Massumi

I had a hard time finding any profound  meaning in Massumi's example, which is heavily relied on to support his claim, about the snowman video. It seemed to me that he was essentially elongating and complicating the reason why it is taboo to ruin the end of a movie for someone who has yet to see the film for themselves. He describes the study done with the snowman video and that asserts the following claim:

"...it may be noted that the primacy of the affective is marked by a gap between content and effect: it would appear that the strength or duration of an image's effect is not logically connected to the content in any straightforward way" (p. 24).

It seems a bit unfounded to make this claim based on the study that he presented. The affective nature of children can not, in my opinion, be used as legitimate evidence to substantiate the aforementioned claim. While I do not disagree with what he is saying, I disagree with the the study cited as a proof. However, I can identify personally with "'sad' scenes" being "rated the most pleasant" (p. 23). I find that when I watch a film or read a book, I remember most those which make me feel something. While, for me, this does not HAVE to be something that would be considered "sad," intense emotions, no matter what type of emotion they may be, resonate within me and are remembered for longer durations of time. I have always defined my affinity toward any particular form of entertainment by its ability to provoke any strong emotion or feeling within me. For me, the ability of something to provoke an intense, particular sensation is the essence of art. When a distinct sensation is evoked within me I am able to relish in how I am able to identify with the art and not only remember it, but take something away from it as well. He states that "matter-of-factness dampens intensity" (p. 25). This does not strike me as something particularly interesting or noteworthy. It seems obvious that when the imagination is allowed to operate freely, any form of entertainment is more likely to evoke a stronger emotional response. This is in essence the reason why we tend to enjoy surprise endings.

I also find his reasoning for causality unfounded. It seems to me, and this is why I do not consider children sufficient test subjects, that the "primacy of the affective" would vary on an individual basis. This is not to say that people do not operate and react in similar fashions, but rather that there are more profound implications of affect when studying individuals with more refined tastes. There is a reason that Hollywood is able to churn out profit making blockbusters, and that would be the aforementioned tendency for the masses to respond in generally similar ways. Thus, his study of children could be applied to "the masses," but could not serve as a basis to describe the "primacy of affect" beyond individuals that identify with the majority. For the rhetor, this study has profound implications yet doesn't appear to be anything that isn't already known. In my mind the conformity of mass opinion is created by the institutions that stand to profit from mass consumption (a relevant example being media conglomerates). Profits are always greater when a large number of people partake in the same activity. When we look at the radio, television, and film industry we find a small number of corporations controlling almost all of the content. Massumi's point becomes something that is already well known, as well as something that is socially constructed. When people rely upon institutions that stand to gain the most from homogenized tastes and opinions the variety of art, and peoples exposure to anything outside of the institutions interests, becomes marginalized. There is a trend of homogeneous taste and response because exposure has become homogenized as a result of the control exerted upon the means of delivering content. As stated before, this is meaningful for the rhetor. However, this is one of my fundamental issues with the way in which rhetoric attempts to understand human beings, and in turn what makes Massumi's point irrelevant to my interests.

I propose that rhetoric attempt to study human beings on hypothetical grounds; a study which embraces progressive measures to deter conformity and as a result foster creativity and originality. These grounds would extend beyond the capacity to predict and manipulate the current socially constructed mentality of the masses that allows for rhetoric, and Massumi's argument, to exists as they do.