Image via Allan Stanglin

We’ve all felt it. You’re standing in a crowd. Or sitting on the bus. Or eating at a restaurant. You’re alone… or with friends. And all you can feel is a pull. That pull to check your phone.

You unlock your phone. Scroll through Twitter. Like a few pictures on Instagram. Check your snap streaks on Snapchat.

The powerful image above illustrates our society’s necessity for cell phones. I believe this image clearly echoes human interaction today. This photograph speaks boldly and powerfully in numerous ways.

First, the image’s candidacy adds strength to its message. This image was not taken with a nice camera in good lighting for a major news organization. It was taken by a guy with a blog who wanted to illustrate the effect that smartphones are having on his friends and family. The group of people does not appear to be posing for an picture- they are truly engaged with their smartphones. This image represents real life. This is how people hang out in the 21st century.

Second, the community- or rather, lack of community- speaks powerfully to the viewer. A group of people, who we can only presume are friends, are not interacting. Not laughing together. Not talking. Not bonding. Instead, they are engrossed with whatever they see on their screens. The photo illustrates how smartphones are forming barriers between human interaction. This is rather ironic; smartphones were intended to bring people closer together. Instead, they have severely damaged face to face interaction.

Finally, the photo is so powerful because anyone with a smartphone can relate to this moment. Have you ever been with a group of people, yet you’ve all been on your phones? Your answer is probably yes. This image is so relatable because it represents a moment that everyone in Western society shares. This image is not an isolated circumstance. It happens everywhere, everyday. It’s happening right now. The image causes the viewer become self aware. They have done this before. It raises multiple questions: is this right? Is it healthy? Is it ruining relationships or building relationships? Or does it have no effect on relationships whatsoever?

Any person who views this image will begin to relate it to themselves and their relationships. Perhaps that is why this image is so powerful- it not only illustrates an issue, it calls upon its viewer to rethink their actions and stance on the issue.

In his TED Talk, Paul Tasner discussed how he became an entrepreneur at the age of 66.

In his speech, Tasner’s main point was that anyone can become an entrepreneur- even someone who is 70 years old. He discussed how our culture follows a stigma that once someone reaches a certain age, they have to retire, play golf, and babysit their grandchildren. Tasner argued that he was still passionate about his new business and was able to successfully run it. Senior entrepreneurs deserve the same recognition as young entrepreneurs. I thought it was very interesting that only 28% of young entrepreneurs will succeed, while 70% of senior entrepreneurs will succeed. This statistic really stood out to me and worked well to prove Tasner’s point.

This speech helped me realize that it is never too late to start a new career path or delve into a new passion. Tasner used facts, statistics, and personal examples to back his claim that senior entrepreneurs have the ability to achieve greatness.

Tasner’s engagement with his audience served as one of his strengths. He was not robotically spitting information at them; he laughed with them and talked to them. His Talk was clearly an engaging speech, not a presentation. This TED Talk demonstrated to me how a person can make their speech more effective through audience engagement. Tasner’s speech had a nice balance of fact, personal examples, and jokes. There was room for both laughter and enlightenment. The only problem with Tasner’s speech was perhaps his hand motions; he often played with his ring or held his hands in one place. Aside from that, Tasner delivered an excellent Talk that shed light onto a subject not often discussed.

In an acceptance speech for an award he received, Jerry Seinfeld went rogue and tore apart the concept of ‘awards.’ In the first two minutes of his speech, Seinfeld used multiple tactics to make his speech engaging and funny.

As an veteran comedian, Seinfeld has mastered the art of delivery. He keeps eye contact with his audience and makes many gestures with his hands to emphasize his points. He knows when and where to deliver his jokes so they will have the most impact. While Seinfeld did have to glance at his sheet of paper, he knew the basis of his speech and was able to deliver most of it from memory.

Seinfeld’s speech demonstrated clear organization and thought.  He began the speech by quoting a friend. He then discussed why comedians don’t need awards and pointed out how, normally, a comedian would ridicule an awards show. Next, he shared his personal views on awards shows and how he was not happy about accepting the award. At 1:26, Seinfeld stated the purpose of his speech: Awards are stupid. Seinfeld then gave examples of how awards are stupid. By the two minute mark, Seinfeld confirms his belief that awards are meaningless. Throughout the speech, Seinfeld filled his key points with jokes and funny examples, making the speech was both well-organized and funny.

In his speech, Seinfeld used humor and provided realistic observations to persuade his audience. The fact that Seinfeld chose to ridicule awards while accepting an award was in itself funny. Seinfeld got the audience on his side through relating to them and making jokes. By making his audience laugh and helping them relate to his key points (for example, discussing the hotels, real estate offices, and car dealerships), he persuaded them to see awards in a different light.

I think Seinfeld’s acceptance speech was nearly perfect. It was daring, thought-provoking, and entertaining. The one thing that did distract from the speech was Seinfeld’s need to occasionally look down at a piece of paper. I think it could have been even more powerful if he gave the speech like he’d perform a comedy routine: with no notes and more body movement (walking around). However, the speech was still excellent. This was perhaps one of the most effective acceptance speeches every delivered. While it was humorous, it still made valid points about a debatable topic. He used humor to address a thought-provoking concept.

“I wonder if this is… accurate?”

Throughout my years as a student, I’ve occasionally asked myself this question when writing papers. Is this a credible source? Are the data in anyway biased? As I took classes in statistics and psychology,  I found myself asking these questions even more.

I think Kessler calls out a very unaddressed issue in his article. I find myself blindly believing so many things on the Internet because they come from fairly credible sources. However, I should be questioning all research that I find. How was the data collected?  How was the study conducted? Have multiple studies, surveys, polls, experiments, etcetera been conducted? Is there research to back this research?

Good research is essential to a good paper. My argument is the paper’s heart and brain; my research is my paper’s skeletal system. Research holds everything up and structures the paper.

As I continue forming my paradigm shift essay, I will keep this article in mind. As I look for research, I will question it and see if there are multiple sources saying essentially the same thing. I want my argument to be truthful and unbiased; therefore, I will ensure that all sources I use are truthful and unbiased.

Image via PlayBuzz

For my Paradigm Shift project, I am analyzing the evolution of Disney princesses. I plan to demonstrate how through each of the three “eras” of Princess movies, the princesses progressively became more influential and realistic role models for young girls. I plan to cover the entire duration of Disney Princess movies, from Snow White (1939) to Moana (2016).

In my essay, I’ll talk about how racial and feminist progress, better storytelling, and changing goals in the making of the movies influenced the evolution of the princesses. In my TED talk, I think I will focus on the storytelling aspect of the change. However, I will also tie in social change and movie making goals.

I chose this shift because I think it is very relevant to our current culture, specifically female culture. As a kid, I loved Disney princesses and saw them as role models. Both younger and older audiences of women are looking up to the Disney princesses. I think their evolution deeply reflects our culture’s views on women throughout the past century. In addition, I think that the princess movies released in the past ten years are creating the best role models for young girls. I think we need to understand the changes that have occurred so we can continue to promote great characters to represent girls and women.

Jean M. Twenge’s article “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” offered insight into how iPhones and social media have effected the current adolescent generation. I believe that this article clearly can be categorized as a paradigm shift. The article focused on the rise of smartphones and social media and how this rise caused change in adolescent behavior. Twenge offered many comparisons between “iGen” and past generations. Her article was based on both statistics and an interview with a 13-year-old girl.

A paradigm shift is a transformation that occurred over time. Twenge discussed the transformation that occurred between Generation X and iGen: members of iGen were less likely to desire independence, date, hang out with friends, have sex, and get enough sleep. However, they were more likely to feel lonely, feel left out, and have suicidal thoughts. Twenge linked this drastic change to the introduction of the iPhone and social media. Twenge evaluated teen behavior with smartphones and explained how this behavior affected them as a generation.

Twenge clearly labeled a shift in behavior between teens of iGen and teens of past generations. She then offered a plausible cause for this shift: smartphones and social media. This article can be considered a paradigm shift because Twenge evaluated a shift, proposed a cause for the shift, and backed her claims with credible research.

Image via Pairserver

A revolution of social change overtook the 1960s and 70s. With this uprising of social change came a resurgence of feminism.  This poster is a commentary on the philosophies of second wave feminism. It was created by a group called the Chicago Women’s Liberation Movement. This group was founded in 1969 by a group of Chicago women who wanted complete equality with men. The group distributed many pamphlets and posters supporting feminism across Chicago and America. “Womankind is Awakening” is one of the many examples of the efforts the movement took to promote gender equality.

“Womankind is Awakening” demonstrates how a diverse group of women could “awaken” together during this era as they began to gain more independence, explore their individuality, discover their identities, and reach their full potentials.

I was first drawn to this artifact because of its artwork. The poster immediately caught my eye and intrigued me. I loved the diverse group of women drawn and the apparent unity between them. I think that this poster is an excellent representation of the goals and messages of second wave feminism. While the poster may look simple on the outside, it has a very deep and complex message. I find the stylistic decisions made by the artist to be very intriguing and intend to discuss them further in my paper. I specifically want to dive into the significance of the silhouetted finger and the thumb-print shaped design surrounding her.

Image via V&A

My other civic artifact was the image above. This poster was created during the suffrage movement in the 1920s. The basis of my paper will focus on comparing these two posters as two artifacts from different waves in the feminist movement. I plan to compare the images’ ideologies, period of release in history, credibility, emotional appeals, and artistic elements.

Image via Peace Resource Project

Since cars have driven on roads, their bumper stickers have given brief insight into the driver’s beliefs and personality. A person must really care about an issue to stick it on something that cost him or her thousands of dollars. Politics is one of the topics that people are often willing to be very open about (via their cars). The bumper sticker above uses logos to make a strong statement against both major political parties.

The bumper sticker states, “There’s only one political party: The Corporate One.” The sticker plainly argues that there is no difference between America’s two major political parties: they are both after the same thing. Usage of the word “corporate” suggests that the parties are not even parties; they are big businesses. The sticker relies on its audience’s knowledge of past corruption in both the Democrat and Republican parties. In addition, the dollar signs on both the donkey and the elephant suggest that money is a symbol of both of the parties.

The sticker comments on an ideology prevalent in today’s politics: that both parties are corrupt and after money. For years, it was commonplace to support either the Republicans or Democrats. Now, supporting neither party is a growing ideology in our society. Just look at last year’s political election: it was a battle between “outsiders” (such as Trump, Sanders, and Johnson) and “insiders” (like Clinton, Cruz, and Bush). Both political parties use Super PACs during elections. Politicians of both parties have been accused of making decisions, not for the people, but to put money in their own pockets. Both parties have been linked to big businesses, big unions, and big media groups.  The sticker’s statement can be backed up by years of corruption and corporate attitudes.

A 2016 poll revealed that 81% of Americans believe that the average person continues to have less and less say in our country’s choices as politicians make decisions to protect and benefit themselves only. This belief can be backed up by facts and patterns that have persisted for years. The bumper sticker above reflects the ideologies of many Americans. The sticker relies on its viewer’s knowledge of politics to argue that the Democratic and Republican parties are no different from each other: they are both corrupt and after money.

On February 4, 2017, 19-year-old Penn State sophomore Timothy Piazza died due to hazing rituals at the Beta Theta Pi fraternity. The incident sparked outrage across the globe as people mourned with the Piazza family. In response to the incident, Lisa Wade wrote an article for TIME magazine that called for the end of fraternities. In the article, titled, “Why Colleges Should Get Rid of Fraternities for Good,” Wade clearly embedded a strong appeal to kairos as she discussed the corrupted nature of fraternities.

Throughout the article, Wade established a tone full of urgency. Wade discussed the negative history of fraternities and the harmful impact they continue to have both on college campuses and to students. Wade described in detail the hours before Piazza’s death and mentioned President Barron’s response to his death. At one point in the article, Wade wrote, “These fraternities have drink, danger and debauchery in their blood — right alongside secrecy and self-protection. They cannot reform. To capitulate to the reasonable demands of outsiders would be to fundamentally change their culture, their role on campus, their very reason for existing.” Wade demonstrates to her readers that the very nature of fraternities is sinful and unchangeable- only when they are demolished will they stop causing harm. Her urgent tone is further verified when she points out that, until fraternities end, there will be more Timothy Piazzas. As Piazza’s death sparked horror, Wade used that horror to fuel support for her anti-fraternity beliefs.

TIME is one of the most popular and respected magazines in the United States. Therefore, its viewpoint on any situation can be seen as credible and respectable. The article’s writer, Lisa Wade, is a sociology professor at Occidental College. She clearly has all of the credentials to write about this issue. Both the magazine and the writer are well respected and well educated; therefore, what they have to say on the subject of fraternities can be considered credible.

In the article, Wade discusses the corrupt foundation of fraternities and their negative impact on American culture since the 1800s. In addition, she added many hyperlinks in her article to websites that had researched various issues with fraternity culture, such as alcohol and sexual assault problems. Through discussing the history of fraternities and guiding her readers to researched issues, Wade used objective facts to persuade her reader against fraternities.

Wade didn’t need to create an emotional appeal for her audience — it came with the story. A 19-year-old boy was killed due to the irresponsibility of his peers and horrific hazing rituals. However, Wade did stir more remorse and disgust in her readers by detailing the events leading up to Piazza’s death. In addition, an interview with Piazza’s family can be viewed at the top of the article. Anyone who has heard of Timothy Piazza’s death is both saddened and angered by the events; Wade knew this and, rather than trying to make her audience feel more saddened or more angered, she used their emotions to help gain support for her stance.

There is nothing questionable or lacking in Wade’s argument. The argument did motivate me; it showed me the corrupt nature of fraternities and the pain and disaster they continue to cause. Wade succeeded in convincing both me and her audience that fraternities are a cultural issue that need to be expelled. At the end of the article, Wade said, “Fraternities have dominated campuses, defied authorities and rebuffed efforts at suppression for nearly 200 years. But in that time we have ended slavery, given women the vote and put men on the moon. Of course we can get rid of fraternities. College presidents, administrators and trustees just have to muster the will to do it.” No one else could have said it better.

Earlier this year, McDonald’s released a controversial ad to audiences across the UK. The ad, which was pulled a week after it was released, featured a mother telling her son facts about his deceased father. The ad came to the conclusion that, while the boy had absolutely nothing in common with his father, they both enjoyed the same sandwich, therefore making everything okay.

The ad immediately sparked outrage amongst audiences, who found it to be blatantly insensitive. One can practically hear the ad’s pitch: “We show the audience a boy at his wit’s end because he has nothing in common with his dead father. Fortunately, the Fillet-O-Fish sandwich swoops in on a white horse and gives the boy’s life closure and meaning.”

It is clear the ad was attempting to establish pathos as it desperately tried to convince the audience that its message was heartwarming and meaningful. Instead, audience members were left feeling angered and disappointed by the ad’s implications.

There are several issues with this ad. First, the ad fails to consider how a person- child or adult- who has lost a parent may feel after viewing it. The death of a loved one is something that no one can ever fully recover from. It is very hard to bring up a touchy subject in a way that is sensitive and understanding. Tackling such a loaded subject as a parental death was a very risky move; McDonald’s did not succeed in addressing this subject appropriately.

Second, the ad’s portrayal of it’s lead character, the boy, was very poor. The ad wants the audience to see the boy as inadequate in numerous ways. He’s short, his clothes are messy, he can’t kick a soccer ball, two random girls don’t take interest in him. In fact, the only positive trait the ad tells us about the boy is that he likes Fillet-O-Fish sandwiches. The ad’s underlying message is that this boy would have never been adequate enough to fill his dead father’s shoes until he discovered that they liked the same sandwich.

Finally, the ad implies that all of one’s problems can be solved by eating at McDonald’s. This was not a movie or book. This was an advertisement. The ultimate goal of this ad was not to sympathize with children who have lost a parent. The goal was to sell McDonald’s. It’s just a bit too obvious that the ad is trying to manipulate its audience into loving McDonald’s. The message of the ad isn’t “a boy continues to find ways to relate to his dead father.” The message is “our sandwiches have magic healing powers that help you get over the loss of a loved one.” In reality, it takes a lot more than a sandwich and bag of fries to heal the hurt of losing a parent. Unfortunately, McDonald’s did not consider the implications of this 90-second attempt to attract more customers.

It is very unfortunate that a company as large and successful as McDonald’s could not see the inherent problems with this specific advertisement. Next time, they should stick to fulfilling their customers’ hunger, not their customers’ struggle with loss of a loved one.