Noelia’s Blog

When watching my speech, I was focused most on my tone of voice. While I feel that my tone and speed were reflective of my passions and beliefs about the speech, it sounded like the words were coming from someone else. As someone who speaks very passionately and with a lot of animation, it was weird to hear myself sound robotic and as if I was forcing out emotion. This may just be something that I notice and others don’t because I am so aware of how I typically speak. I also noticed that I had trouble making eye contact throughout the speech. I always tried looking at the camera, but when I am deep in thought or trying to find the right words to finish a sentence I tend to look upwards or to the side, which I feel makes me look unprepared. In order to improve both of these aspects, I think that I should memorize more of my speech so that it feels more as if I am telling a story than reading a script. Practicing my speech in front of others will also help, as I feel that I get more animated and passionate when talking about a topic to someone individually.  This would make my tone and speech more natural and add a personal touch that will hopefully appeal to the audience. This would also help me with maintaining eye contact since having more of it memorized will mean that I’m not searching for my words as much. I watched some other people’s speeches, and they did a great job of maintaining eye contact and speaking in a way that didn’t feel robotic or monotonous.

I watched Eric’s speech and think he did a really good job. I enjoyed how he stood up for his speech, which made it feel more formal and as if I was watching the speech live. His speech was also very well written and organized, which made it easy to follow, but still allowed him to use sophisticated language without confusing the audience. The speed at which he spoke was also very easy to follow. 

Essay draft:

When presented with the question, “What is worth more, art or life?”, what is the correct answer? The capitalistic society many countries currently maintain as well as the decline in environmental well-being suggests that the answer to this question is art, yet is this correct? Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, members of the anti-oil drilling and climate change activism group “Just Stop Oil” demonstrated their answer to this question by pouring Campbell’s Tomato Soup on Vincent van Gogh’s famous “Sunflowers” painting, causing distress in those who possibly choose art over Mother Earth. The beauty found in manmade items has increased as the world becomes more industrialized, symmetrical, and efficient; but the distraction caused by beauty in the manmade has sent a shadow over the beauty that is the natural world. Other young individuals are also acting against climate change, some giving powerful speeches and starting protest movements of their own. Greta Thunberg, a twenty-year-old climate change activist from Sweden provides further commentary on the “What is worth more” question and connects her passion to those from “Just Stop Oil” through the shared exigence of climate change. Both Thunberg and the “Just Stop Oil” activists use the commonplaces of the destroyed environment and oppressed youth to comprise battle plans meant to destroy the argument against combatting climate change. These young change makers use their unique view of the world and and rhetorical strategies such as

to transform the rhetorical question of “what is worth more” into one with a mandatory response.

Tension and temperature have been on the rise for decades prior to the birth of young climate change activists of today, and today’s world is hot with an undying passion for change. Plummer and Holland profoundly and uniquely demonstrate this passion, by “destroying” a precious piece of art and causing distress and fear in a typically serene place. Utilizing the lens of social movement studies, the protestors insert themselves into the rhetorical situation of climate change and the oppression of youth, showing their distaste for the commonplace and forcing the public to shift their attention toward the universally dismissed issue. This demonstration was one of the social movements formed by the “Just Stop Oil” group, which also includes sit-down protests, and part of their broader mission to decrease energy prices and combat climate change. Just Stop Oil spokesperson Alex De Koning said to the Guardian following the event, “We are not trying to make friends here, we are trying to make change, and unfortunately this is the way that change happens,”. History has proven its support for this statement, as shown by the Stonewall Riots during the AIDS epidemic, the March on Washington and other civil rights protests arranged by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the women’s suffrage movement of the 1920s, which were all lead by passionate individuals who dedicated their lives to tearing down social injustice. Calling attention to an issue that those of higher caliber tend to ignore cannot be done quietly, and Just Stop Oil proved that. Their theatrical vandalism of the sunflowers can also be seen through a lens of identity rhetoric and criticism; part of being a young adult is understanding and determining one’s identity, and these two are finding identity in protecting what gave them life in the first place. Age, politics, and shared beliefs converge to create a powerful group with an even more powerful message. Pouring soup on the painting was not just meant to gain the attention of the public but also to bring together those affected by oil drilling and climate change, both financially and environmentally. Plummer said, “What is worth more, art or life…[A]re you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?”. Identifying as “people” also separates the general population from those in power who are fighting for the continued use of fossil fuels, creating a stronger group identity and connection between the young Just Stop Oil activists and those witnessing the campaign. Using more performative tactics solidified their position within the rhetorical situation and the question about the comparative values of life and creation.

Only one year prior and a sailboat ride across the Atlantic Ocean, then sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg expressed her passion for fighting against climate change and protecting the world for the people of the future. Thunberg addresses the urgency of the many questions posed by the Just Stop Oil group, saying, “[Y]ou have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying,”. However, Greta utilizes techniques that allow her speech to be examined from lenses differing from that of the Just Stop Oil campaign. She uses her strong storytelling skills to paint a picture of despair and pain in the heads of those who actively dismiss the issue at hand, placing her perfectly under the lens of the narrative paradigm. Applying horrifying – yet true – statistics and desperate passion to her speech gave it power and purpose, showing the potential dystopian world on the horizon. Anger and disappointment carried her strong tone throughout the speech, emphasizing that the story she was telling was not a story at all, but rather the reality that today’s youth are being forced to face because of the selfishness of large corporations. The United Nations states that generating power is the largest factor driving the climate change crisis, which Greta mentions in an attack on these corporations. She criticizes the ideals and goals of those in support of nonrenewable energy, placing her under another powerful and unique lens. Her ideology developed from the unwavering and cruel statistics plaguing the environment, as shown when she says, “The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control,”. In presenting her ideologies through her speech, Thunberg highlights the most extreme and dangerous differences between the two ideologies; capitalism and the human necessity for what one does not have is slowly overshadowing the duty that humans have to protect the environment that provided the resources for such progress. This ideology abolishes the rhetorical question of what is worth more, as climate change statistics continue to break records at an alarming rate. Provoking negative responses from former US President Donald Trump, French President Macron, and leaders from three other countries, Greta was successful in highlighting the growing commonplace of climate change and converting a once rhetorical question into a question awaiting a response.

Speech outline:

I’m going to present you with some “this-or-that” questions. As I do this, truly and honestly think about what you value more. Physical items with a hefty price tag or fresh, clean air? Next-day delivery, or the preservation of animals’ natural habitats? Art museums or flourishing wildlife?

Members from the climate activist group “Just Stop Oil” contemplated similar questions before pouring soup on Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” painting to bring attention to the flawed values many big corporations have when it comes to preserving the environment. By seemingly destroying something labeled as “valuable” in today’s society, these two young activists provoked an important and eye-opening question, “What should we really value?”.  

 

These activists inspired many, including myself, to take further action against climate change, and I’m asking you to do the same. Falling under numerous of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Affordable and Clean Energy, Sustainable Cities and Communities, and Climate Action, just to name a few), the exigence presented by the climate change issue invited action from the “Just Stop Oil” activists. Viewing this campaign through lenses such as dramatism, social movement studies, and identity rhetoric and criticism all demonstrate the power and influence behind this action. The exigence of climate change calls upon these young activists to stand against the death of Mother Earth and criticize the actions of those with greater power.

Body 1:

Use of identity rhetoric and social movement studies to create a case

Made themselves seem less alone by associating with the public

Established that they are backed by other people

Discuss the group and their efforts to be heard

 

Body 2:
Talk directly about exigence and the call that climate change makes

How it is a big part of society

Criticism of the lack of response by others

 

Body 3: 

Combine the two and describe how they make the most effective point

Exigence provides the platform for criticism to take place. 

 

Together we can make a change for the better and provide a world suitable for humans and animals to thrive. Now think again, What do you value more? Thank you.

When presented with the question, “What is worth more, art or life?”, what is the correct answer? The capitalistic society many countries currently maintain as well as the decline in environmental well-being suggests that the answer to this question is art, yet is this correct? Anti-oil drilling and climate change activism group “Just Stop Oil” demonstrated their answer to this question by pouring Campbell’s Tomato Soup on Vincent Van Gogh’s famous “Sunflowers” painting, causing distress in those who possibly choose art over Mother Earth. The beauty found in manmade items has increased as the world becomes more industrialized, symmetrical, and efficient; but the distraction caused by beauty in the manmade has sent a shadow over the beauty that is the natural world. Other young individuals are also taking action against climate change, some giving powerful speeches and starting protest movements of their own. Greta Thunberg, a twenty-year-old climate change activist from Sweden provides further commentary on the “What is worth more” question and connects her passion to those from “Just Stop Oil” through the shared exigence of climate change. Both Thunberg and the “Just Stop Oil” activists use the commonplaces of the destroyed environment and oppressed youth to comprise battle plans meant to destroy the argument against combatting climate change. These young changemakers use their unique view of the world and varying lenses to transform the rhetorical question of “what is worth more” into one with a mandatory response.

 

Here is a very rough and skeletal outline of my essay and how I plan to compare and contrast the two artifacts to show that they are trying to achieve the same end goal in differing yet similar ways.

Introduction

• Introduce artifacts and the general premise behind both. 

• Thesis “These young changemakers use their unique view of the world and varying lenses to transform the rhetorical question of “what is worth more” into one with a mandatory response.”

Paragraph 1: 

Analyze “Just Stop Oil” and use of lenses:

• Dramatism
• Social movement studies
• Identity rhetoric
• Criticism

Discuss the commonplace evaluated and how these lenses support their distaste for the commonplace. 

Paragraph 2:

Analyze Thunberg’s speech and how it utilizes the lenses in a different way

Her speech is more direct and less demonstrative

Contrast the two

Paragraph 3:

Compare the two artifacts and show how they achieve the same goal in different ways

Thunberg uses a more traditional approach (protests and speeches)

“Just Stop Oil” uses a more unique approach (public display, causing intentional yet harmless distress)

• Both still meant to develop the idea that climate change should be acted on now
  • What is worth more? This coincides with Thunberg’s quote “[Y]et I am one of the lucky ones”.

As someone who cares deeply about the environment and the animals within it, Eric’s elevator pitch really stood out to me. He introduced his pitch in an interesting and unique way that not only introduced two artifacts but also made the audience reflect on their current understanding of how oil spills affect the environment. Eric began with an image of a seagull, placing a familiar yet sad image in the mind of the audience; however, he used that image in a way that is starkly different from most pitches. Instead of using the image of an oil-covered seagull as his civic artifact, he waited to present his true artifact, a publication by the Sea Grant and the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI), using it as an example of why most people are unaware of the true environmental issue at hand. 

Eric’s introduction of rhetorical lenses and commonplace analysis also blended well with the content of his speech, creating a flow that made it easy to follow, and even more compelling to listen to. I agree with his use of the commonplaces of the environmental effects of oil drilling and generational trust due to statistics, as both are relevant in the lives of people in our generation. His pitch will only become more relevant over time as more people become aware of the dangers of oil drilling and are exposed to the negative statistics it entails. I can’t wait to see the way his analysis develops into a completed speech and essay.