1) In 1996, the Child Pornography Prevention (CPPA) "[...] made it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, sell, receive, or possess child pornography as defined by the CPPA" (151). The CPPA prohibited, "[...] youthful-looking adults playing the parts of minors in sexual situations, as well as computer-generated images in which no child was actually involved" (151). Later, the Supreme Court declared the CPPA unconstitutional, as they felt the provisions were "overbroad." Justice Kennedy argued that "[v]irtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children, as were the matierials in Ferber" (152). I agree that virtual pornography is not "instrinsically related" to child abuse; however, since it is still child pornography, I believe some sort of restriction should be made on this type of film/"art." I know that this can be a slippery slope, though, as there are many films and pieces of art involving children and sexual engagements.
Q: What do you think about the provisions of the CPPA? Do you think that they took it too far, and that virtual child pornography should not be considered criminal?
2) When considering nude dancing as freedom of expression, a court case in Indiana concluded that the Indiana public decency law, which prohibits public nudity, including nude dancing in front of an adult audience, did not violate the constitution (162). Indiana requires that nude dancers wear g-strings and pasties, and dancers can never be completely nude. Nude dancing is considered to be "marginally" protected by the First Amendment, as the dancing is considered freedom of expression. The Justices agreed that "[...] the purpose of the ban was not to prevent the dancers from expressing themselves but to combat crime and other harm that allegedly resulted from nude entertainment" (158). This type of harm includes "[...] sexual harassment, public intoxication, [and] prostitution" (158). I agree with Justice Stevens, who doesn't believe that requiring g-strings and pasties are going to make any significant differences in combating nude entertainment-related crime.
Q: Do agree with Indiana's law, or do you think that nude dancing should be entirely protected by the First Amendment? And/or do you believe that these types of crimes could be prevented if there were stricter restrictions around nudity/nude dancing? Why or why not?
3) Through the readings, particularly chapter 10 (constraints of time, place, and manner), and class discussion, it's clear that the laws arounding protest and picketing can get really sticky and very specific. The specifics of laws concerning picketing around women's clinics were of particular interest. For example, in New York anitabortion protesters must remain 15 feet away from abortion clinic entrances and parking areas. Part of this enforcement included a "floating bubble," which protected staff and clients leaving the facility. "The ruling allowed no more than two antiabortion 'counselors' to enter 'bubble' to engage in nonthreatening conversation with persons approaching or leaving the facility" (276). If people didn't want to talk to the "counselors," they had to leave the bubble. This, to me, is a completely legitimate enforcement. Later, however, the "floating bubble" was "struck down." The Chief Justice argued that the bubble burdened more speech than necessary because people wouldn't be able to communicate their message from a normal conversation distance (276).
Q: What's your opinion on the "floating bubble"? Do you believe it should have remained as part of the enforcement provisions, or do you agree with the Chief Justice? What types of issues do you see happening with or without it in place?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Law Paper #1
Kelly Stone
Communication Rights & Law
Professor Bammert
04/20/2009
In the case concerning whether or not to ban Yale’s gossip website, I believe Haiman’s communication context theory should be used to resolve the case. When putting myself in the position of those who were hurt by the remarks made on the site, I was more inclined to argue for the use of Emerson’s expression-action theory, which says that “[…] when libel is directed toward a private individual in a way that does harm to that person’s feelings […] it is no longer protected” (Herbeck and Tedford 439). However, when thinking about it further, if this part of Emerson’s theory were consistently implemented in all “gossip” cases, there would be legal issues with all gossip websites and magazines. Thus, I then agreed with Haiman when he states that the law “[…] is an inappropriate tool for dealing with expression which produces mental distress or whose targets are the belief and values of an audience” (Herbeck and Tedford 440).
University leaders are considering punishing those who log onto the site, which I believe would result in a chilling effect. One Yale student said that if something about them showed up on the site, and it became available to his or her employers or friends, that the consequences would be “devastating.” I sympathize with this student; however, before shutting down a site, or punishing those who log onto it, if Haiman’s theory were to be used, it would need to be decided whether or not the harm done was “direct, immediate, irreparable, and of a serious material nature” (Herbeck and Tedford 440). I believe that a gossip website may result in irreparable harm and some material may be of a serious nature, so the law may decide to place some restrictions or monitoring “rules” on the site, but that it would be a violation of free speech to shut the site down entirely or punish those who log onto the site.
In the case regarding “offensive” shirt slogans at Jackson high school, Emerson’s expression-action theory should be applied to resolve the controversy. The primary concern over the shirts is that they supposedly have sexual connotations and some students’ feelings were hurt because they feel it was intentional. The fact that the ASB leaders asked the students not to wear the shirts and, moreover, to give the shirts back, is a violation of free student speech. If, on urbandictionary.com, some of the words on the shirt are linked with crude, sexual connotations, but they are also linked with SpongeBob SquarePants, it’s difficult to make an argument that one, it was meant to represent the sexual meaning, and two, that it was intentional. Additionally, if it was intentional, and meant to be linked to sexual connotation, I still don’t believe students should be asked to return the shirts, unless they want to. Student’s have a chance to explore and use their freedom of speech to react to these shirts, and they may learn about themselves (individual self-realization) by reacting in whichever way they please.
The reason for choosing Emerson’s theory, which, in regards to obscenity, states that “most of what society calls “obscenity” is a form of expression fully protected under the expression-action theory,” is because it also states that “[…] sexual materials thrust upon unwilling receivers so as to produce a ‘shock effect’ would be classified as action and could be prescribed by law” (Herbeck and Tedford 439). Thus, this theory would allow those who were offended the chance to argue that the shirts were an “action,” but I don’t believe they would succeed with such an argument.
The controversy between Fox and the FCC is very intriguing; I still find myself surprised to the hear “shit” on television. With television, I do believe there should be some restrictions placed upon indecent language and images, especially because it is difficult to monitor the young and their television viewings. Thus, I agree with NRB when they say: “[…] the welfare of American, its families, and its youth, will be detrimentally affected by mass communications which contain unrestrained indecency, whether in language or imagery.” For this case, I would use Chafee’s theory. He allows “[…] the punishment of ‘worthless’ speech, such as profanity or defamation because he sees no constructive role for such expression in a free society’s debate over ideas” (Herbeck and Tedford 436). Thus, I believe that using this principle would result in the conclusion that much of the indecent language used on Fox would be considered “worthless” versus “worthwhile” and that some indecency enforcement regime would occur.
After looking into these cases, and the many ways they could turn out, depending on the principles applied, I believe that all of the principles around law theory and freedom of speech should guide our understanding of communication justice and freedom of expression. All of these principles affect the outcome of cases and controversies, so I think our understanding of communication justice and freedom would be guided best if one had the knowledge of these often opposing approaches and theories.
Tedford, Thomas L. Freedom of speech in the United States. State College, Pa: Strata Pub., Inc., 2005.
Communication Rights & Law
Professor Bammert
04/20/2009
In the case concerning whether or not to ban Yale’s gossip website, I believe Haiman’s communication context theory should be used to resolve the case. When putting myself in the position of those who were hurt by the remarks made on the site, I was more inclined to argue for the use of Emerson’s expression-action theory, which says that “[…] when libel is directed toward a private individual in a way that does harm to that person’s feelings […] it is no longer protected” (Herbeck and Tedford 439). However, when thinking about it further, if this part of Emerson’s theory were consistently implemented in all “gossip” cases, there would be legal issues with all gossip websites and magazines. Thus, I then agreed with Haiman when he states that the law “[…] is an inappropriate tool for dealing with expression which produces mental distress or whose targets are the belief and values of an audience” (Herbeck and Tedford 440).
University leaders are considering punishing those who log onto the site, which I believe would result in a chilling effect. One Yale student said that if something about them showed up on the site, and it became available to his or her employers or friends, that the consequences would be “devastating.” I sympathize with this student; however, before shutting down a site, or punishing those who log onto it, if Haiman’s theory were to be used, it would need to be decided whether or not the harm done was “direct, immediate, irreparable, and of a serious material nature” (Herbeck and Tedford 440). I believe that a gossip website may result in irreparable harm and some material may be of a serious nature, so the law may decide to place some restrictions or monitoring “rules” on the site, but that it would be a violation of free speech to shut the site down entirely or punish those who log onto the site.
In the case regarding “offensive” shirt slogans at Jackson high school, Emerson’s expression-action theory should be applied to resolve the controversy. The primary concern over the shirts is that they supposedly have sexual connotations and some students’ feelings were hurt because they feel it was intentional. The fact that the ASB leaders asked the students not to wear the shirts and, moreover, to give the shirts back, is a violation of free student speech. If, on urbandictionary.com, some of the words on the shirt are linked with crude, sexual connotations, but they are also linked with SpongeBob SquarePants, it’s difficult to make an argument that one, it was meant to represent the sexual meaning, and two, that it was intentional. Additionally, if it was intentional, and meant to be linked to sexual connotation, I still don’t believe students should be asked to return the shirts, unless they want to. Student’s have a chance to explore and use their freedom of speech to react to these shirts, and they may learn about themselves (individual self-realization) by reacting in whichever way they please.
The reason for choosing Emerson’s theory, which, in regards to obscenity, states that “most of what society calls “obscenity” is a form of expression fully protected under the expression-action theory,” is because it also states that “[…] sexual materials thrust upon unwilling receivers so as to produce a ‘shock effect’ would be classified as action and could be prescribed by law” (Herbeck and Tedford 439). Thus, this theory would allow those who were offended the chance to argue that the shirts were an “action,” but I don’t believe they would succeed with such an argument.
The controversy between Fox and the FCC is very intriguing; I still find myself surprised to the hear “shit” on television. With television, I do believe there should be some restrictions placed upon indecent language and images, especially because it is difficult to monitor the young and their television viewings. Thus, I agree with NRB when they say: “[…] the welfare of American, its families, and its youth, will be detrimentally affected by mass communications which contain unrestrained indecency, whether in language or imagery.” For this case, I would use Chafee’s theory. He allows “[…] the punishment of ‘worthless’ speech, such as profanity or defamation because he sees no constructive role for such expression in a free society’s debate over ideas” (Herbeck and Tedford 436). Thus, I believe that using this principle would result in the conclusion that much of the indecent language used on Fox would be considered “worthless” versus “worthwhile” and that some indecency enforcement regime would occur.
After looking into these cases, and the many ways they could turn out, depending on the principles applied, I believe that all of the principles around law theory and freedom of speech should guide our understanding of communication justice and freedom of expression. All of these principles affect the outcome of cases and controversies, so I think our understanding of communication justice and freedom would be guided best if one had the knowledge of these often opposing approaches and theories.
Tedford, Thomas L. Freedom of speech in the United States. State College, Pa: Strata Pub., Inc., 2005.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Communication & Social Change (#1) - Argument from Narrative Vision in Social Movements
1) Social movements must transform perceptions, and attempts to do so are usually made through narratives. For these narratives to be successful, the reader must identify with the narrator, thus, the story. Otherwise, if the reader doesn't connect with the narrator, or finds the narrator unconvincing, then the reader may use the narrative to "construct an opposing vision"(204). Moreover, "the narrator's image and audience appeal are so important to the narrative that personal identification overpowers logical rigor" (204). When I look back on experiences I've had, like when I signed up to be a Greenpeace member, it was the narrative, as well as the narrator, that persuaded me to be a part of their organization. I can still remember the story about polar bears that got me "hooked." Other times, though, like with Children's International, I was put off by the narrator.
Q: Can you think of a time when the narrative/narrator (of a social movement, of an organization, etc.) convinced you to be a part of their cause, and/or you never forgot the narrative? If so, why? What connections or disconnections did you have with the narrative? Has a narrator/narrative ever put you off from something you did believe in beforehand, or just put you off in general?
2) As discussed in the chapter, "storytelling engages people in a communicative relationship defined by the narrator-audience relationship. The narrator and listener create a 'we' through their identification; 'my story' becomes 'our story' through co-creation" (204). If stories are to be remembered, they must involve elements that can be retained and recollected. "Social movements often weave a variety of recollections into a new story to raise them to a level of retention" (204). An example of an abbreviated narrative for change, in my opinion, would be Nancy Amidei's project with the large photos of people holding a sign with their name and district, as well as whatever they're in support of. I believe this is an effective method. At Elder Health we will be interview and get to know those who receive care through Elder Health; we will also talk to their families and learn how Elder Health helps their everyday lives and happiness. Then, we will send these narratives, along with other information, out to people who can help us.
Q: Does your volunteer organization use (or plan to use) narrative to tell their story or the story of those who are a part of it? Do you like the narrative(s)? How effective is the narrator and/or narrative, and what makes the narrator and/or narrative effective?
3) In the conclusion of the chapter, "[...] six important points about social movements and argument from narrative vision" are made. The final point was the following: "[...] because narratives help us to interpret events, and because events help us to validate our choice of narrative, political history is a series of struggles for narrative dominance" (222). After reading the chapter, and really thinking further about fantasy and narrative structures, I couldn't agree with this more. Yet this is still so interesting because it helps to illuminate why, in politics, like narrative, the stories "[...] arise through communication and provide the themes, heroes, villians, values, and motivations that are invoked in later communication" (205). This also made me think of our class discussion regarding the media-formed "character" of Hillary Clinton, and how that character played into the larger political narrative at the time.
Q: Do you agree that political history is a series of struggles for narrative dominance? Why or why not? Do you believe the media forms these politicians into political characters for the larger narrative?
Q: Can you think of a time when the narrative/narrator (of a social movement, of an organization, etc.) convinced you to be a part of their cause, and/or you never forgot the narrative? If so, why? What connections or disconnections did you have with the narrative? Has a narrator/narrative ever put you off from something you did believe in beforehand, or just put you off in general?
2) As discussed in the chapter, "storytelling engages people in a communicative relationship defined by the narrator-audience relationship. The narrator and listener create a 'we' through their identification; 'my story' becomes 'our story' through co-creation" (204). If stories are to be remembered, they must involve elements that can be retained and recollected. "Social movements often weave a variety of recollections into a new story to raise them to a level of retention" (204). An example of an abbreviated narrative for change, in my opinion, would be Nancy Amidei's project with the large photos of people holding a sign with their name and district, as well as whatever they're in support of. I believe this is an effective method. At Elder Health we will be interview and get to know those who receive care through Elder Health; we will also talk to their families and learn how Elder Health helps their everyday lives and happiness. Then, we will send these narratives, along with other information, out to people who can help us.
Q: Does your volunteer organization use (or plan to use) narrative to tell their story or the story of those who are a part of it? Do you like the narrative(s)? How effective is the narrator and/or narrative, and what makes the narrator and/or narrative effective?
3) In the conclusion of the chapter, "[...] six important points about social movements and argument from narrative vision" are made. The final point was the following: "[...] because narratives help us to interpret events, and because events help us to validate our choice of narrative, political history is a series of struggles for narrative dominance" (222). After reading the chapter, and really thinking further about fantasy and narrative structures, I couldn't agree with this more. Yet this is still so interesting because it helps to illuminate why, in politics, like narrative, the stories "[...] arise through communication and provide the themes, heroes, villians, values, and motivations that are invoked in later communication" (205). This also made me think of our class discussion regarding the media-formed "character" of Hillary Clinton, and how that character played into the larger political narrative at the time.
Q: Do you agree that political history is a series of struggles for narrative dominance? Why or why not? Do you believe the media forms these politicians into political characters for the larger narrative?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Fear Spoils freedom's promise
Perharps, as Black says, we have become afraid to be free in certain regards. This could be because we have become increasingly unsure of who "we" are as a nation, as well as because many Americans feel ignorant regarding free-expression traditions and principles. Either way, it is a pressing issue today, as we have a new President in office and many changes, overall, lie ahead. In Paul McMasters article, he states, "We struggle to seperate the good from the bad, reality from fantasy, and the safe from the dangerous." I believe this is one of the more pressing communication justice issues today. If we continue to struggle to even make these distinctions, then how can we, as a nation of citizens, use the protection of the First Amendment to "[...] question [our] government, to forment change, to fight injustice"? A great cause of this issue is surely the fast-changing and advancing media and technology, which is providing far more entry points for one to express his or her voice and opinion, as well as make change, like with Facebook groups. Yet many are unsure of what messages of "truth" to expell out into the world via the Internet, and many are okay with sending messages that are untrue. McMaster believes that "The more ways we find to communicate with one another, the more reasons we find to silence one another." I don't entirely agree that we engage in this type of "regulation;" rather, I believe that people raise questions that others are uncomfortable with, so others use their own rhetoric, arguments, and opinions in attempts to make that question irrelevent. It's not a silencing of the other so much as it is a need to silence those opinions of others by using one's own opinions and arguments to crush others' perspective.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The final week of Q's
1) Woodward and Denton’s 2004 text states, “For more than a decade, there have been increasing numbers of studies, polls, and news articles lamenting the decline of ethical behavior in America” (Woodward & Denton 338). Some of these articles, studies, and polls have shown that lying and cheating has become customary among both children and adults; the absence of shame is a norm in our culture; half of the 80 percent of high school students who admitted to cheating at least once didn’t believe it was necessarily wrong (Woodward and Denton 338). Considering that most of this information was released in the early and mid nineties, our nation, in my opinion, has surely declined further in terms of ethical behavior. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Also, in 1983, Philosopher S. Jack Odell argued that “[a] society without ethics is a society doomed to extinction” (Larsen 25). Do you think that, if our society’s decline of ethical behavior continues, we are at risk of extinction? Or, do you think our society thrives off of a lack of ethics?
2) When it comes to behaving ethically, it’s important to recognize that we clearly live in an individualistic culture; according to Woodward and Denton, “[w]e are concerned with self-actualization, success, comfort, convenience, property, and the pursuit of happiness” while growing less and less concerned with ethics (Woodward and Denton 338). Early philosophers who expressed a concern for ethics (Plato, Aristotle, etc.), as well as later philosophers, were also studying human happiness. I would argue that they saw a link between maintaining one’s self-imposed ethical standards and happiness. The United States is a wealthy, powerful, and technologically advanced nation. Those living in the U.S., as discussed above, are lacking certain ethical behaviors, as they are declining quickly in our nation overall. Our Declaration of Independence discusses our pursuit of happiness, but lifestyle statistics regarding happiness levels show that we are the 30th happiest nation (nationmaster.com). Larsen states that it’s a persuaders’ responsibility to be “[…] accountable to one’s own conscience” (Larsen 24). Do you think that lacking accountability to one’s own conscience has an effect on one’s happiness level? Do you think that either our increasingly individualistic attitudes, or our declining ethical standards are directly related to Americans’ low levels of happiness?
3) In Larsen’s piece on persuasion-related reception and responsibility, one section, entitled “Responsibilities of Receivers,” reminds readers that “[…] persuasion can be viewed as a transaction in which both persuaders and persuadees bear mutual responsibility to participate actively in the process.” Our responsibilities, according to Larsen, can be encapsulated by two phrases: reasoned skepticism and appropriate feedback (Larsen 26). This section was of particular importance to me, as it can be too easy to forget that our cultural, familial, and relational baggage and biases, which we constantly carry with us, can hinder one’s ability to be an ethical receiver of persuasive messages. Reasoned skepticism involves maintaining a balanced position, and realizing “[…] that accurate understanding of a persuader’s message may be hindered by attempting to impose your own ethical standards on that persuader [as] [y]our immediate ‘gut-level’ ethical judgments may cause you to distort the intended meaning” (Larsen 26). Larsen goes on to say that, due to the amount of distrust and lack of truthfulness, we are living in an especially skeptical era, and reasoned skepticism demands that we do not assume that most public communication is untrustworthy.
Do you tend to automatically assume that most public communication is untrustworthy? If so, what would it take for you to adopt a less assuming perspective, and/or how do you combat those assumptions to remain ethical?
2) When it comes to behaving ethically, it’s important to recognize that we clearly live in an individualistic culture; according to Woodward and Denton, “[w]e are concerned with self-actualization, success, comfort, convenience, property, and the pursuit of happiness” while growing less and less concerned with ethics (Woodward and Denton 338). Early philosophers who expressed a concern for ethics (Plato, Aristotle, etc.), as well as later philosophers, were also studying human happiness. I would argue that they saw a link between maintaining one’s self-imposed ethical standards and happiness. The United States is a wealthy, powerful, and technologically advanced nation. Those living in the U.S., as discussed above, are lacking certain ethical behaviors, as they are declining quickly in our nation overall. Our Declaration of Independence discusses our pursuit of happiness, but lifestyle statistics regarding happiness levels show that we are the 30th happiest nation (nationmaster.com). Larsen states that it’s a persuaders’ responsibility to be “[…] accountable to one’s own conscience” (Larsen 24). Do you think that lacking accountability to one’s own conscience has an effect on one’s happiness level? Do you think that either our increasingly individualistic attitudes, or our declining ethical standards are directly related to Americans’ low levels of happiness?
3) In Larsen’s piece on persuasion-related reception and responsibility, one section, entitled “Responsibilities of Receivers,” reminds readers that “[…] persuasion can be viewed as a transaction in which both persuaders and persuadees bear mutual responsibility to participate actively in the process.” Our responsibilities, according to Larsen, can be encapsulated by two phrases: reasoned skepticism and appropriate feedback (Larsen 26). This section was of particular importance to me, as it can be too easy to forget that our cultural, familial, and relational baggage and biases, which we constantly carry with us, can hinder one’s ability to be an ethical receiver of persuasive messages. Reasoned skepticism involves maintaining a balanced position, and realizing “[…] that accurate understanding of a persuader’s message may be hindered by attempting to impose your own ethical standards on that persuader [as] [y]our immediate ‘gut-level’ ethical judgments may cause you to distort the intended meaning” (Larsen 26). Larsen goes on to say that, due to the amount of distrust and lack of truthfulness, we are living in an especially skeptical era, and reasoned skepticism demands that we do not assume that most public communication is untrustworthy.
Do you tend to automatically assume that most public communication is untrustworthy? If so, what would it take for you to adopt a less assuming perspective, and/or how do you combat those assumptions to remain ethical?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Questions para tu
1) In his first chapter, Paul Messaris, author of Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising, attempts to discover, through research and analysis, the implication of iconicity for the uses of pictures in ads. As a starting point, Messaris discusses Henrik Dahl’s analysis of the fundamentals of persuasive communication and Dahl’s argument that “one of its central characteristics is the fact that it is typically unwanted communication” (Messaris 5). Messaris then states, “With the possible exception of those of us who have a professional interest in the subject, most people do not actively seek out exposure to advertising” (Messaris 5). I agree that, especially in our culture, people recognize advertising exposure as an unwanted component of daily life, and are often aware of, and frustrated by, the manipulative tactics used to persuade us. However, it’s a fact that “[…] real world vision is intimately connected with emotion, which, in turn, is tied to our functional needs as biological and social creatures,” and it’s also true that many of the tools advertisers use “[…] are derived from the principles of real-world, face-to-face interaction” (Messaris 4-5) That said, since advertisers often construct visual iconicity’s that attempt to fulfill, or respond to, our functional needs, we could be subconsciously, and/or unconsciously, seeking out chances for exposure to advertising. For example, when walking somewhere, do you ever find yourself taking the busier streets, like Broadway, which is filled with visual advertising? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
2) The major categories of visual imagery are also discussed in this chapter. Visual distortions, visual violations, and visual parodies are seen as major categories. Of these categories, which is most interesting and/or appealing to you? Why? Is your opinion of which category you prefer due to how well it actually persuaded you, or peaked your interest in a product? Or, is it because the category of images you find most appealing are the one’s where the ads image most stands out to you, but you can’t even remember what they were selling? If so, what does that say about visual imagery as persuasion?
3) In terms of identification, Messaris states that, “[…] the primary inclination of most female viewers will be to identify with the female models” and “[b]y identifying with someone else, we turn the observed consequences of her or his actions into lessons for our own lives” (Messaris 43-44). So, to strengthen our emotional involvement with ads, our tendency to identify with the models is used, and the images presented to us have models whose sexual or financial or other types of success “we may wish to emulate” (Messaris 44). But what about the consequences, for our lives, of these observed consequences of the models “life”? What do you think this does to our understanding of successes we were already striving for when other successes are linked to it, like the “successfulness” of a model's skinny-ness? For example, if, in my current life, I’m striving for success in business, and I see an ad for high fashion business attire with skinny female models who, as they wear the clothes, are shown (somehow) as being at an advantage and very successful, I’m suppose to recognize that the “consequence” of not wearing this brand of high fashion business attire is that I won’t be the type of successful, business-wise, that I want to be. There. The ad wins, and it’s done the job. However, it’s also added a new idea of female business-related success: the clothes worked for the model, but the model doesn’t look like me, as she’s long, skinny, and her face (surely) looks flawless. So, how is it that the image has the power to add a new type of desired success (of being thin and flawless) that I cannot relate to, but now see as a success, rather than just causing me to dismiss the entire brand and image, as the person I’m to identify with deviates from the norm? Do you think it could be because there may be two forms of identification occurring, as we may try to identify with the models character’s success, while also identifying with the model herself, and her life as a model for this ad?
2) The major categories of visual imagery are also discussed in this chapter. Visual distortions, visual violations, and visual parodies are seen as major categories. Of these categories, which is most interesting and/or appealing to you? Why? Is your opinion of which category you prefer due to how well it actually persuaded you, or peaked your interest in a product? Or, is it because the category of images you find most appealing are the one’s where the ads image most stands out to you, but you can’t even remember what they were selling? If so, what does that say about visual imagery as persuasion?
3) In terms of identification, Messaris states that, “[…] the primary inclination of most female viewers will be to identify with the female models” and “[b]y identifying with someone else, we turn the observed consequences of her or his actions into lessons for our own lives” (Messaris 43-44). So, to strengthen our emotional involvement with ads, our tendency to identify with the models is used, and the images presented to us have models whose sexual or financial or other types of success “we may wish to emulate” (Messaris 44). But what about the consequences, for our lives, of these observed consequences of the models “life”? What do you think this does to our understanding of successes we were already striving for when other successes are linked to it, like the “successfulness” of a model's skinny-ness? For example, if, in my current life, I’m striving for success in business, and I see an ad for high fashion business attire with skinny female models who, as they wear the clothes, are shown (somehow) as being at an advantage and very successful, I’m suppose to recognize that the “consequence” of not wearing this brand of high fashion business attire is that I won’t be the type of successful, business-wise, that I want to be. There. The ad wins, and it’s done the job. However, it’s also added a new idea of female business-related success: the clothes worked for the model, but the model doesn’t look like me, as she’s long, skinny, and her face (surely) looks flawless. So, how is it that the image has the power to add a new type of desired success (of being thin and flawless) that I cannot relate to, but now see as a success, rather than just causing me to dismiss the entire brand and image, as the person I’m to identify with deviates from the norm? Do you think it could be because there may be two forms of identification occurring, as we may try to identify with the models character’s success, while also identifying with the model herself, and her life as a model for this ad?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Answer to Rashad's Week 8 Question 2
Question: The text explains that there are three aspects of nonverbal behaviors that affect persuasion. One pertaining to the level of animation, the second relating to behavior liking or attraction, and the third pertaining to the level of relaxation displayed during interaction. The text mentions that being relaxed gains trust and the appearance of truthfulness, and a relaxed posture and the absence of vocal anxiety are important elements in establishing credibility. I agree with this for the most part, but I also think its interesting to note that there are degrees and levels to these aspects, the text does not expand the idea that it is possible for an audience participating in interaction with a speaker who is establishing credibility through relaxation may overreach and as a result be perceived as too relaxed or too comfortable. Illustrating a sense of over relaxation can make people think that one is cavalier, and may not take the situation seriously enough. Would you agree with this stance, and do you think the author should expand this idea of relaxation? Or is it simply implied that being overly relaxed in a situation where credibility is being established can result in poor perceptions?
Answer: Woodward and Denton state that the “[…] level of relaxation displayed during an interaction is important in gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness” (194). Since gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness depends upon the level of displayed relaxation, the idea that negative perceptions can be caused by one having an overly high level of relaxation, to me, seems implied. However, although I understand this to be implied, I do believe that the authors could, and should, expand on this idea of relaxation.
This idea is important, and should be further discussed, because individuals may have slight differences for what it means to nonverbally appear relaxed. Additionally, as we all surely know, when attempting to persuade others, nervousness, and/or excitement, will likely be a factor. That said, attempts to display relaxation are probably often forced, and, therefore, more difficult to execute convincingly. It would also be of value to expand on this idea because antonyms for “relax” are “increase, grow, agitate, excite, tense, worry” (dictionary.com); these antonyms are similar to other nonverbal behaviors the text actually suggests, such as nonverbal behaviors communicating enthusiasm, frequent gesturing, hand movements, and high levels of energy (194). Relaxation, shown through nonverbal behavior, isn’t, in my opinion, synonymous with high energy, enthusiasm, and frequent hand gestures; however, there is an evident difference between doing these things relaxed and versus not relaxed (in terms of nonverbals).
In most persuasive situations I do agree with the following stance: “Illustrating a sense of over relaxation can make people think that one is cavalier, and may not take the situation seriously enough.” As the text emphasizes, the purpose and context of the event are vital factors when looking into nonverbal characteristics of interpersonal persuasion (195). That said, in a situation where one’s credibility is in question, a sense of over relaxation could not only imply that one is cavalier, but also that, even if they do take the situation seriously, they are too certain that their persuasion will rid them of this credibility issue.
For example, if, during Nixon’s Checkers speech, Nixon was extremely/overly relaxed when speaking, one might feel that since he knew what he was going to say, his relaxed demeanor clearly indicated that he felt his speech would get him off the hook before the speech was even finished. In the same type of situation, though, I can see how appearing overly relaxed might be convincing, in terms of regaining credibility. If a person was accused of murder, for example, was highly relaxed when discussing the crime while being interviewed, one might think, “If they’re this relaxed it must be because they truly have nothing to worry about, as they didn’t commit the crime.” I wouldn’t see it that way, but others might.
I recognize that the text emphasizes that a relaxed posture and the absence of vocal anxiety are important elements in establishing credibility, and that these elements related to relaxation are of high importance when trying to persuade. The implication is that posture and vocalics are greatly affected by nervousness; it may seem obvious to some, but it would be interesting if the text referenced how and what other nonverbal behaviors are affected by a lack of relaxation.
What isn’t addressed in the chapter is what it means, in terms of gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness, when one has a low level of relaxation or appears nervous. Can that have a positive effect? For example, for our first day of campaign presentations there were speakers who were confident, but, possibly due to nervousness and/or excitement, not very relaxed. I saw this as a sign that the candidates cared a lot about their presentation; so, in my eyes, their lack of relaxed movements resulted in a gaining of credibility, and a proving of their emotional investment.
Answer: Woodward and Denton state that the “[…] level of relaxation displayed during an interaction is important in gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness” (194). Since gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness depends upon the level of displayed relaxation, the idea that negative perceptions can be caused by one having an overly high level of relaxation, to me, seems implied. However, although I understand this to be implied, I do believe that the authors could, and should, expand on this idea of relaxation.
This idea is important, and should be further discussed, because individuals may have slight differences for what it means to nonverbally appear relaxed. Additionally, as we all surely know, when attempting to persuade others, nervousness, and/or excitement, will likely be a factor. That said, attempts to display relaxation are probably often forced, and, therefore, more difficult to execute convincingly. It would also be of value to expand on this idea because antonyms for “relax” are “increase, grow, agitate, excite, tense, worry” (dictionary.com); these antonyms are similar to other nonverbal behaviors the text actually suggests, such as nonverbal behaviors communicating enthusiasm, frequent gesturing, hand movements, and high levels of energy (194). Relaxation, shown through nonverbal behavior, isn’t, in my opinion, synonymous with high energy, enthusiasm, and frequent hand gestures; however, there is an evident difference between doing these things relaxed and versus not relaxed (in terms of nonverbals).
In most persuasive situations I do agree with the following stance: “Illustrating a sense of over relaxation can make people think that one is cavalier, and may not take the situation seriously enough.” As the text emphasizes, the purpose and context of the event are vital factors when looking into nonverbal characteristics of interpersonal persuasion (195). That said, in a situation where one’s credibility is in question, a sense of over relaxation could not only imply that one is cavalier, but also that, even if they do take the situation seriously, they are too certain that their persuasion will rid them of this credibility issue.
For example, if, during Nixon’s Checkers speech, Nixon was extremely/overly relaxed when speaking, one might feel that since he knew what he was going to say, his relaxed demeanor clearly indicated that he felt his speech would get him off the hook before the speech was even finished. In the same type of situation, though, I can see how appearing overly relaxed might be convincing, in terms of regaining credibility. If a person was accused of murder, for example, was highly relaxed when discussing the crime while being interviewed, one might think, “If they’re this relaxed it must be because they truly have nothing to worry about, as they didn’t commit the crime.” I wouldn’t see it that way, but others might.
I recognize that the text emphasizes that a relaxed posture and the absence of vocal anxiety are important elements in establishing credibility, and that these elements related to relaxation are of high importance when trying to persuade. The implication is that posture and vocalics are greatly affected by nervousness; it may seem obvious to some, but it would be interesting if the text referenced how and what other nonverbal behaviors are affected by a lack of relaxation.
What isn’t addressed in the chapter is what it means, in terms of gaining trust and the appearance of truthfulness, when one has a low level of relaxation or appears nervous. Can that have a positive effect? For example, for our first day of campaign presentations there were speakers who were confident, but, possibly due to nervousness and/or excitement, not very relaxed. I saw this as a sign that the candidates cared a lot about their presentation; so, in my eyes, their lack of relaxed movements resulted in a gaining of credibility, and a proving of their emotional investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)