Did you know 1,927.9 pounds of food were wasted at Redifer Commons during the month of August alone? At least, that’s what the screen above the trash and compost bins in the South buffet says.
These screens exist in every dining commons as a result of Penn State’s sustainability efforts– specifically in alignment with the United Nations’ 12th sustainable development goal to “ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns”.
Whoever created the slides that are displayed on the screen had the student body in mind as one of the slides claims, “Every day in the U.S., we waste enough food to fill the Rose Bowl”, which appeals to the typical Penn State student’s affinity for college football. However, this is where the designer’s awareness of the audience ends. The slides display negative reinforcement. There is something off-putting about placing blame for food waste on us college students who can barely afford to eat substantial meals outside of the commons buffets.
In my rhetorical analysis of these dining commons screens, I will compare different slides from every dining commons and investigate specific rhetorical choices through the lens of commonplaces and social movement studies, in addition to placing the statistics into international perspective. On the slides, commonplaces are found in statements such as “Together we can make a difference”, while the use of first person plural pronouns creates a sense of solidarity that is a key social movement tactic (in this case, the zero-waste movement).
This topic is incredibly relevant to all of us as we encounter these screens on a daily basis. By breaking down the components and implications of the slides displayed in the dining commons, I hope we can each approach reducing food waste from a more holistic angle.
Thank you for your time.
While I can’t physically see the artifact you do a great job explaining it so I could imagine what the artifact looks like. You use a fun but informative tone as a way to get the readers engaged and into the text. However the lens you chose to use to analyze the artifact is not obvious in the text.
I know exactly what the artifact you chose is. I see them all the time and feel like the audience in which you will be pitching this too, will most likely be able to picture it also. I found it interesting how you mentioned negative reinforcement as when I first saw those screens I didn’t feel encouraged not waste just blamed for the waste there already was. I think the lens you chose to focus on with the artifact makes a lot of sense as the words on it is what is drawing people any or pushing them away. Is there any more common place phrases that show up on the screens?
As soon as I read the first sentence I knew exactly where this was going and I love it because I see that screen at least once per day when cleaning my plates. This is a very good artifact to use because there are multiple slides to pull from (assuming you use multiple) and I’ve noticed they change sometimes too.
I think the rhetorical situation is the perfect lens for you to use here (the other two work as well) because there is much to dig into with the placement of the screen and the primary audience. I look forward to reading more about this, especially because I agree with the blaming and negative reinforcements aspect of your pitch.
I think this is the first artifact that comes directly from one of our own experiences, which makes it a very personal artifact to analyze. The rhetorical situation is the most important lens for sure, and I think the audience and placement are very big aspects of that. I look forward to seeing how you go between the positives and negatives of it.
I loved the artifact because i see it everyday yet I have never considered it to be an artifact. I liked the arrangement of the speech the way she shifted over from explaining the artifact to the lens was very smooth and a seamless transition. All around great visual analysis of the artifact and its features.
I loved how you gave your speech, you made it feel like it was a conversation and your use of style really helped me follow along your thought process. The focus on social movement studies is a really solid choice alongside your artifact. I was really interested in the fact you mentioned some design mistakes they made and how that affects an audience’s perception of the ad.