Month: September 2019

What is a paradigm? I’d define it as the lens you see the world through. Something that augments the light waves of reality into something that you understand. In Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation, psychology professor Jean M Twenge examines some societal trends of the smartphone generation, or what he dubs “iGen”. The entire article is spent comparing how today’s teens differ with older generations in their habits of dating, partying and wanting to be independent. 

My initial impression was that this article is heavily biased. The author views everything through his gen X lens. He reacts to a shifting norm, instead of accepting it as reality. For the first half of the article, he paints a narrative that technology is bad, barely framing any of the good. By the middle, Twenge begins to report facts without the underlying jabs. He starts to detail the changes with less accusation towards technology as “ruining a generation”. 

By the end of the article, Twenge has explored enough about Gen Z culture that he is experiencing a paradigm shift himself. When he interacts with his undergraduate students and learns about their phone habits in bed, he realizes what is now the norm for young people. Then he delves into his own personal life, recounting his experiences with his young children wanting smartphones and screen time. More generally, the article serves to highlight a shifting paradigm in the lives of teens. It also strings along some of the effects that it may be causing, such as an increase in teen suicide and depression. Through a plethora of graphs, Twenge compares changes in frequency that teens would hang out with friends, learn to drive, date and feel lonely. His interview with Athena also serves as anecdotal evidence for what his graphs and research imply. Overall, this article is a reflection of a shifting paradigm. His reactions are odd to me because I am already accustomed to the norm, but to his older audience, it could be an eye-opening paradigm shift. Even if it has helped just one boomer understand today’s generation, it has brought us closer to solving our issues.  

In opposition to the Occupy Wall Street movement, I’ve chosen an excerpt from a 2016 Donald Trump campaign rally. This speech given by the Republican nominee was delivered at a campaign rally on October 16, 2016 in West Bend, Indiana. Like most campaign speeches, it aims to rouse the electorate and persuade them to vote in a certain direction. Specifically, this excerpt addresses the issues of corruption within the “system”, jobs and opportunity, and safety and equality. 

Excerpt Text:

“I’m not part of the corrupt system. In fact, the corrupt system is trying to stop me. I’ve been paying my own way. The voters in the Republican Party this year defied the donors, the consultants, the power brokers, and choose a nominee from outside our failed and corrupt and broken system.

The other party – the Democratic Party – nominated the personification of special interest corruption. The Democratic Party rigged the nomination to give it to Hillary Clinton, thus giving the soul of their party this year to the special interests.

I am running to listen to your voice, to hear your cries for help. The quiet voices in our society, not the loudest demonstrators, need to have their demands heard.

Jobs. Safety. Opportunity. Fair and equal representation.”

In other words, Trump is declaring “vote for me in the election because I’ll fix America and all the problems within the system”. 

When I was considering companion artifacts, I narrowed it down to three options: anti-globalization protests, the Bernie Sanders campaign, or the Donald Trump campaign. All of these movements share the same populist fervor that Occupy Wall Street created. I wanted something relevant so I then narrowed it down between Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Since my speech topic is politically left, I choose the Trump speech because it provides a stark contrast. I thought it would be interesting because the members of both movements feel that they are victimized and powerless to America’s big institutions. They are both upset by what they see as a declining quality of life. However, their political alignments could not be more different. Choosing these two topics, I wanted to explore the commonplaces behind the movements and where they differ in interpretation. 

As of now, I want to focus on analyzing common places and enterprises that the people of each movement share. I’ll then discuss how that has colored been colored by the conflicting ideologies. One main contrast is that Occupy Wall Street was leaderless, while the Trump campaign clearly wasn’t. I plan to use this contrast to discuss the effectiveness of the movement. As for the Greek word bundle, I think I’ll try to do a who did it better and how. 

“There is no planet B.” I agree. You agree. Scientists agree. Anyone in their sane mind would agree. Even optimistic astronomers working at national observatories would agree that there is no planet B (that we know of). It’s common knowledge to know that aside from Earth, there is not a single habitable place in the entire universe. The elegance of this bumper sticker reminds us of the hard truth that we are actually a very special speck of dust in the cosmos– the only place suitable for life. 

In one short sentence, the bumper sticker presents a true description about the state of the universe. In an appeal to logos, it calls us to take better care of Earth, our planet A, by reminding us of the reality of the lack of a planet B. The rhetorical situation of this bumper sticker is driven by, and drives, the ideology that our society must protect the environment because it we don’t, we won’t have an alternative. The audience of this sticker, after reading it while stuck at a red light, would naturally infer that since there is no planet B they must conserve and protect planet A. 

To convey its purpose, the poster invokes a couple commonplaces and ideas that we all know. First, that we are responsible for protecting our planet. It is universally agreed upon that protecting the environment is a “good” thing, despite the execution of this principle not having as much support. In a clever play on words, the poster alludes to the idea of a “plan B” with the words “planet B”. To all those understanding English, “plan B” is synonymous with “back up plan”. In order for this bumper sticker to be effective, it relies on the assumption that its audience will know the term “plan B”. 

I’d assume the commonplaces the bumper sticker references are known by at least 90% of the US population. Logically, the bumper sticker makes a lot of sense since it is built on a universal fact and alludes to common principles that we all understand. For that reason, I think the bumper sticker is effective in advocating its environmentally positive stance. The sticker is clear enough that anyone glancing by it would understand the message of its argument. Would it invoke action and change, that is tough to say… However, it does help create a greener world, by reinforcing the ideology that we must protect our environment. By normalizing messages like that, change will come.  

As we prepare to enter the end of 2019, debates about climate change still loom around us. The idea of climate change has yet to be legitimized in collective interest — a sizable population denies the reality of the topic. Even despite climate change denial, the issue of climate change has remained relevant due to activism and scientific opinions, such as the one shown. This poster, which was created in 2011, a time when the issue of climate change was just as relevant as it is now, urges its audience to act on climate change. 

The creators of this poster recognize the kairos in this situation as they advocate protecting the climate in an era that holds climate change as a pressing issue in the media. The poster’s creators know that since the topic is relevant, the audience they are attempting to persuade has general knowledge about the topic. The audience has most likely already heard about global warming and the melting of ice or sea levels rising. This poster converts background information from the news around us into foreboding scenery. More than ever, now is the right time to warn people about the issue of climate change — before it is too late. 

The poster does not appeal to credibility, as it does not cite scientific articles or climate change experts.  Nor does it appeal to facts or reason, as it lacks statistics or journals. The persuasive element of this poster is built solely upon an appeal to emotion. The poster shows an image of a pristine city that is put to threat by global warming and climate change. The hourglass imagery with water dripping down about to flood a city combined with the caption “we are running out of time act now before it’s too late” clearly conveys the idea that actions to prevent climate change must come now rather than later.  

However, this campaign poster is most effective when its audience already accepts the reality of climate change. I doubt the potency of this poster on climate change deniers. Environmental activists will recognize the urgency of the situation while climate change deniers will ignore it. In other words, the poster has strong appeals to kairos to some of its audience, and weak appeals to kairos to others. The drop of water that is forming creates a feeling of tension that is haunting but urgent. Bad things to come are implied in a menacing way, not an immediately threatening way, which is understandable since the poster was published in 2011. If the poster was remade for 2019, I would increase the water level so that the city is already partially flooded to heighten the sense of urgency and importance of this issue.

I am not a climate change denier, so this poster’s design accomplished its goal of provoking ideas about saving the environment into my thoughts. For the climate change denier though, this poster would probably have no effect. I’d think that the average citizen, who might see this at a bus stop or subway station, would pause to admire the metaphor in the artwork and reflect on what they’ve heard in the news. And even though that’s not much, the fact that it gets thoughts flowing is enough for it to have been worthwhile.