a sentence that gave my audience an overview of what I would be speaking about. I really like this approach because it not only introduces your topic, but also firmly grounds your audience in the topic. The only negative part of the beginning was that I stumbled a little at the start of one sentence. It wasn’t too bad, but it’s definitely good to be aware of that.
Now that I’m watching myself, I do see that I glance down a lot. It seems to happen more often between sentences or during a particularly long phrase. I think I can solve this problem by just practicing on maintaining eye contact more. Also, I could practice my delivery in such a way as to reduce sentence length or minimize the transition of ideas between sentences.
As my talk progresses, I’m also noticing that I have a few short stops where I’m searching for words. Although it’s not a major problem, I think I could do a better job if I slow down slightly and get the idea fully in my head before executing it. In my opinion, it’s better to have longer pauses between sentences than to pause mid-sentence searching for the right thing to say.
One last positive thing that I notice throughout my talk is my speaking voice is mostly clear and easy to understand. Occasionally, I mince a few words, but it’s not a major problem. The one aspect of my voice that I think I could work on is inflections. At times, I sounded a bit monotone and bored. I think if I worked on emphasizing certain words and varied my tone and pitch, it would make the speech sound more dynamic and less flat.
Generally, I’m pretty happy with how it went! It was a solid effort and provides me with a baseline comparison for my future work.
In my opinion, TED is not elitist. Actually, to clarify, I don’t think that the TED talks themselves are elitist. They actually are very enlightening and democratic. They explore a wide range of topics and address issues that affect all of us. The speakers do not seem to be dumbing anything down or becoming performers as Nassim Taleb seems to think. To me, they just seem like really down-to-Earth people who are excited to share their discoveries in their respective fields.
The talks are also democratic in the sense that there are hundreds of them posted online for anyone to watch for free. It’s all about spreading information to the general public. It’s awesome to know that I can go on their website and learn about practically any subject at any time.
From all the critics of TED that I read about on the class page, several of them seemed to share one thing in common: TED decided not to post their respective talks. This is probably why they feel bitter toward the organization. I perfectly understand that, but I also realize that TED has to choose between hundreds of different talks to post on their website. At some point, they have to exclude some people and their talks. I think half of their criticism comes from a resulting bitterness over not making the cut.
However, even though TED’s intellectual mission seems honest, I think that the cost of attendance and the prestige associated with being a speaker are a little bit elitist. Prior to reading that page, I had no idea that it was so expensive to actually attend one of the talks. Although this does seem to be elitist to my intuition, I also understand that TED is a business that needs to make a profit to keep running. If people are still buying tickets at $6,000 a piece, then I absolutely think TED is justified in charging that much. So, even this does not seem as elitist as it appeared at first.
Overall, I think TED is a really good resource for anyone, not just students, to learn about something that interests them in a manner that is truly engaging.
For my TED talk, I plan to discuss the implications that the acceptance of the heliocentric theory has had on religious beliefs. To accomplish this, I’ll talk about religious attitudes before and after the acceptance of Copernicus’ theory. In the before category, there are a lot of topic that I can address. When people still believed in the geocentric theory, they thought that this reinforced religious belief because God had placed them directly in the center of creation on a stationary Earth. This led to the assumption that humanity was very special. When Ptolemy provided a mathematical model to “prove” the geocentric theory, it solidified this belief, which went unchallenged for over 1500 years. The acceptance of religion also led to intolerance for people who offered alternatives to geocentrism. One of these people was Galileo. Galileo supported Copernicus’ heliocentric theory and was subsequently threatened with torture by the Church if he didn’t recant his belief. This shows an outgrowth of how religious belief affected people’s general attitude at that time.
After the acceptance of the heliocentric theory, the floodgates of scientific thought opened and ushered in the modern era. There was greater inquiry into the origins of humanity and the universe, with much less being accepted on faith and superstition than before. Scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton changed our conception of how the world works. There has been a steady decline in the prevalence of religious belief which continues to this day. Humanity has now realized that we are off in a corner in a huge ever-expanding universe. We are not as special as we once thought. This has led to a reconsideration of our origin and place in the universe. And while this might have drastically changed our perspective, it has not made life in the least bit boring since then. I contest that it has led to a fuller, truer, and more diverse perspective on the human experience.
Alex Cook
Bedell
CAS 137H
12 October 2012
Motivating the Middle Ground
Fear. Chaos. Violence. These three words carry weighty connotations that transcend the contexts in which they are used. One does not have to know the details of a situation described by these words to realize that it is bad. However, when inserted into the context of a particular place and time, they take on added meaning. For example, look at the United States in the year 1968. Fear, chaos, and violence reigned supreme. Additionally, it was a presidential election year. The candidates from both parties had to offer solutions to address the deteriorating state of the country if they were elected. With the recent advent of home televisions in households throughout the country, political ads played a crucial role in conveying a candidate’s message to voters in this election. One particular TV ad utilized by the Nixon campaign is entitled “The First Civil Right.” This ad makes an effective appeal to elect Richard Nixon to the presidency through its logical narration that targets middle-ground voters, appeal to pathos that is enhanced by the pictures and music, and sense of urgency that convinces people that voting in this election is important.
One of the most important prerequisites for understanding this ad is its historical context. 1968 was a tumultuous year for America and its people. Both foreign and domestic crises plagued the nation. The escalating Vietnam War, one of the most controversial struggles in the history of the country, sparked hundreds of anti-war protests, especially on college campuses. By April, there were over 500,000 American troops in Vietnam with no clear end in sight. Several tragedies, such as the My Lai massacre, also occurred in 1968 (“1968: Timeline”).
The other major issue of the time was the burgeoning Civil Rights movement. Led by iconic figures such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., this movement was also fraught with violent riots throughout major urban areas. Both protester and police violence peaked during 1968, leading to many arrests, injuries, and deaths. In addition, King was assassinated on April 4 in Memphis, Tennessee, which led to even more widespread chaos. Robert F. Kennedy, a popular contender in the presidential race, was also shot and killed in June, just two months later (“1968: Timeline”). Overall, 1968 was an intense time of uncertainty that was undoubtedly characterized by fear, chaos, and violence.
It was in this climate that Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon aspired to win the office of the presidency of the United States. His campaign asserted that he “claimed to speak for the “silent majority” of law abiding citizens whose voices were presumably drowned out amidst the social upheaval, and he promised a return to the stability of the Eisenhower years” (“The First Civil Right”). The primary reason that this ad is rhetorically effective is because its logical narration makes a direct appeal to these middle-ground voters. About halfway through, an ordinary, middle-aged male voice begins speaking. His tone is calm but confident, a voice that the average voter would be willing to listen to. It is obviously not the voice of a radical racial crusader or an angry college protester. By utilizing a narration with this tone and character, Nixon sends out a clear message that he stands for the average citizen who desires a return to peace and stability.
The second aspect of the narration that appealed to the average voter in 1968 is the clear logic employed in the rhetoric. This is a great example of argument that uses logos. In fact, the transcript of the ad reads almost like a logical proof:
It is time for an honest look at the problem of order in the United States. Dissent is a necessary ingredient of change, but in a system of government that provides for peaceful change, there is no cause that justifies resort to violence. Let us recognize that the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence. So I pledge to you, we shall have order in the United States (“The First Civil Right”).
The rhetoric uses a deductive argument. The first sentence simply provides a brief introduction to the subject of the ad. Sentence two is the major premise. Peaceful dissent is necessary in the American democratic system, but violent opposition has no place in it. The third sentence is the minor premise that states that every American ought to be free from domestic violence. The last sentence is the conclusion, in which Nixon promises to restore order to the United States, thereby freeing ordinary Americans from domestic violence. This rhetoric is effective for its simplicity, brevity, and reasoning. There is no doubt that it would have appealed to the average American voter in 1968.
By utilizing pictures and music, the ad also makes an appeal to the viewer’s pathos. For the first twenty seconds, there is nothing but a stream of pictures depicting the violence that gripped the nation at the time. The rate at which the pictures change varies throughout, adding to the sense of chaos and confusion. Even the music enhances the emotions of the ad. Driving drum rhythms and dissonant piano interjections imply an impending sense of doom. These elements appeal to the audience’s fear. Nixon knew that the average voter in 1968 was very concerned about the events going on both in America and abroad. People were afraid for the future of the country. The ad draws on this fear to capture the viewer’s attention, and then, through rhetoric, reassures them that Nixon is the right man to restore order to the United States.
Lastly, the ad uses a simple conclusion to instill a sense of urgency in voters. Nixon accomplishes this by drawing on the exigence of the ad, which clearly is that 1968 America was engulfed by chaos and needed new, effective leadership right away. He offers voters a proposition: vote for him in order to keep the world free from violence. These ideas are beautifully summarized at the end of the ad. The pictures disappear and the music evaporates, immediately followed by a simple sentence: “THIS TIME VOTE LIKE YOUR WHOLE WORLD DEPENDED ON IT” (“The First Civil Right”).
Although it is harder for people today to grasp the implication of these words without looking at the historical context, the people in 1968 lived in that world. They knew firsthand the ugliness of the Vietnam War and the violence of race riots. To them, this statement must have resonated to their core. They knew that a change in leadership was needed in order to turn the country around. Amidst the confusion of the events of 1968, Nixon portrayed himself as that leader, epitomizing his ability in this sentence at the end of this ad. This rhetoric obviously worked, as he won the election and became president.
“The First Civil Right” makes an effective appeal to elect Richard Nixon to the presidency through its logical narration that targets middle-ground voters, appeal to pathos that is enhanced by the pictures and music, and sense of urgency that motivates people that voting in this election is important. Using these rhetorical strategies, Richard Nixon successfully captured the election. This ad shows how effective logic can be enhanced by emotional appeal through the use of images and music. It also shows how deeply the concepts and principles of rhetoric apply to the American political scene. By analyzing how these elements work, people can better understand the issues at hand and become more effectively-engaged citizens.
Works Cited
“1968: Timeline.” The Whole World Was Watching: An Oral History of 1968. Brown University, n.d. Web. 3 Oct. 2012. <http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/1968/reference/ timeline.html>.
“The First Civil Right.” Commercial. The Living Room Candidate. 3 Oct 2012.
<www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968>.
Like many of you, I watched the presidential debate this past week between the Republican nominee Mitt Romney and the Democratic incumbent President Barack Obama. Within minutes of the debate starting, I was analyzing the rhetorical techniques that the candidates were employing. It was simply out of habit; I didn’t even have to “flick on the switch” or anything like that. Being in CAS 137H has consistently made me more aware of the way people speak. It’s nice to know that these somewhat abstract rhetorical concepts are firmly grounded in reality and apply to my everyday life.
Specifically, I noticed how both candidates made appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos at different times during the debate. For example, Mitt Romney used logos when he made a rational argument about how he thinks Obamacare is not the right option for the country to be pursuing. He used ethos when he explained his background in business, which is meant to convince the American public that he is a man who knows the ropes and can fix our economy. Finally, he used pathos when he told stories of voters he has talked with across the country over the past few months. I remember one example when he said that a woman in Ohio came up to him and told him that she has been out of work for several months and pleaded for him to help her. By using this story, Romney made an emotional appeal to thousands of Americans in similar situations.
Likewise, Obama used these same three tactics many times. He used logos when discussing issues such as the economy and Obamacare, arguing with logical terms in defense of his policies over the last four years. He employed pathos when discussing his grandmother and how she worked hard over her life to climb up the social ladder. Toward the end of the debate, he used ethos as well. He simply stated that he knew going in that he would not be a perfect president, but that he is working to the best of his ability everyday to help the citizens of this country.
Recognizing logos, pathos, and ethos in the debate really helped me to understand more about what each candidate stood for and why I should or should not vote for them. In writing this blog entry, I did not even have to look up the examples I used because they stuck in my memory so well. I definitely think this is due to having these three terms to help categorize and compartmentalize rhetoric in my mind, making it more manageable to digest and relate to. I’m definitely glad I’m in this class, and I hope to learn a lot more before the end of the semester!
Ever since our class began talking about rhetoric and civic engagement, I am acutely more aware of these concepts in my everyday life. When I listen to someone speak, I find myself really focusing on not only what they are saying, but also on how they are saying it. And then I think about it later. Was their talking effective or ineffective? Could they have expressed a certain idea better in a different way? Did this conversation convince me to become civically engaged in any way?
No doubt, this attitude is a result of our class discussions. Sometimes, all it takes is something small like this to cause a change in your perspective on a topic, in this case, rhetoric. Because we’ve been discussing this concept so much, it helps me to recognize it when it occurs in my everyday life.
My professors are a prime example of how I am learning to analyze speech in ordinary situations. During lectures, I pay attention to the words they use and the delivery with which they present the material. If I don’t understand a concept when they initially explain it, I try to see if it somehow traces back to the way in which they presented it. Maybe they used a poor choice of words or accidentally brushed too quickly over an important connecting concept. However, this luckily is a rarity. Most of the time, they present the topic in a clear, concise manner that is easy to follow. I figure that this comes from years of experience in their field of study and in the teaching profession in general. This made me realize how teachers need very effective rhetorical skills in order to their job. Without good communication skills, students would have a very difficult time learning in their classes.
Observations like these have further opened my eyes to the rhetoric that surrounds me in my daily life. As time progresses, I’m sure I will find even more subtle ways that it shapes my life.
Over the past week in my CAS 137H class here at Penn State, we’ve all been presenting speeches for the class. Basically, they are supposed to be three to four minute talks that analyze the rhetoric used in an artifact or a discussion of an interview with a civically-engaged person.
At the time of this writing, probably about two-thirds of my classmates have given their speeches, including myself. As I listened over the past two classes, I kept noticing the same problem surfacing again and again in people’s speeches. To be honest, I’m a little bit baffled because it seems like something that should not be an issue.
That number one problem is sticking to the purpose of the assignment. I’m not going to criticize any particular person’s presentation, but, if my memory serves me correctly, this probably applies to about five of the speeches that I have heard so far. And for the record, I completely intend for the following criticism to be helpful to those people for the future, not for putting them down.
Explicitly, the point of the assignment was to analyze the rhetoric used in the artifact or interview and demonstrate how it either encourages or deters civic engagement, while incorporating discussions and materials that the class has covered so far. Many people had fantastic ideas for their speeches. The topics offered a unique viewpoint into how rhetoric and civic engagement are utilized in a multitude of ways in today’s society. Yet people lost sight of the overall purpose of the assignment, and instead focused on merely explaining the artifact, not connecting it with the relevant points that had been discussed in class. Many times, I found myself engaged with the speaker and the topic, but when they finished, I sadly realized that what they said had little to do with the assignment.
I think there are several lessons that we can all take away from this speech assignment. First, when working on a project, always keep the overall purpose in mind, or you run the risk of straying off-topic. Personally, I know this can be a very hard thing to do. When I’m intently working on a project, I’m focusing a lot of energy on the details of the assignment and sometimes fail to think about how those small details relate to the overall purpose. So, I might end up with a great assignment, but if it’s not what the professor asked for, then it doesn’t really matter, does it?
In my opinion, the solution to this problem starts with a solid outline. With an outline, you can organize all of your details around your thesis and purpose. An outline forces you to think, to come up with the reasons why you are including certain details but not others. Once you have a detailed outline, you can be sure that your assignment will stay concise, focused, and on-topic. Furthermore, it also makes doing the actual assignment a lot easier from both an organizational and a contextual standpoint.
So, no worries, it’s only the first major assignment for this class. But it would be foolish not to learn from past mistakes. Always stick to your purpose, and at the end of the day, you’ll end up with a great, and relevant, assignment.
“Do the Right Thing” was certainly an ‘interesting’ movie. Obviously, its goal was to increase awareness of racial issues and portray that violence in these instances never leads to positive outcomes. I think that while its message was commendable, the movie itself was poorly executed, diminishing its effectiveness at fulfilling this purpose.
In my opinion, in order for movies to successfully advocate for social change, they must be realistically portrayed and emotionally moving. Although “Do the Right Thing” had a few positive aspects in these areas, it left much to be desired. For starters, pretty much all of the movie consisted of unintelligible slang, cursing, racial slurs, and shouting. In one sense, I think that this is good in that it more or less accurately captures the racial diversity and customs of the film’s characters. However, it became tiresome and irritating to listen to very quickly. Consequently, I found myself alienated from the struggles of the characters when I should have identified more strongly with them as the film progressed. This emotional detachment was probably the chief reason I simply could not enjoy this film.
Also, I think the film reinforces racial stereotypes too much, and this detracts from the realism that should have been more prominent. Some stereotypes present included the Italians owning a pizzeria and the Asians unable to speak English. In a way, this added a sense of humor to the movie that I think detracted from the otherwise serious social message. Personally, I just couldn’t identify with any of the characters; they all seemed very one-dimensional and obnoxious, except for Mookie and the Mayor. I think that if the film had focused on more fleshed-out characters and less on stereotypes, I personally would have liked it better.
Perhaps a second viewing of “Do the Right Thing” would change my opinion about this film, but at this point, I don’t think I could willingly sit through it again.
