Uncategorized

For my advocacy project, I think I will create a detailed infographic but I will include actual images of the people being harmed from not being able to have the resources they need. I actually got inspired in part by the Photographer as Witness: A Portrait of Abuse article I read because it reminded me of a project I had to do in my photography class last year where I discussed photographer Mary Ellen Mark who would take pictures of runaways, prostitutes, and other people whose lives were much different from other people’s regular lives. She did this to document and show the world who these people were and what their lives are like. These images struck me different and much stronger than any facts or data ever could. Because of this, I want to make an infographic including the facts from my research, and suggesting what could be done, but I want to include actual images of the people who this issue is impacting.

I do think that Photographer as Witness: A Portrait of Abuse is a piece of advocacy and I do believe it is ethical. I understand why some people may argue it was unethical of her to take the photos when she could have stepped in, however, even if she did, I don’t believe she would have been able to do anything that would really help the situation and most likely would have been hurt as well. Documenting that night and that incident allowed for people to see the real images of domestic abuse. Sure, people have watched television shows, movies, or some other form of media where domestic abuse may have occurred, but these scenes are not real and therefore have less of an impact on the viewers. Seeing photographs of the actual violence, and the actual scene, is SO much more impactful. People will remember what they saw in these images and will be able to understand what real domestic violence looks like. I think it was ethical of the photographer because without something to show people, they will not have a deep understanding.

Thank you all for your feedback to my last post! It seems like you all think that #1 is the best idea and I am excited to do some more research about this subject.

I believe that my audience would be the public, particularly members of society who can relate to the issue at hand. I believe that in presenting my brief to the public, I will be able to get more support and draw more attention to this issue. I also believe members of the population who are struggling with mental health themselves would really appreciate having somewhere to go and having some say in what should be done. Gathering support for this and bringing the opinion to someone who can do something about this would be very helpful in getting some potential progress in solving the issue.

I think I can frame my argument to make people see how big of an issue this is, especially in today’s fast-paced, interconnected, stress-ridden society. I also should bring up the issue of the growing homeless population in major cities and how providing some relief for those with mental illness could help potentially decrease some of these numbers.

Deliberation Nation was a very unique and exciting assignment. I enjoy leading discussions and speaking with new people and through these deliberations, I was able to do so!

It was very fascinating to get two different perspectives on the deliberation. For my group’s deliberation, “Okay Scooter…,” I was a moderator for Approach 2: Banning E-Scooters from PSU’s campus. Being the speaker and controlling the way the conversation went was like a fun game because I was –hopefully– able to get the audience thinking of the issue through new, different perspectives. However, I got to sit in the seat of the audience when I attended my roommate’s deliberation “To Stan or Not To Stan: How to Make Justice Possible for Cults of Personality.”

The deliberation discussed what should be done to hold celebrities accountable for what they say or do, especially when they have such a strong fan following who protects them. It brought up cancel-culture, deplatforming, and other methods that society can use to properly “punish” these celebrities.

This deliberation took place at the Fraser Street Commons on Wed, March 4th, 2020 from 5:00-6:30.

The deliberation was drastically different from my own in terms of the structure, presentation, attendance, relevance, and topic. That being said, it was very cool to see a discussion done in this format, too. I also think it is important to note that the moderators did a good job especially when considering the difficulty of creating and breaking down the various approaches (as it is very difficult to come up with three drastically different approaches to such a broad and situational issue).

One of the differences between the two deliberations was in the Analytical Process of “Create a solid information base.” My deliberation was more grounded using facts, numbers, data, as well as what stake the issue has in the community. However, the Stan deliberation presented a more broad topic and gave examples of the issue to demonstrate its effect on society. An example of this was when the overview team brought up Michael Jackson, his immense stardom, and the multiple, strong allegations against him. They asked us, the audience, our thoughts on what should be done to combat this and punish Jackson; or, if anything should be done at all.

Another comparison between the two deliberations was the Social Process of “Respecting other participants.” Both “Okay Scooter” and “To Stan” did a great job of listening to the audience and ensuring that all perspectives were heard. Where the two discussions differed, however, were in the amount of perspective brought to the table. The Stan deliberation, though in a smaller space, had many more audience members than my group’s deliberation. Because of the greater group, there was more of a variety of opinions and perspectives. An example of this was when someone who had been in a fandom of Nicki Minaj (called the Barbz), had to reflect on who she was associating with after the fandom had treated those who don’t like Minaj’s music, horribly.

This is not to say, that my deliberation did not have perspective as we were fortunate enough to have three varying perspectives within our four member audience: someone opposed to having scooters be permitted, someone who had a scooter themselves and therefore had a personal stake in the situation, and someone two people who did not have any personal stake and did not have much of an opinion on the subject at all.

Both deliberations were successful in the Social Process of “Ensure mutual comprehension.” In “To Stan” there were times when the explanation the moderators gave to the groups was not entirely clear and the group members had to ask the moderators for a different, more clear explanation. This especially occurred with Approach #3 whose argument and suggestions were not very clear. I believe the moderators in “Okay Scooter” did a good job of clarifying any questions posed by the audience, as well as asking follow-up questions to responses.

There was a huge difference with the Social Process of “Adequately distributing speaking opportunities,” however. The difference was not “bad,” as it just presented the entire deliberation in a much different format than mine had. “To Stan” was set up to have a rotating approach system where the audience was split up into three groups and each of the approach moderators rotated around the room to visit each group. This method was successful in accommodating the large group. Everyone was given a better opportunity to speak their mind on the subject. The format for our deliberation was, in my opinion, very successful relative to our group’s size.

Another difference between the two deliberations was in the Analytic Process of “Making the best decision possible.” When I am discussing the difference, I am primarily discussions the process in which the information that came out of the deliberation can be used moving forward. Whereas our topic and deliberation as a whole was structured around possible methods of legislation for Penn State’s campus to possibly implement, “To Stan” provided a more wholistic approach to the issue, concentrating on what society as a whole should attempt to implement for their own personal lives. For example, where “Okay Scooter” suggested banning scooters, creating regulations, or allowing e-scooters on campus, –all of which would be stated in the PSU community rulebook/guidelines– “To Stan” gave general approaches for how society can demand justice and hold celebrities accountable for their actions. One of their approaches was to suggest that we “burst the celebrity bubble” that makes these people seem like they can be held above the standards everyone else has to follow. It said to teach people not to hold celebrities up on a pedestal but instead view them as a regular person. This way people wouldn’t defend them after they did something wrong, but would instead allow for them to face whatever consequences they deserve.

I don’t think that either of the deliberations’ approaches to solving the issue was better or worse but it was interesting to note the comparison.

Lastly, another key difference was the Analytic Process of “Identifying a broad range of solutions,” particularly when evaluating the style of the approaches. In my deliberation, our approaches followed a scale of sorts that ranged from a complete ban of e-scooters, to a complete equality to bikes, giving e-scooter riders a lot more freedom. In comparison, “To Stan” had a variety of approaches that didn’t have any sort of range or scale.