Sara's Critical Analysis

 

Weeks of anti-government protests paralyzed a number of Latin American countries in the fall and winter of 2019, including Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador. In Ecuador, October’s deadly unrest was incited by fuel price hikes and the reduction of fuel subsidies for poorer citizens. The protests were led mostly by indigenous people who work in the countryside and cannot afford to pay for gas. In this picture, two indigenous protesters have detained a police officer seeking negotiations. The police officer is made to hold an indigenous banner, and wear a national flag and a fedora-styled hat. They paraded him, along with other captive officers, on a stage at the Casa de Cultura in the capital of Ecuador, Quito. The indigenous protesters argue that the government has no power over them, and that government officials deserve no respect after blatantly disregarding the wishes of the people.Firstly, the police officer was made to hold an indigenous banner, which represents not only ridicule but also an unwillingness to negotiate. Instead of being open to conversation, the protesters force the banner on the officer, and also their point of view onto the government. It is a way to silence one side of the argument and instead represent their own, on a stage and coming from men who, in their eyes, embody unjust legislation. The indigenous people of Ecuador argue that there is no room for civil speech, just room for angry advocacy through the carrying of a banner begging for representation.

The flag being tied as a cape symbolizes an ironic heroism. The police officer might claim that he is patriotic, that by enforcing the law he is doing the country’s good will. Tying Ecuador’s flag around the man’s neck, however, is a mockery. He might think himself the hero coming to make amends, but the protesters invert that role. They let him believe his fairytale, but they know that the flag means nothing. The indigenous people have, in part, lost faith in the Ecuadorian flag because the nation has ignored them for so many years. They paint the police officer, and the government, in turn, as a meaningless knight in shining armor.

The indigenous people, thus, argue that they reign supreme. In the picture, both protesters have an air of superiority. The one on the left looks into the distance, solemn, and the one the right glares angrily at their hostage. After suffering, oppressed by the Ecuadorian government and it’s legislations, its minority groups gained some semblance of control. Their extreme protests were a vehicle to get their voice heard. Ultimately, they were the origin of the nation itself. It was built on their backs, they say. So they adorn the government with the pieces of the country that are theirs- the banner, the traditional fedora- and show it off on a stage of national culture. A culture started by them centuries upon centuries ago. They appear as Ecuador’s crucial piece, the government and its laws reduced to nothing.

In his TED talk, Justin Baldoni’s main argument is that the “script” handed to men by society is doing them, and women by extension, more harm than good. His thesis statement stands clear after having told his own struggle with stereotypical masculinity: “Well, I came here today to say, as a man, that [prescribing gender roles and attitudes] is wrong, [it’s] toxic, and it has to end.”

It was really important to me, and likely to men in the audience, to hear this message from a male speaker. One of the most significant points made by Baldoni is that this topic is not touched on enough by males, and that its main champions are women, not men. He shows this disparity through his Instagram account engagement, a platform where he mainly shares feminist messages and where he conveys his love for his wife and kids. Most of his followers, he says, are women. And it wasn’t until he started posting workout and diet videos that men started paying attention to him. I recognized toxic masculinity to be an integral part of society, but Baldoni’s TED talk helped me see to what extent men are perpetuating this ideal and resisting the other side of the coin. It also helped me realize that toxic masculinity is hurting women as well, because men think it “not manly enough” to listen to the women in their lives and attend to their serious grievances.

Baldoni’s speaking style is very strong because he is emphatic while remaining comedic and on the same level as the audience he is facing. As an actor, he knows how to switch tones in order to convey ideas and how to connect with the people that listen to him. He delivers his message in talk form, not speech form, by being conversational, moving around, and simplifying the topic to its most basic form so everyone can understand it.

(For the purpose of this blog, I will address 15:35 to 17:09)

Professor Matt Walker is a world renowned expert on sleep and on the effects it has on the body. There is a reason why the message he conveys is so compelling: he speaks effectively through powerfully persuasive words, tone, and pace.

Walker uses strong diction that aligns his audience with his message about sleep being the “elixir” or life or “the swiss army knife of health.” His salient word choice captures the attention of his listeners and frames his points in compelling, comprehensible metaphors. The figures of speech used by Professor Walker emphasize the enormity of the issue at hand, thus forcing a broad audience to agree with his point of view. No person in their right mind would deny themselves “mother nature’s best effort yet at immortality.”

The speaker’s tone is solemn and severe, yet he lowers himself to his audience as well. It is fitting that Walker would speak in such a dignified matter. He is trying to elevate sleep to the status that it deserves. Thus, he leaves little room for jokes, little room for doubt. Instead, through his voice, he emphasizes the urgency with which our society should address the public health epidemic of sleep deprivation. However, he warms up to his audience at the end, wishing that they “sleep well” as a humorous goodbye that makes his message all the more appealing.

Walker also speaks at a very slow speed, hammering in the indispensability of change in our society’s sleep habits. He makes every point simple, poignant. Every sentence has a purpose. He waters down many of his arguments to simple, short sentences and takes brief pauses so that his audience can digest and process the important information he is relaying. Professor Walker’s pace is one of a stern father getting his children to understand the consequences of their actions and the changes they need to make.

 

In the age of instant information, it’s hard for us as members of society to consolidate the constant bombardment of research we receive. Kessler points out that “our world is inundated with the manipulation of flighty studies.” Diet and nutrition is a great example of this. One day, you’re inclined to go vegan or vegetarian to help the environment and your health. The next, you read a study about how soy products- usually used for protein among the plant-based population- are actually wrecking your body. And what do you know, that same day, a new study comes out telling you that soy actually extends your lifetime by X amount of years. What are you supposed to do? Who are you supposed to believe?

Very few people know how to read a study critically. It becomes less about finding the truth and more about finding the information that aligns with their pre-conceived notions and beliefs. This is known as the “Aha! I knew it!” effect or, in more scientific terms, confirmation bias. As humans, we also tend to fixate on the most salient information. If a new study shows that microwaves disrupt sleep we might ignore it and hold it to be untrue. But if a new study shows that microwaves will kill us within two years, we believe it and throw all our appliances out the window. Kessler writes about how easy it is to “write these conclusions off as trivial” yet “millions” take their results seriously, thus it is necessary to concern ourselves with the critical analysis of scientific research. Kessler also emphasizes the importance of staying skeptical and realizing that the world is “not binary,” though conclusions drawn from studies almost always are.

In writing my paradigm shift essay, I have to incorporate my own perspective into my topic because if I let studies drive my essay, I will reach contradicting conclusions without exploring the topic critically. I have to remember that there are studies that are better carried out than others. In the words of Kessler, most are “studies of college kids in psych labs.” I have to use a variety of different sources such as studies, articles, and experiments that provide different perspectives and methods. In this way, I will have a holistic perspective on my topic and provide an essay that- hopefully- isn’t bunk.

“You think you have a lot to do? Let me tell you about MY week.”

Does this sound familiar? As college students, we are constantly pushed to overachieve and be the best/most productive versions of ourselves. Hard classes on one side, six clubs on the other, volunteering, working part-time, doing research, getting internships, networking, spending time with friends and family, eating healthy, exercising– it all adds up. People are constantly expected to be busy working on something, running off somewhere to be productive. One time, as I was reading a book at a lounge in my residence hall, a person came up to me and said: “Must be nice to be a health major!” When did people decide we were no longer allowed to just… be?

Our society has become increasingly fat, sleep deprived, anxious, sick, and depressed over the years. The novel culture of stress has hugely contributed to these factors. We look at stress as a badge of honor. We over-glorify it, leading us to believe that if we do not run ourselves into the ground every single day, we will never be successful. However, it hasn’t always been like this. In the 14th century, the term “stress” was associated with poverty and hardship. However, things shifted after the Second Industrial Revolution. Work culture became more prevalent thanks to longer shifts and better infrastructure. Now, we can’t imagine disconnecting from our work because we have ready and instant access to the internet and other forms of technology. Our inability to separate ourselves from productivity has led us to feel constantly burdened by it.

The modern stress mentality is killing us. The top two leading causes of death in the U.S. are cardiovascular disease and cancer, both of which have been linked to excessive, chronic stress due to elevated blood pressure and reduced immune function. Both these causes of death are also related to obesity, which is more prevalent among people who experience high amounts of stress. When we get overwhelmed, we tend to crave high-fat, high-sugar comfort food and chuck the running shoes out the window. Stress is positively correlated with anxiety, depression, and telomere shortening, meaning our cells age much faster than they should. Furthermore, stress robs us of sleep, but time and time again it’s been shown that sleep deprivation can cause a myriad of issues, including diabetes, hormone dysregulation, and end in premature death. It is a grim reality for our generation.

We need to research and understand modern day stress to help us re-frame society’s perspective on it. This way, we may be able to better health outcomes, eradicate disease, and significantly decrease the high number of premature, preventable deaths that occur in the United States every year.

 

 

As I sit here, in front of my laptop, reading an article about technology ruining a generation, I can’t help but feel guilty. Why? Because I can relate to many of the distressing symptoms that characterize smartphone and social media addiction. My phone has become an extension of me, constantly in my hand, on my desk, in my pocket—somewhere in my vicinity for immediate checking if need be. If it is not on my person, I feel an anxiety, an emptiness, incomparable to any other feeling I’ve ever known. I even feel it vibrate in my pocket when it’s not there. And it’s not just me, it’s my whole generation that has become dependent on a tiny rectangle that holds their main means of looking out into the outside world. Modern technology is the agent of change that drives the paradigm shift that we have seen among today’s young people. 

A paradigm is defined to be “an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype.” Defining paradigm shifts, Thomas Kuhn called them revolutions where “one conceptual world view is replaced by another”. In the past, the world appeared narrower, in present time, before our eyes. Gradually, we gained more knowledge: television, the internet, e-mails. It culminated in an “intellectually violent revolution.” Now, we have instantaneous information from anywhere in the world at any given time right at our fingertips. The world has become less about experiencing and more about being in the constant know. While this endows owners of technology with massive power, it also burdens them with unnecessary responsibility and stress. Now, we see the world in likes on Instagram, in friends on Snapchat, in tweet characters.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet, perhaps, the paradigm is not so much the world as it is the young people. The archetypical teenager in the last century spent more time with their friends and family, was more independent, and spent plenty of time out of the house being rebellious. Now, everyone pictures young people on a sofa, shutters drawn, watching Netflix while they scroll through Instagram. The change is great, and it is irreversible. I feel close to people through text and Snapchatting. And when I do spend time in person with them, it is difficult for me to refrain from documenting our time together on social media. I mindlessly scroll through Instagram when I have even an ounce of free time. And, as Twenge mentions in the article, it causes severe fear-of-missing-out or FOMO. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt my stomach dip in disappointment because my other people are out having fun without me. Older generations did not have to bear the burden of the smartphone.  

While I cannot say that I am depressed or have ever thought about suicide, I can testify that it has become a commonplace of my generation. Mental health has been on the decline for years now. While some say that less stigma around mental health has resulted in more young people opening up about it recently, thus inflating mental illness rates, technology does feed into these numbers. An overload of information constantly places young people under pressure and crushes their spirits at the same time. Constantly being conscious of ourselves and others, and of our social relations, turns us into egocentric, secluded creatures that can spend hours upon hours in front of a screen. The rise of smartphones can be considered a paradigm shift because it has twisted our childhoods and our teenage-years and turned them technology-centric, driving us to become the worst versions of ourselves at times.  

The #metoo movement has taken social media and mainline news by storm. Fired up by a string of sexual assault accusations against comedian and actor Harvey Weinstein, women everywhere took the victims’ sides and emerged as survivors of abuse. They too, they announced on twitter and on the streets, had endured mistreatment by men, particularly in the workplace. The movement gained traction through celebrity endorsements, and even reached the attention of the U.S. President himself. The feminists of the #metoo movement unified behind  a group of women to create solidarity for victims and to protest sexual harassment.

The poster held by the protester argues that there shouldn’t be stigma behind sexual assault because so many women experience it, and that men should not downplay that experience or try to excuse themselves from it when they are the culprits.

The #metoo movement is particularly suited for in-depth analysis because it reflects the state of our modern society, and will likely make it on the pages of future history textbooks. I am fascinated by how contradictory modern day is. On the one hand, #metoo shows how much progress still needs to be made, and it polarizes audiences on controversial issues. But on the other hand, it shows how far modern movements (Black Lives Matter, gun safety, etc…) have come in expressing their ideas and in mobilizing masses of people to join their causes, particularly by incorporating social media. The juxtaposition of stagnation and progress, and that of unity and division, are at the cornerstone of the age we live in, and, in my opinion, nothing represents them quite as well as the #metoo protests.

“No means no,” and “Me too!” have become persuasive tropes that shape the movement’s message and people’s response to it. They are a call for unity, demanding that women come together over their victimhood and take on the shared enterprise of protest. Another appeal of the feminist protests lies in their timing: right after a string of high-profile sexual abuse accusations and in the midst of a myriad of other movements. These accusations are the external proofs for the message of the Me Too movement; The witness statements are direct evidence from legal proceedings that convinces the receivers of the message that time and tolerance for sexual assault is, indeed, up.

The ideology shared by the protesters is one that the feminist movement has been fighting for decades: women are equal to men and deserve to have their bodies respected. Their language, attitude, and the power they share when they band together as a movement is an intrinsic proof that their message is worth propagating for a better world.

 

 

 

 

 

When will society learn that women can do the same things that men can?

I mean, really. I realize that a bumper sticker is not the ultimate medium for a serious, developed, mature viewpoint. However, the sole fact that such an artifact exists, and that someone might want to sport it on the back of their car reveals many things about society’s unspoken assumptions.

The most blatantly obvious ideology exposed by this sticker is that men are “handy” and women are not. Handiness and manliness are inherently intertwined: a man who cannot, say, name the parts of a car or fix things around the house is implicitly (or explicitly) considered lesser of a man by others.  From a young age, boys have this ideal pushed onto them by getting toy cars and tools as gifts. It is just one piece of the large puzzle that is toxic masculinity. Though it may not seem it upon first glance, this bumper sticker is telling every man out there that if they do not know how to change the oil of a car (or do any other technical task), they are failing civilization.

This assumption carries over to women, who are placed within their own gender confines by society. Presumably, women do not know how to do technical or hands-on tasks. They are not supposed to. While my boy counterparts played with plastic hammers when we were children, I played with fake food in a toy kitchen. Girls are placed in the stereotypical role of pristine, nurturing housewife. Additionally, this role assumes that they are not as smart or as capable as boys and that they need their assistance to survive.

Frankly, the logical argument behind this sticker is not only fallacious but based on gender roles and assumptions that are changing by the day in our modern society. It seems whoever bought this bumper sticker is stuck in the days of the nuclear family and the good American housewife. It’s 2019 people, let’s open our eyes to the myriad of possibilities that are laid out before us, regardless of our prescribed genders.

 

 

We are deeply affected by it, yet we fail to notice its imminence: global warming. The state of the Earth is worsening every single day, but we only notice the effects of our environmental disregard through anecdotes on the media or through abstract data covered on detached scientific reports. People, thus, dismiss the issue with the wave of a hand because it does not affect them directly. But climate change is real, it is here, and it is a threat to all of us. The Natural Resources Defense Council organized a Climate March on September 21st, 2014- two days before a world leader UN Climate Summit- as a response to this threat. Their advertisement instills a sense of urgency in all who rest eyes upon it, asserting that change must occur now in order to save the Earth.

The NRDC’s advertisement turns New York into an eerie flood plain, reminiscent of the setting of Noah’s ark and of many other apocalypse stories that have been popularized as movies or books. It is likely that the audience of this advertisement, while waiting for their subway or while walking down the sidewalk, related their current life in New York to what it could become: an apocalyptic wasteland ravaged by the sea. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the oceans will rise between 10 and 30 inches by 2100. But the NRDC offers an alternative, namely, to march for stopping global warming “now” instead of “[swimming] later.”

Not only is the setting a rhetorical appeal to action, but the woman in the advertisement is, too. She sports a business suit and a professional bun that pin her as a stereotypical New York businesswoman who may have once overlooked an advertisement for climate change activism while hurrying down the street to her next meeting. The NRDC places her smack in the middle of the turbulent waters, conveying the message that her inaction ultimately rendered her efforts at a more successful life futile. The organization encourages its audience to put the Earth first today so that we may get to bask in our hard-earned success tomorrow.

The futility of the woman’s solitary efforts motivates me the most to unite and make a change. She holds up a lonely sign that begs to “stop climate change,” though the water rising up to her waist shows that it is, clearly, too late. However, it is not too late for all of us who are staring at the advertisement, flabbergasted. Right now is an appropriate time to take action. And the efforts don’t have to be- nay, should not be solitary. The urgent message conveyed by the NRDC is that the only way that we can change everything is if we get everyone, right now.

 

As if having a child with an incurable disorder isn’t bad enough, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) created an ad campaign that guilt-trips parents by citing the bowl of cereal they serve for breakfast as the cause of their child’s life-impeding illness. Such fear-mongering is extremely prevalent in the media nowadays. Society’s preferred reaction to the unknown- namely, the cause of a disease- is to create an unfounded cloud of panic. Theories about the origins of autism in children range from vaccines to religious punishment, neither of which are based on solid scientific evidence– which begs the question:

“What was PETA thinking?”

Firstly, the sad Cheerio face and the dull colors of the advertisement necessarily imply that having autism is a catastrophe. There is an air of hopelessness to the image that removes all possibility of joy in an autistic childhood. Certainly, the disease is frustrating and extremely difficult to manage, but kids with autism are just that- kids. PETA feeds the societal stigma around disabilities that ousts so many people simply because of a mental or physical impediment. It is appeals to fear like PETA’s advertisement that display disabled people as mistakes to correct instead of as humans to embrace.

PETA’s persuasive appeals to fear link illness to the dairy industry, as it not-so-subtly references the California Milk Processor Board’s advertising campaign: “Got milk?” The organization’s conclusion is wrongly based on a largely discredited study, yet their message is clear and loud- down to the font size. “Got” and “Autism” are the two largest words on the advertisement, while the message inviting the reader to learn about the evidence is the smallest. Logic comes second for PETA, clearly, and fear-based strategies come first. It wrongly insinuates a causal relationship between milk (a food parents are constantly told to give their kids more of) and autism to prey on innocent citizens and get them to align with their message.

The bright color of PETA’s logo subconsciously places a halo of purity around the organization since it contrasts the rest of the somber advertisement. The spoon also plays a part in the advertisement’s manipulation of color. Since it is glossy and not in contact with the dairy, it appears wholesome and uncontaminated. The organization’s strategies put it on a pedestal and force the average bystander to prefer their stance on dairy and disease over any other. Ultimately, we as consumers must realize that PETA is not out to protect our children from illness but, rather, it is out to further its own agenda.