The above image is of a soldier playing a piano in the middle of the woods. It wasn’t planned or staged, just taken when it occurred. The main elements of this photo are the location, piano, and soldier that work together to argue that society tends to forget about the humanity of soldiers.

The setting plays a role in the impact of the photo. The background is a wooded area that gives off bleak and desolate vibes. The gloomy lighting also adds to the somber effects. This puts the audience in a solemn mood as they look at the image and influences how they perceive the soldier and piano in the foreground.

The piano in the image is alone in the woods, which is strange. It was most likely abandoned by someone who had to flee and leave it behind due to the war. How many nights were spent perfecting one piece of music? How many memories were made playing the piano with a loved one? The stark contrast of the out-of-place piano with the background makes the audience question where it came from, why it is there, and wonder about all of the history that it holds that is now lost.

In the photo, there is a soldier playing a piano in the middle of the woods. This surprises the audience because one usually only sees pictures of soldiers fighting on the battlefield. Because of this homogeneous way of depicting soldiers, everyone tends to forget that soldiers are more than just war vessels; they are people too with lives beyond the war. Did this man play piano before being sent off to war? Was he a musician? Did he want to play the piano for a living? Soldiers are ordinary people with depth, but no one can see past the uniform. This image breaks that trend and forces the audience to look and think past the exterior.

The image argues that war makes people tend to forget about what matters most to them. It does this by forcing the audience to realize that they perceive the two elements in the same way. The abandoned piano with the forgotten history symbolizes soldiers lost at war. Men and women are sent off to fight for their country and die as war vessels, not people. Soldiers perish and accumulate on the battlefield, nameless, and their past lives are forgotten. Just like the piano, war makes us forget about the things that used to be important to us. This should haunt people, but because it is war the action is seen as excusable, and people can go on with their lives. The image attempts to fight this reasoning by reminding the audience that soldiers are humans too.

The story I will tell is the gradual acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community throughout history. This narrative is important to learn because queer people were not simply accepted overnight. There is a long history of the struggle of queer people to gain fundamental rights. People tend to focus on the major events and landmark decisions of queer history, but these are just the results of the long battle fought by queers. By fixating on these few results, it ignores the queer narrative of resistance, failure, survival, success, and flourishing. It is essential to know and understand the full story of queer history to honor and celebrate all the people and their efforts to get us where we are today.

By learning about the LGBTQ+ rights movement and analyzing how society’s perception of queer people has changed over time, I hope to gain and share a greater understanding of what more can be done to make the world more accepting of the LGBTQ+ community.

As a queer person, it is no surprise that I am interested in the development of the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. However, I am also particularly intrigued by this topic because of the greater understanding that I can gain from it. I am an avid advocate for LGBTQ+ people and their rights. So, if I can determine what improves society’s opinion of the queer community and why this occurs, then I can take action that best enhances society’s acceptance of the LBGTQ+ community.

I’m going to keep the focus on the paradigm shift within America because the level of acceptance of queer people within other countries has varied greatly in comparison over time and would be too broad. Although there have been queer people in America since its founding, they have not been prominent until about the 20th century. Because of this, I will probably only mention them as background information and as a way to memorialize them as queer pioneers. Queer people and the LGBTQ+ rights movement have only really blossomed during the last century, so that is where I will begin the story. This is a good place to start the narrative because it is right where the story picks up after progress has been stagnant for all of history.

Since the main point of my story will be the paradigm shift of society’s acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community, my main research question will be: what is the main driving force that enhances society’s acceptance of queer people? The subsidiary research questions will focus more on the chosen eras to gain a deeper understanding of how they connect to each other and the main research question. Such as, what did each era have in common? How did the eras improve society’s view of queer people? Why was each era so effective in enhancing society’s acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community? With these questions, I will be able to tell the story of the development of the queer rights movement and gain a deeper understanding of how to continue and enhance society’s acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community.

The TED talk I watched is a commentary on a current, widely-held assumption given by Christen Reighter. The main thesis of the TED talk is the struggle of women who do not want to have children and how they are perceived and treated by society. She discussed the issues with having this perspective, shared a personal anecdote of what she went through because of it, and explained why the narrative surrounding the topic must change.

In the past, women were owned by men and only valued for their bodies and ability to bear children. There has been a paradigm shift away from this belief as women have demanded independence and to be acknowledged for their brains and character instead of just their sex. However, these residual cultural norms are still prevalent in people’s opinions today and more needs to change. It is surprising how strongly society still clings to the role that a woman must be a mother. So much so that people cannot separate a female from being a woman and being a mother. These notions negatively affect women’s perceptions of themselves and make them feel as though they are nothing more than a vessel to produce offspring.

Christen shares her personal story of attempting to get surgically sterilized and the resistance and misogyny she faced. She is not alone in this struggle. Christen mentioned that while she researched, she found countless other women online who experienced the same things. The primary, repeating theme was women being told, “You’ll change your mind,” as if having children is the one and only option.

Christen suggests there needs to be a shift in how people perceive women and their autonomy away from them only being useful as mothers and, instead, towards respecting their value beyond motherhood and their decision to not have children. This will, in turn, improve how society treats women, so they do not objectify but empower them for their independence.

The most important idea I got from Christen’s TED talk is understanding the separation of womanhood from motherhood and the necessity for self-determination. Having children is not the only option, so a woman’s value must not be based on whether she has children or not. When women are given the freedom to forge their own path, they can make choices other than having children. Thus, having children is an extension of womanhood, not the definition.

I think what is strong about Christen’s speaking style is how it evolves throughout the speech. She starts off her anecdote somewhat restrained and shy, representing how she felt because of the roles placed on her by society when she began her journey of surgical sterilization. However, by the end of her story and journey, Christen is empowered and inspires women to be self-determinate as well.

I would say Christen’s TED talk is more of a speech than a presentation. Speeches are powerful through ethos and pathos appeals to persuade the audience to follow their call to action. Meanwhile, presentations use visual aids and appeal mainly to logos to convince the viewer of what they are trying to sell. Christen effectively employed pathos and ethos to convince her audience and expand their understanding of the issue.

This sustainability bumper sticker says a lot despite being so concise. That is because there is a lot of background information it assumes the audience has.

The bumper sticker says to “Save the Earth” but does not explicitly state how this can be achieved. Of course, there is not enough room on the bumper sticker to elaborate on every action people can take to preserve the Earth, so it has to expect the audience to already know what they can do to take care of the Earth.

“Save the Earth” is also a commonplace that is believed to be shared by the majority of the audience. Since everyone lives on the Earth, everyone should want to make sure it remains habitable. By employing this commonplace, the bumper sticker appeals to the largest possible range of the audience.

Along with the “Save the Earth” commonplace goes the ideology that everyone should live sustainably. This is because the best way to save the Earth is to take action that helps it thrive and avoid activities that destroy the Earth. By combing the shared commonplace and ideology with the viewer’s assumed background information, the audience has the knowledge and motivation to save the Earth.

The bumper sticker works well logically because of its structure and rationale. This bumper sticker is a call to action to live sustainably. “Save the Earth” is the claim, and “There’s No Planet B” is the reasoning. By starting with the claim, the audience immediately knows that living sustainably is what is wanted of them, and they can use their background knowledge to determine whether they are capable of this or not. Then the audience reads the logic for the claim. The fact that there is no Planet B is an entirely accurate justification for wanting to save the Earth. Because of the successful logos, the audience’s sense of reasoning is appealed to, and they are persuaded to act.

Overall, the bumper sticker is an effective logos appeal because the reasoning accurately supports the claim, and it is a powerful summation of the need for a sustainable lifestyle to save the Earth.

I wonder if the team that designed and approved this Mr. Clean advertisement got fired because it is that bad.

Mr. Clean completely missed the mark with this advertisement. They fail at employing Kairos and aligning it with the contextual situation, the persuasive appeals offend the target audience more than convince them, and the visual elements relay an underlying message that worsens the entire incident.

It would not kill Mr. Clean to have even an ounce of situational awareness. This advertisement tries to sell their product to mothers on mother’s day. On a day where mothers should be celebrated for all their hard work and get a day off, Mr. Clean decided they should “Get back to the job that really matters.” Considering that Mr. Clean is a cleaning supplies company, this implies that the job that is important for mothers is cleaning, not raising and taking care of their children, but cleaning. The fact that they did this on mother’s day shows a complete disregard for Kairos and the circumstantial situation. Timing and context are critical for persuasive rhetoric, and by advertising for mothers to clean on mother’s day, Mr. Clean drastically fails in this area.

The target audience for this advertisement is clearly mothers. However, Mr. Clean does a better job at offending them than persuading them to buy the product. There is still a strong-held belief that women only belong in the home to cook and clean for their husbands. This advertisement only perpetuates that stereotype. By advertising cleaning as the “job that really matters” to mothers, it disregards all the hard work mothers put into raising their children and their actual careers. News flash, Mr. Clean, mothers can have real jobs just like men. This mother’s day advertisement overlooks all the meaningful jobs of mothers for the sake of trying to sell a product, insulting all mothers in the process.

Lastly, not only did Mr. Clean feel it was necessary to depict a woman cleaning in the advertisement, but a little girl, as well. Apparently, they did not believe the audience could pick up on the fact the woman was a mother unless a child was present, but why a daughter? Why not a son? Or a daughter and son? The advertisement seems to portray a mother teaching her daughter to clean. Seriously? This is just prolonging the stereotype that all females need to learn is to cook and clean. Mr. Clean could have put a son or omitted the child entirely, but no, they just decided that if the advertisement was going to be bad, it was going to be bad in every way possible.

Below are my chosen artifacts for my civic engagement speech and rhetorical analysis essay.

My first artifact is a current community guidelines notice created by the Pennsylvania State University. The rhetorical situation it addresses is the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The graphic outlines safety and health procedures that should be followed to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. This is the artifact that will be the primary subject of my civic engagement speech.

My second artifact is an informational poster issued by the Provincial Board of Health of Alberta, Canada. The rhetorical situation it addresses is the 1918 influenza pandemic. The sign informs the reader of basic actions that should be taken to keep themselves safe and healthy and instructions on how to make a face mask. This is the artifact that I will put into conversation with the former artifact for my rhetorical analysis essay.

I chose these artifacts because they are still relevant to the present global pandemic. I am particularly interested in this topic because both public service announcements communicate ways to end a pandemic. However, even with this knowledge, we are still suffering through the worse of the coronavirus pandemic. Why? I believe by analyzing the rhetorical situations and rhetorical devices employed, I can help answer this question.

The predominant relationship between the two artifacts is that they are both public service announcements regarding pandemics. However, their most notable difference is the most intriguing. They are over a century apart in time.

The 1918 influenza pandemic ended in about two years. Now, over a century later, we are approaching the two-year mark of the coronavirus pandemic with no end in sight. Despite better research, greater understanding, and now an effective vaccine, we cannot manage to get this pandemic under control. Something must have happened to drastically alter the perceptions of the pandemics since they are so similar, but the outcomes have been so different. By comparing and contrasting the rhetorical situations, rhetorical devices utilized, and visual designs and appeals applied in the two artifacts, I hope to gain an understanding of this variance.

With an understanding of what changed, I can then analyze what was done right and what was done wrong during both time periods. This will be an examination of the effectiveness of the rhetorical devices employed in both the historical and contemporary public service announcements and how and why they have altered over time.

Overall, I hope the analysis of the two pandemic public service announcements allows for a better comprehension of each rhetorical situation and the influence of rhetorical devices utilized.

 

The issue of climate change and what should be done about it has unfortunately become a divisive topic in today’s society. There are those who recognize climate change as a serious threat that must be dealt with immediately. Others think climate change is happening at a natural rate, and no action is required. And, of course, some people do not believe in climate change at all.

Well, the fact is climate change is real, and everyone must do all that they can to diminish it.

Hooray! I solved climate change.

In reality, I am sure that statement did not change anyone’s stance on the debate, and that is the problem. This proclamation is about as far as the communication for reversing climate change goes in today’s media.

Environmental issues are a significant and urgent concern. However, communication and education on the subject are not always done in the best ways. Experts tend to focus on the causes, harmful impacts, and deadlines associated with global warming. These tactics are used to alarm the audience and convince them of the severity and urgency, but most times, they will instead cause feelings of despair and helplessness.

I believe the most influential way to engage people in positive social change is to educate them on how they can make a difference as an individual.

When people hear that climate change is caused by big corporations burning fossil fuels, it isolates them from the issue because they do not see it as their fault or responsibility when, in reality, everyone is culpable. Individuals need to know the personal choices that they can make to reverse environmental damage. This way, the public is informed and inspired to make adjustments in their daily routine that will enact positive social change.

There is also the case of challengers being cut off and removed from the conversation because their beliefs are wrong. There will always be those that deny the facts and refuse to change. Nevertheless, this does not mean that they should be excluded from the discourse. All voices and viewpoints deserve to be heard, and once they are heard, they can be corrected. No progress can be made with them if the entire discussion happens without them.

I believe everyone, scientists, elected officials, media figures, and individuals, should engage in the climate change debate respectfully and on a personal level. This way, no one is left out, and everyone can participate in positive change together.