Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Influence of Consumer Credit on the American Dream

Marilyn vos Savant, famously known for her record-high IQ, describes the American Dream as “a house in the suburbs with a backyard for the kids to play in, a patio for barbecues, a shady street, bright and obedient children, camping trips, fishing, two family cars, seeing the kids take place in school and church plays, and online access to the world” (Calder 12). Today, most Americans strive to build the experience Savant describes — a comfortable, happy, and wholesome lifestyle. However, this modern version of the American Dream is quite new; in fact, when the American Dream was first described in 1931, it represented opportunities for freedom and equality in the United States that were not offered elsewhere in the world. While these two ideas may seem rather similar, the American Dream of the 1930s represented entirely different qualities than the current dream.

In the 1930s, the American Dream was defined in the collective sense that the U.S. offered new opportunities for all its citizens to climb the social ladder and achieve a better life than previous generations. Americans believed the United States offered the unique opportunity to move up in the workforce despite coming from low-income families. In contrast, the American Dream today is much more individualistic and materialistic, placing goods and items at the forefront of success. Furthermore, in the 1930s, the American Dream was new, leaving people optimistic about their future as well as the country’s future. However, in today’s society, many people have lost faith in the American Dream, believing it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to earn enough money to afford all the goods and services required by this new American Dream. Although many factors contributed to shifts in the American Dream, the introduction of consumer credit in the 1960s along with modern technologies fueled a materialistic society, morphing the American Dream into what it is today. As society increasingly pushed the use of consumer credit and materialism, the country reached a turning point in 2008, with the Great Recession, leading many citizens to lose faith in the American Dream entirely. Although the American Dream has changed throughout time, the dream itself has always represented American aspirations, playing a significant role in societal norms and attitudes.

Before the 1960s, the American Dream was the collective belief that the United States modeled the idealistic society for the rest of the world. The idea that people from low-income families should be allowed to climb the social ladder was a relatively new concept that was not common in many countries. When James Truslow Adams first coined the term “The American Dream” in 1931, he described it as just that — a dream. Adams described the American Dream as “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement” (Smith). By this, Truslow described the unified goal that the United States would one day offer new opportunities and progress not offered in other countries. Although the U.S. was amidst the Great Depression at the time, citizens still saw the potential for this dream to become a reality in the future (Smith).

Several important factors contributed to this growing belief that the United States could offer new opportunities and potential for every citizen, starting with the growth of women in the workforce. Beginning in 1890, women gradually gained a place in the workforce, as more and more opportunities opened up over time. Additionally, married women gained more of a place in the workforce, as the percentage of employed women who were married in 1890 was only 8%. By 1930, that number rose to 26%, and by 1950, it had reached 47%. Even though women were earning less money than men, women felt a new sense of purpose and belonging, families earned more money, and the economy grew (Jacobs & Bahn). As roles for women expanded, the American Dream started to become a reality, as the United States truly was offering new opportunities and equality for all of its citizens.

Additionally, the Great Depression led to a new type of workforce in the 1940s, as the influence of unions and governmental protection plans expanded. Throughout the Great Depression, strikes and campaigns for better working conditions gained momentum, enacting real change to better the working environments. For instance, in 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the National Industrial Recovery Act as a part of the New Deal, allowing workers to join unions. In 1935, Congress signed the National Labor Relations Act, creating new rights for unions and workers alike. By the end of the 1930s, unions celebrated their influence on the governmental level, leaving workers across the country optimistic about their role in democracy and their future (Gregory). Furthermore, wages increased, and by 1942, a child born into the average American family had a 92% chance of earning more money than their parents (Leonhardt). These facets of progress excited the American population, establishing the original American Dream that all citizens were given equal opportunity to achieve a happy and successful life through hard work and dedication.

While this version of the American Dream persisted from the 1930s to the late 1950s, this all began to change in the 1960s with the introduction of a small piece of plastic — the credit card. In 1958, American Express was the first major company to issue a credit card, with Bank of America also releasing a card that same year. At first, Bank of America’s card was only available in California, but a few years later, in 1966, the company expanded and released its card across the entire country. The credit card became an immediate success, as citizens rushed to get their hands on such a thing. The idea that people could now spend money in the present and pay it off later completely transformed the possibilities of middle-class families especially. While previous middle-income households could hardly dream of expensive lifestyles with the latest technologies and materials, these citizens were suddenly handed unlimited opportunities through their credit cards (Johnson).

With new opportunities to spend, middle-class Americans splurged on homes, cars, vacations, the latest technological advancements, and anything in between. The number of American households with a television set, car, swimming pool, and telephone drastically increased, making this comfortable lifestyle the new norm. For example, only 9% of American households owned a television set in 1950, but that number quickly jumped to 90% in 1960 (Library of Congress). In 1940, only 44% of households owned their home, but 62% of families owned a home by 1960 (Eugene et al. 2).

The credit card rapidly changed American citizens’ goals and aspirations in life, morphing the idea that more goods equated to more happiness. As more and more people spent on credit cards, the standard of living rose, completely changing the criteria of what qualified as a successful lifestyle. In this way, Americans were faced with new pressure to own a home in the suburbs, purchase the latest technological developments, and live comfortable lifestyles. Although job opportunities and wages were increasing, middle-class families still could not afford all of these luxuries in life alone, forcing them to open a credit card if they wanted to keep up with society’s push for a materialistic lifestyle. The increasing pressure to live luxuriously changed people’s goals in life, changing the American Dream, as well.

The American Dream has always symbolized the overall American population’s goals and aspirations, so as people’s focus shifted to more materialistic lifestyles, the American Dream started to represent these same ideas. Although people still believed the United States represented the forefront of progress and opportunity in the world, the definition of progress slowly changed from equality and opportunity to more materialistic and comfortable lives. People no longer focused on a collective, unified goal for the United States to offer better work opportunities and treatment for all; instead, Americans focused on more individualistic goals to keep up with the latest fashion, technological, and societal trends. Americans saw the credit card as their path to an upper-class lifestyle without necessarily needing an upper-class job. Although the credit card immediately reframed the American Dream into a materialistic one, advertisements further pushed this new American Dream throughout the 1960s and 1970s, permanently ingraining a new goal for the American population.

The credit card quickly offered middle-class citizens the opportunity to spend more, introducing a materialistic society. However, the credit card alone was not enough to permanently alter the American Dream in such an extreme way. With the help of the credit card, companies designed new advertisements to convince consumers that their expensive product was a necessity in life. By the early 1960s, most American households owned a television set and telephone line (Library of Congress). Companies quickly capitalized upon this new advertising opportunity, crafting commercials that convinced consumers they must purchase their product if they wanted to live a happier life. In this way, the credit card opened up an entirely new market for luxury companies and high-end brands; the working middle class. New advertisements flashed luxury shampoo bottles, kitchen appliances, home installments, and ever-evolving technologies at the front of a happy and successful family. The new marketing strategy aimed to convince consumers these products would create a happy family life (Bod).

In previous generations, high-end companies never could have successfully targeted middle-class families, as they simply did not have the money to afford such items. However, the availability of credit completely changed the marketing world, making the middle class the primary target for expensive home items and goods. Companies saw the eagerness in middle-class adults to buy these new products, as it was an entirely new concept for them. So, they crafted advertisements aimed at these vulnerabilities, portraying happy couples using their product. In this way, advertisements enforced a materialistic society, relying on credit cards as fuel. Advertisements no longer focused on the basic necessities of life, but instead the most extravagant ones. As a result, people no longer felt as much pride in work opportunities, but instead in materials and goods. While equality and opportunity were still essential to American core values, people saw the future in technology and innovation rather than specific qualities. This continued to enforce a new materialistic version of the American Dream for years to come, changing the goals and aspirations of U.S. citizens.

This new American Dream centered around consumerism has persisted for years, creating the modern society that equates material goods to happiness. However, attitudes towards the American Dream have changed again in recent years, as people have lost faith in the American Dream. Following the financial crisis of 2008, many Americans lost faith that they could live a more prosperous life than their parents. The 2008 crisis, often referred to as The Great Recession, was ultimately caused by the accumulation of too much debt. Mortgage loans were being awarded to people who would not have typically qualified for a home loan (Boyle). The Great Recession led to the closure of banks, spikes in unemployment rates, and more debt among citizens (Weinberg). Some of the most prominent effects of the Great Recession were felt among the young generations. Student loan debts grew and the number of employment opportunities for young adults dropped (Sorkin and Thee-Brenan).

Throughout history, the younger generations have determined the American Dream, carrying the hopes and dreams to live a more prosperous life than their parents. In modern society in which material goods and home ownership define success, a financial crisis as steep as the 2008 one was extremely detrimental to the younger generation’s views on the American Dream. With accumulating student loan debt, less job opportunities, and inflation rates, the younger population has never been so pessimistic about the American Dream. Today, only about 64% of the population believe the American Dream is attainable, citing the price of college, homes, children, and retirement as too costly for most jobs, even with consumer credit and investment options available (Sorkin and Thee-Brenan).

The 2008 financial crisis is largely responsible for the overall pessimistic attitude towards the American Dream, as the crisis left young people in an extremely challenging financial situation. Although the American Dream still focuses on consumerism like it did in the late twentieth century, people today do not have as much hope in the American Dream as they did then. There is the growing belief that the cost of living has become too costly for the average American to possibly afford everything that the American Dream consists of: a house in the suburbs, two cars, multiple children, summer vacations, and a long retirement. Although many factors contributed to a depressing modern view of the American Dream, consumer credit plays a role behind it all. The introduction of credit in the 1960s created this idea that home ownership was key to a successful life. Furthermore, consumer credit first transformed the financial opportunities in the U.S. by introducing the idea that money could exist in different forms. The ability for people to spend money through credit and pay off their debt later on established entirely new views on money. Views that helped grow the prevalence of loans, the stock market, and investments in America. Through these different options, debt accumulated, leading to the severe crisis of 2008 followed by a diminished sense of faith in the American Dream. In this way, the credit card transformed the American Dream in more ways than just one; although it may have created exciting, new, materialistic opportunities in the 1960s, debt accumulation has led to a depressing view on the American Dream in modern society.

The American Dream is a phrase to describe the American population’s overall goals and definition of success. Since the American Dream was first established in the 1930s, it has experienced major reforms, turning from a dream of opportunity and equality into one of materials and goods. Although the American Dream has slightly changed throughout its time, the introduction of credit in the 1960s, the growth of advertisements in the 1970s, and the Great Recession of 2008 all led to distinct changes in the American Dream. All of these changes can ultimately be linked back to consumer credit, as the ability to spend on credit first allowed middle-class citizens to consume more goods in the 1960s. From there, advertisements capitalized on new financial opportunities for middle-class citizens, convincing them that products were essential to a happy life. The introduction of credit also came along with the growth of debt, ultimately leading to the Great Recession of 2008 in which people lost faith in the American Dream. This showcases how new innovations and technologies can completely transform societies, as the credit card quickly changed the goals of an entire society.

When James Truslow Adams first coined the term “American Dream,” he described it as “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement” (Smith). In 1931, Truslow first put a name to this commonplace of freedom, opportunity, and equality offered by the United States. At a time when Americans were first experiencing signs of the Great Depression, the country still symbolized hope and opportunity for many (“American Dream”).  Although Truslow was the first to place a name to this common idea, the belief that America offered freedom and opportunity was established long before in 1766 at the country’s birth. The United States was built upon the ideas of religious freedom, democratic government, and new opportunities, embodying similar ideas Truslow referred to years later in his definition of the American Dream.

Since Truslow’s first definition of the American Dream in 1931, the American Dream has persisted through generations, evolving amidst new technologies, social standards, and political environments. Since the early 1900’s, there have been three major changes in the American Dream; one in 1931, one in the 1960’s, and the final around 2010. Although the specific dream itself may have changed over time, the American Dream has always represented the common goal all Americans strive towards. It represents the comfortable, ideal, and happy life Americans aim to achieve for themselves. In 1931, the American Dream represented opportunities for people to find employment, as the primary goal of many families included having steady income. Following World War II, the country experienced drastic social changes with new technology, opportunities for women, and jobs in the corporate world. With rapidly evolving technology, the American Dream became a materialistic one in which people viewed home ownership with the latest cars, television sets, and technology as the ideal life. While this materialistic version of the American Dream has persisted into modern years, the economic crisis of 2008 changed the way people saw the American Dream. While the majority of people truly believed the American Dream was achievable throughout the late twentieth century, just about half of millennials today believe the American Dream is dead (“American Dream”). Each of these major changes exhibit the ways in which American aspirations have changed over time, creating new versions of this “ideal life.”

When Truslow first used the phrase, “American Dream,” he was referring to the strong belief within American society that hard work ultimately leads to success. During his time, this success was defined by steady employment and the opportunity to grow within the workplace. The American Dream symbolized American equality, as many people believed the United States offered all people the ability to climb the social ladder through hard work and dedication (“American Dream”). Before Truslow’s time, the American Dream itself still existed in the sense that Americans believed their country presented the opportunity to earn a better life through hard work. However, success itself was defined differently than it was in the early twentieth century. Colonial America first experienced their form of the American Dream, as working environments started allowing employees to speak with employers, giving people the hope they could eventually work up to higher positions. Additionally, Westward Expansion saw huge increases in the American spirit, as people believed they could gain land through persistence and dedication. Although the “American Dream” was not used to define the belief Americans could achieve success through hard work, the idea itself existed (“American Dream”).

However, this goal was still extremely different from what is considered the American Dream. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, American society was extremely competitive and individualistic. While people believed they could climb the social ladder through hard work, they also believed they needed to compete with other Americans to achieve success, as there was limited land and employment opportunities. While people dreamed of successful lives with a home and steady income, they did not see this as a unifying goal across the country. Instead, they believed only a small portion of Americans could actually achieve the ideal life they all dreamed of (“American Dream”).

This idea first started to change with increased wages and governmental efforts to increase employment rates in the late 1920’s (Anderson & Chang 1). As work opportunities expanded, people began to truly value employment as the path to success. While it was still competitive, the government offered more jobs, creating a more unified country with the goal that every citizen had the right to work their way up in employment and achieve a steady, successful life (“American Dream”). Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal programs from 1933-1938 especially fueled the American Dream, as this allowed the government to provide more opportunities for its citizens. Although the country was in the middle of the Great Depression, the government found new ways to expand job opportunities, leading to higher morale and purpose in the country. People believed each generation could live a more successful life than the previous generation, fueling the overall desire for people to work hard and earn more money for their families (“American Dream”).

This same general American Dream persisted for years until the development of the credit card shifted society towards a materialistic version of the American Dream. The introduction of credit cards in the 1960’s offered Americans a new style of life, as they could suddenly afford much more in life. With the inventions of new technologies, such as television sets and cars, people developed stronger desires to use credit to purchase homes and the latest technologies. In addition, with the expansion of mass-production factories, companies increased advertising via newspapers, magazines, and television commercials, convincing Americans their path to a happier life required more spending. Suddenly, Americans believed everyone had a path to a successful life. Although the new standard of living was more expensive, people could purchase goods and services with credit cards, working to repay the money later on. The American Dream evolved, as people still believed hard work was required, but there was a growing sense of belief that more technology and materials created a happier life (Bod).

Although this materialistic version of the American Dream persisted for years, increased technological advancements and more expensive lives eventually led Americans to lose faith in the American Dream. Specifically following the economic crisis of 2008, more and more Americans believed hard work did not necessarily create a happy and successful life, as they lost faith in the banks. Even in the years after the economic crisis, faith in the American Dream continued to fall, as the price of homes, cars, technology, and college education drastically increased. While the amount of money needed to live the most extravagant lifestyle exponentially increased, the average American did not increase at this same rate.  While Americans from the 1970’s truly believed their dream life was achievable, Americans of the twenty first century no longer carried this view (Calder).

The new view of the American Dream can be attributed to several factors, including inflation in major life purchases such as college education and homes as well as the increased gap between upper, middle, and lower social classes. Following 2008, college tuition prices skyrocketed, making college education a risky investment for many young students. From 2010-2020, college tuition increased by an average of 9.24%, making the average cost per year around $30,000 (Hansen). At the same time, many families were still suffering from economic struggles following 2008, making college education unaffordable for many students. Additionally, for many students that take out college loans, it takes years for them to pay all their debt off, leading to defeated and pessimistic views of the American Dream. In fact, a poll from 2014 found that only 64% of Americans still believe in the American Dream (Sorkin & Thee-Brenan).

Throughout the 1900’s, the American value of college education steadily increased, as more students enrolled in universities each year. Wealth, happiness, success — Americans associated these values with college education more and more as time went on. Although trends predicted that American attitudes toward college education would only become more positive as time increased, recent years have shown the exact opposite: the number of Americans valuing college education has begun to decline. New polls have indicated tuition price, time, and available jobs as factors in American views on college. Many Americans believe the price of attending college outweighs the potential benefits, making it a risky investment (Salhotra).

During the early 2000s, the increased price of university tuition, along with the Great Recession, contributed to a slight decrease in college enrollment each year. Although this affected American attitudes toward college, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 drastically affected American attitudes and college enrollment rates in the past several years. In fact, one poll found that the percentage of Americans who believe college has a positive influence on the country has decreased by 14 points since 2020 (Salhotra). The implications of COVID-19, including a fall in the American economy, online schooling, and a shift in working culture, have all contributed to the new views on college education.

In Linda Scott’s “Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric,” I found it interesting — and a bit shocking — how many advertising angles one can take. Throughout the article, Scott includes a variety of advertising techniques, analyzing the representation, theories, and psychology behind each one.

Scott’s first point analyzes three different advertisements about lipstick. Although all of these advertisements promote the same product, each one presents a unique lens for its audience. For instance, the first image simply illustrates three bottles of lipstick with some textual context. Scott’s third advertisement presents two images of lipstick: one picture of the bottles lined up together and one of the lipstick boldly applied on a woman’s lips.

Scott’s “First Advertisement”

Scott’s “Third Advertisement”

Scott argues these advertisements follow slightly different theories about advertising, explaining how the first shows the lipstick simply as it is, while the third advertisement uses framing to draw in its audience. Although I understand Scott’s point, I also find the definition of “framing” somewhat confusing.

Scott uses the focus on the woman’s lips in the third advertisement to illustrate the concept of framing. I understand this point, but I also see framing in the first advertisement, just in a slightly different way. Although the first advertisement may initially seem straightforward and simple, the designers intentionally placed the lipstick bottles in such a way to form a triangular shape. In real life, it would be impossible for the two standing bottles of lipstick to defy the laws of gravity and stand in such a way. Furthermore, the advertisement actually removes the lipstick from its regular context to place it on an entirely white background, “framing” it in a way that it clearly pops out to the audience.

Based on this, I think the first advertisement does demonstrate some theories of visual rhetoric, and specifically that framing can be applied to nearly every situation. Although Scott argues that some advertisements are more simple than others, I see ways in which this first advertisement can be considered just as complex, if not more, than the third. Although it may not use representation in the same way, it still uses framing techniques to make the lipstick product pop out to the audience. In this way, the designers of the first and third advertisement most likely put the same amount of thought, intention, and analysis into their advertisements.

Sources

Amazon’s “Vote” T-Shirt

It is widely believed that humans can store seven items of information in the short-term memory at a time (Mcleod 2023). Considering the brain’s relatively small capacity to store and process information, it is crucial for companies and organizations to consider the constraints of advertisements and convey the most effective message. Apparel is one form of communication and advertising that companies, organizations, and civil rights movements alike have relied upon for years to spread messages and beliefs. One example from a modern mental health campaign includes popular clothing brand, H&M’s, “Positive State of Mind” sweatshirt. The vibrant pink sweatshirt exhibits a large smiley face and quote “Positive State of Mind” in bold, dark lettering. Although the designers intended to spread mental health awareness, the short message actually poses serious issues in regards to mental health awareness campaigns, as it oversimplifies mental health illnesses. The sweatshirt represents the difficulties in spreading awareness through apparel, as sweatshirts face time and attention constraints.

However, some designers have found ways to actually strengthen arguments through the simple nature of apparel, as seen through the “Vote” t-shirt commonly found on different clothing sites such as Amazon, Etsy, TeePublic, and more. The t-shirt reads one short word: “Vote,” each letter illustrated differently to represent important reasons to vote. The “V” resembles two books, the “O” is a fist, the “T” is represented by a uterus, and the “E” design includes pride colors. Each of these symbols represents some of the most controversial and important voting topics: education, race discrimination and inequalities, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Although the shirt seems fairly simple at first glance, further analysis reveals an entire argument backed with claim, evidence, and reasoning. The claim urges people to “Vote,” as seen through the commonplace of such a simple word and topic. The evidence relies upon illustrations, using visual rhetoric and more commonplaces to show the audience how much is at stake at the voting polls. Finally, the reasoning relies upon pathos as well as inductive and deductive reasoning to convince the audience why they should vote.

While the claim may seem relatively obvious at first, it is more complex than it may appear. First and foremost, the shirt argues people should vote, as clearly exhibited by the phrase “Vote.” However, upon further inspection, the shirt does more than just this; it relies on commonplaces to encourage people to vote for democratic candidates. Each letter of the shirt represents liberal ideals in some of the most controversial political debates. The books represent education, and the belief that books should not be banned for containing sensitive content, as many disturbing events throughout history are important to learn from. Many Americans would be familiar with the debate over banned books in education, and associate the visuals with this debate, given the context of voting. Furthermore, many Americans would again be familiar with the fist as seen in the letter “O,” and connect this to Black Lives Matter movements across the country. Similarly, they would connect the uterus to abortion debates, and the pride flag to LGBTQ+ rights. Someone who follows American news would associate democratic ideals to these visuals, seeing how they represent equality across all races, genders, and sexualities. However, if a person from a different culture or time period saw the t-shirt, the message may become rather meaningless, as they would not understand the deeper meaning of the shirt.

Works Cited

Mcleod, S. “Short-Term Memory: Facts, Types, Duration & Capacity.” Simply Psychology, 10

May 2023, www.simplypsychology.org/short-term-memory.html.

Looking back at my civic engagement speech, there are different areas that were my strengths and weaknesses. To begin with my strengths, my content was strong with a good analysis. I focused on the commonplaces and the rhetorical situation presented in the “Positive State of Mind” sweatshirt, and I provided a detailed explanation of each point I covered. For instance, I talked about commonplaces for two minutes, discussing the different interpretations of this phrase. I explained how certain words can lead to a variety of connotations and meanings, showing how the sweatshirt presents the complicated nature of rhetoric on apparel. I also provided a range of contrasting views and interpretations of the sweatshirt which was important in furthering the analysis.

Another one of my strengths included my conclusion, as I pointed out the significance of both the artifact and my analysis on it. I explained that although a sweatshirt “may not seem controversial or even significant at first glance…it can lead to a variety of interpretations.” This was a good way to specifically point out the significance of the sweatshirt while also potentially connecting with some of the audience’s thoughts.

Finally, some strengths of my delivery included my eye contact and volume. I was well-prepared for the speech and did not need to look at my note cards very often. I also spoke at a good volume with proper cadence.

Although these were some strengths of my speech, there were certainly some weaknesses in which I can look to improve in the future. First, my introduction could have been strengthened. I had a good hook that engaged the audience, but I did not have a strong context-problem-response, as I did not directly explain the link between my introduction and my content. My hook was about the clothing everyone was wearing, but I did not specifically connect their clothes to a problem that my analysis investigated.

Additionally, there was some room for improvement with my delivery, as I could have appeared more confident and comfortable while presenting. I was nervous to present, and I think this affected the tone of my voice and body language onstage.

After watching my peers present, I gained new insight into other ways I could improve my speech, as well. First, I thought some of the presentations did a very good job engaging the audience throughout the speech, as they posed questions to the audience through the entirety of the presentation rather than just at the beginning. Additionally, some of the presentations used a slideshow to keep the audience’s attention and constantly illustrate new ideas. I think these were some creative ways which could have been incorporated into my speech.

Overall, I think my speech was strong, but there were certainly areas needing improvement.

“Positive State of Mind” From Clothing Brand H&M

I want everyone to take a moment and look down at what you are wearing today. Now look around. What do you notice? What impressions do you form of other people simply by their outfits?

Whether we realize it or not, fashion is a form of rhetoric, and what all of you are wearing today is a form of rhetoric too. It’s a form of rhetoric in which you are promoting yourself; your ideals, beliefs, opinions, and what you stand for. Maybe you planned your outfit days in advance or maybe you threw on the first thing you saw in the morning. Either way, your outfit says something about you and plays a significant role in the impressions you leave on other people.

Companies have been capitalizing upon this idea for years, marketing their brand, messages, or ideals on apparel. Civil rights movements have also used fashion as a way to gain attention, support, and enact change both in the past and in the modern day.

The artifact I will be focusing on is this vibrant pink sweatshirt with a large smiley face and quote, “Positive State of Mind.” This sweatshirt is part of popular clothing brand, H&M’s SMILEY collaboration, a clothing line focused on “good vibes” and mental health awareness. Mental health symbols and awareness have been increasingly popular over the past several decades with quotes and logos on apparel, backpacks, stickers, phone cases, posters, and other personal devices and objects.

This sweatshirt showcases two forms of rhetoric that I will be focusing on: commonplaces and the rhetorical situation.

The commonplace “Stay positive” or “Be positive” are slogans I am sure you have all heard before. I’m sure many of you can think of a time when you struggled in a class, sport, social situation, or club and someone told you to “Stay positive.” Messages like these are prevalent in the media, classroom posters, and common advice. H&M’s sweatshirt showcases a variation of the commonplace, reading “Positive State of Mind,” which has a connotation of happiness, peace, and contentment. The vibrant pink colors and large smiley face only further emphasize a strong sense of joy and fulfillment.

But what does this commonplace of positivity even mean? While “Positive state of mind” is a seemingly simple message, people often overlook the complexity of this statement. In the simplest of terms, the phrase indicates a person is happy or content with their life. The word “state” implies that there are different states of emotion and feelings people can be in, and this person is currently in a “positive” one.

However, there are many ways to interpret this statement, and different people will interpret meaning differently. For instance, the phrase “state” can be implied differently. Some people may view this “state” as voluntary; the person is choosing to be in this state. Other people may see “state” and think of it as something people are automatically in. People, events, and experiences outside of that individual’s control may dictate which “state” that person is in. Additionally, people may infer the ability to change states differently. While one person may see a mental state as something that can be changed very easily and instantaneously, other people may see these mental states as something more concrete and challenging to change. One person may see a mental state as something short and momentary, while others can see this state as something more permanent and long-lasting.

So, a “positive state of mind” can mean very different things to different people. To some, the quote may seem light-hearted, helpful, and encouraging. To others, the quote may seem rather meaningless and fake. It is unrealistic for any person to be positive and happy at all points during their life, so while some may see this quote as a reminder to appreciate the good in all moments of life, others may see it as ignorant and even harmful in some ways.

Although it is impossible to know exactly what this designer’s intentions were in designing the sweatshirt, the rhetorical situation of the graphics offers more insight into the rhetorical devices within it.

The exigence of the sweatshirt relates to mental health awareness and improving the quality of life. Mental health is a topic that applies to everyone across the world between different social classes, countries, ages, genders, races, and cultures. Mental health can mean something different to everyone, but many mental health campaigns generally aim to de-stigmatize mental health and encourage people to open up and reach out for help when they are struggling. These campaigns also aim to normalize the practice of taking care of one’s mental health, just as they are already encouraged to do so with their physical health.

Since mental health needs vary drastically between individuals, the exigence of this problem varies too. Some people may truly need a reminder to just be positive and appreciate the good in their lives. On the other hand, other people may need the exact opposite reminder that their struggles are valid and need real help that “staying positive” cannot fix. This makes the exigence of mental health issues complicated and complex, with some perspectives viewing the sweatshirt as helpful and encouraging, while others would see it as a detrimental and harmful message.

To examine this further, we must look at the second part of the rhetorical situation, the audience. Since it is a sweatshirt, the audience applies to two different types of audiences. First, H&M’s audience is the consumer, the person strolling through an H&M store in-person or online. H&M’s primary goal is to sell as many sweatshirts as possible, slightly shifting the exigence. Since H&M is most popular in the United States and Germany, the primary audience would be women from these two countries who feel they are positive or uplifting people.

The second audience would be the people who see others wearing this sweatshirt out in public. While H&M may be trying to promote its own brand by showing its support for mental health campaigns, that person may want their audience to see them as a welcoming, positive person. In this way, the sweatshirt has several different audiences, each of which may be applied to slightly different exigencies.

Finally, the constraints of the sweatshirt include that it is an article of clothing. As people walk by in public, their audience may only have a few seconds to take in and interpret the sweatshirt. For this reason, the simple message may be most effective at conveying positivity and mental health awareness. On the other hand, the simplicity of the message may seem like a form of misunderstanding and even mockery of mental health illnesses, as they are not simple. This makes it difficult to promote mental health awareness on sweatshirts and shows how this specific sweatshirt could be interpreted in a variety of different ways. 

While it is unclear exactly what the designers wanted others to see in this sweatshirt, it is apparent they wanted to promote mental health by spreading positivity. However, the simple message could be interpreted in many different ways from being seen as an encouraging and positive message to something controversial and damaging. The sweatshirt highlights how even the simplest of messages can be misinterpreted and controversial, showing the significance of commonplaces and the rhetorical situation in everyday life.

Revised Draft:

I want everyone to take a moment and look down at what you are wearing today. Now look around. What do you notice? What impressions do you form of other people simply by their outfits?

Whether we realize it or not, fashion is a form of rhetoric, and what all of you are wearing today is a form of rhetoric too. It’s a form of rhetoric in which you are promoting yourself; your ideals, beliefs, opinions, and what you stand for. Maybe you planned your outfit days in advance or maybe you threw on the first thing you saw in the morning. Either way, your outfit says something about you and plays a significant role in the impressions you leave on other people.

Companies have been capitalizing upon this idea for years, marketing their own brand, messages, or ideals on apparel. Additionally, civil rights movements often incorporate fashion to gain attention, support, and enact change

The artifact I will be examining is this vibrant pink sweatshirt with a large smiley face and quote, “Positive State of Mind.” This sweatshirt is part of popular clothing brand, H&M’s SMILEY collaboration, a clothing line focused on “good vibes” and mental health awareness. Over the past several decades, the presence of mental health symbols and awareness has grown exponentially on apparel, backpacks, stickers, phone cases, posters, and other common objects.

This sweatshirt showcases two forms of rhetoric that I will be focusing on: commonplaces and the rhetorical situation.

The commonplace of “Stay positive” or “Be positive” presents itself in daily life. Think back to a time when you struggled in a class, sport, social situation, or club and someone suggested you “stay positive.” Similar messages appear constantly in the media, and H&M’s sweatshirt showcases a variation of the commonplace. “Positive State of Mind” connotes happiness, peace, and contentment, and the vibrant pink colors only further emphasize a strong sense of joy and fulfillment.

But what does this positivity commonplace even mean? While “Positive state of mind” is a seemingly simple message, people often overlook the complexity of the statement. In the simplest of terms, the phrase indicates a person’s happiness or contentment with life. The word “state” implies people can occupy a variety of different emotions.

However, there are many ways to view this statement, and individuals interpret meaning differently. For instance, the phrase “state” implies various ideas. Some people may view this “state” as voluntary — the person actively choosing that state. Other people may see “state” and think of it as something people are automatically in. People, events, and experiences outside of that individual’s control may dictate which “state” that person finds themself in. Additionally, people may infer the ability to change states differently. While one person may see a mental state as something that can be changed very easily and instantaneously, other people may see these mental states as something more concrete and challenging to change. One person may see a mental state as something short and momentary, while others can see this state as something more permanent and long-lasting.

So, a “positive state of mind” can mean very different things to different people. To some, the quote may seem light-hearted, helpful, and encouraging. To others, the quote may seem rather meaningless and fake. It is unrealistic for any person to be positive and happy at all points during their life, so while some may see this quote as a reminder to appreciate the good in all moments of life, others may see it as ignorant and even harmful in some ways.

Although it is impossible to know exactly what this designer’s intentions were in designing the sweatshirt, the rhetorical situation of the graphics offers more insight into the rhetorical devices within it.

The sweatshirt’s exigence relates to mental health awareness and improving the quality of life. Mental health applies across all social classes, countries, ages, genders, races, and cultures. While mental health presents itself in many forms, most campaigns aim to de-stigmatize the language and attitudes towards mental health in general. They encourage people to open up and reach out for help through their struggles. These campaigns also aim to normalize the practice of taking care of one’s mental health just like their physical health.

Since mental health needs vary drastically between individuals, the exigence of this problem varies too. Some people may truly need a reminder to just be positive and appreciate the good in their lives. On the other hand, other people may need the exact opposite reminder that their struggles are valid and need real help that “staying positive” cannot fix. This makes the exigence of mental health issues complicated and complex, with some perspectives viewing the sweatshirt as helpful and encouraging, while others would see it as a detrimental and harmful message.

To examine this further, we must look at the second part of the rhetorical situation, the audience. Since it is a sweatshirt, the audience applies to two different types of audiences. First, H&M’s audience is the consumer, the person strolling through an H&M store in-person or online. H&M’s primary goal is to sell as many sweatshirts as possible, slightly shifting the exigence. Since H&M is most popular in the United States and Germany, the primary audience would be women from these two countries who feel they are positive or uplifting people.

The second audience would be the people who see others actually wearing this sweatshirt out in public. While H&M may be trying to promote its own brand by showing its support for mental health campaigns, that individual person may want their audience to see them as a welcoming, positive person. In this way, the sweatshirt has several different audiences, each of which may be applied to slightly different exigencies.

Finally, the constraints of the sweatshirt include that it is an article of clothing. As people walk by in public, their audience may only have a few seconds to take in and interpret the sweatshirt. For this reason, the simple message may actually be most effective at conveying positivity and mental health awareness. On the other hand, the simplicity of the message may seem like a form of misunderstanding and even mockery of mental health illnesses, as they are not simple. This makes it difficult to promote mental health awareness on sweatshirts and shows how this specific sweatshirt could be interpreted in a variety of different ways. 

While it is unclear exactly what the designers wanted others to see in this sweatshirt, it is apparent they wanted to promote mental health by spreading positivity. However, the simple message could be interpreted in many different ways from being seen as an encouraging and positive message to something controversial and damaging. The sweatshirt highlights how even the simplest of messages can be misinterpreted and controversial, showing the significance of commonplaces and the rhetorical situation in everyday life.

“Positive State of Mind” From Clothing Brand H&M

At first glance, this vibrant pink sweatshirt seems to radiate positivity and happiness, encouraging people to appreciate life. Similar to other popular merchandise today, this sweatshirt is raising awareness for mental health through the use of a basic smiley face and a simple quote, “Positive State of Mind.” Over the past several decades, the media has increasingly encouraged mental health slogans and symbols on apparel, phone cases, stickers, posters, and other personal devices and objects. Although many mental health awareness campaigns have the right intentions, sweatshirts like this may create the opposite effect by turning important messages into fashion trends. Mental health awareness campaigns generally aim to normalize mental health illnesses, discussions, and support. However, sweatshirts that simply advertise positivity can invalidate people’s real mental health struggles, as illnesses such as depression or anxiety cannot be solved by simply staying positive. My civic artifact speech will focus specifically on visual rhetoric and representation, examining how some mental health campaigns have turned into stylish trends that actually only further contribute to mental health stigma. In a world where popular trends spread like wildfire, it is crucial to analyze the rhetoric of these types of messages and their true effects. Please share your own thoughts on this sweatshirt and similar messages. Thank you.

Source: Everything Really is Political

Politics. In today’s society, this simple word is so commonly avoided, as political discussion is often considered rude and inappropriate at the dinner table, around new people, and in many different forms of social gatherings.

But why?

Well, a person’s political views are typically very personal, built upon their values, ideals, and experiences in life. Due to this, political beliefs are often deeply tied to emotion, and many people have lost relationships with others due to opposing political views. It can actually be extremely difficult to resolve any form of political debate, as people are very stubborn when it comes to these beliefs.

According to an interview from On the Media, Brendan Nyhan, a professor at Dartmouth College, discusses how even undeniable truth and facts can rarely change a person’s political opinion. Nyhan explains that it is challenging for people to admit they are wrong when these beliefs are so deeply rooted in their identity (Nyhan 2016).

While we can understand why political beliefs are controversial, it is even more important to explore how we can improve the current climate surrounding political discussion. After all, politics do pertain to almost every aspect of life, and productive discussion about them is absolutely necessary if we want to improve society and our future. One model we could look at is rhetoric, just in a different way than you may have expected.

Although many people think of rhetoric as the art of persuasion, it is actually so much more than that. According to Michele Kennerly’s chapter “Trust,” rhetoric refers to the trust we establish among friends, families, speakers, and our communities in almost any form of communication. One form of rhetoric, pathos, is typically viewed as the use of emotion to strengthen an argument (Kennerly). However, pathos is used in much more than just arguments, as it is the idea that shared human emotions and experiences can build trust between people. 

Pathos is present in many different forms throughout daily life, often in more subtle ways than we may expect. For instance, pathos is when a professor gains trust from their students by sharing more about their personal life; as students start to see the professor as a person who experiences the same human emotions as themselves, students can build trust with that professor and buy into their class.

Since pathos is a form of building trust and empathy through shared emotions, maybe this could be applied in political situations. As previously discussed, facts are often not enough to change a person’s mind. However, maybe the focus of political discussions needs to shift; instead of trying to convince other people of our own political opinions, we should focus on sharing and hearing the experiences of other people. By learning about other people’s experiences and emotions dealing with certain policies, we can better create informed holistic views of policies and laws. In this way, pathos can be a tool to create a more inclusive and understanding political environment, encouraging political discussion rather than silencing it.

Sources:

Garfield, Bob, and Brooke Gladstone. “The Mechanism of Blind Belief.” On the Media, 8 July 2016, 

https://doi.org/https://www.wnyc.org/story/mechanism-blind-belief1/.

Kennerly, Michele. “Trust.” , sites.psu.edu/caskeywords/2022/06/25/trust/.

Ter Burg, Sebastian. Everything Really is Political. . creativecommons.org/2017/05/19/everything-really-political/.

Credit: The Medium

If you’ve ever watched Disney’s Wall-E or Warner Bros’ The Matrix, I’m sure you recall the haunting themes of both — robots taking over humanity. Ever since the introduction of modern technology, people have feared the consequences and potential dystopian future the digital age could create. Most recently, Open AI released Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, or ChatGPT, a platform that responds to and creates original essays, scripts, stories, and other forms of language and communication. Implications of ChatGPT could potentially spread across every aspect of communication and human life; from education, industries, businesses, and employment, to even politics, society could be permanently changed. Although ChatGPT certainly comes with its benefits, the advanced technology poses serious threats to our democracy and governmental processes that must be considered and understood.

Democracy is established upon the idea that government should be representative of the people and it relies on equal access to information and voting opportunities for it to actually be effective. Lobbying has always been a key part of this process, as lobbyists advocate the needs and wants of the people, while also holding the government accountable by sharing political decisions with citizens. ChatGPT threatens this accountability and representation of all groups of people because artificial intelligence can now act as its own lobbyist, automatically generating articles, reports, emails, blogs, posts, social media comments, and any other form of communication.

In Sanders and Schneier’s Opinion Article “How ChatGPT Hijacks Democracy” the authors explain how ChatGPT could target specific people within the government — from Congress members with strong influence over certain policies to even just exposing the weakest points within the government, the possibilities are endless (Sanders and Schneier 2). This type of information can become extremely dangerous too, as people in control of ChatGPT can more easily spread their own ideals and campaigns. Using ChatGPT emails and social media posts, they can gain more insight from within the government, with which they can selectively choose information to disseminate across the media to match their own ideology.

Although it can be argued that ChatGPT has the potential to strengthen democracy by giving a voice to communities with less power and money currently, realistically this most likely would never be the case. As with almost anything throughout history, people with more money will have more control over ChatGPT technology and who can access it. In this way, ChatGPT will actually only increase the power gap between lower and higher social classes.

And what exactly happens when ChatGPT starts generating its own comments, posts, emails, and accounts? It’s starting to sound a little eerie right…maybe like that dystopian world you remember from Wall-E or The Matrix? Although I do believe technology is extremely important and ChatGPT certainly has important benefits, it would be irresponsible to disregard any concerns and preventative measures before this technology becomes too widespread. While it may be difficult to determine exactly what these preventative measures could be, it is truly our civic duty to protect our democracy, which ChatGPT threatens greatly.

Sources

Sanders, Nathan E., and Bruce Schneier. “How ChatGPT Hijacks Democracy.” The New York Times, 15 Jan. 2023, 

www.nytimes.com/2023/01/15/opinion/ai-chatgpt-lobbying-democracy.html. Accessed 24 Aug. 2023.