Visual Argument

 The Folly of Man

Fast food has rapidly become an industry which increasingly extensive negative effects on the environment and society’s health. People often ignore, or are unaware, of these effects when they purchase fast food items. This visual argument is an attempt to point out the vast growth and increased consumption of fast food, and the residual effects on the environment and consumer health.

                The first image conjures up feelings of nostalgia, if the viewer was alive when McDonalds was founded, or, if they weren’t alive, a sense of wonder about a time they have only heard or read about. This image uses presuppositions about the audience’s knowledge of McDonalds’ (and fast food in general) successful transformation from a small burger stand to a multinational corporation. In context this image also brings up ideas about capitalism as an American ideal. By any measure, McDonald’s is a capitalistic success story.  The second image shows a stereotypical farm with cows happily grazing. This associates the old McDonalds with a small farm environment. This creates a relationship between the beginnings of fast food development, a staple in American cuisine, and a pleasant farm environment. The viewer is given a brief reminder of a time when an industry that is so prevalent today was very different. The farm also makes a positive association with the product it is producing, something that is familiar and known as a cornerstone in the human race’s industrialization and growth.

                The next picture is a busy McDonalds in what looks like another country. This makes the viewer see the transition and the growth and development of a particular player in a much larger industry. They are reminded of the frequency people consume fast food, and the global level on which the industry operates. This makes the viewer feel familiarity in the now, it also makes them feel the shift the industry has taken in a terms of presentation and prevalence. This image relies on presuppositions about the overconsumption of fast food, yet introduces it in a subtle way. It functions on a surface level, mostly inspiring a feeling of change in general. The next picture is of a sandwich from KFC which uses two pieces of fried chicken rather than buns. This is a somewhat comical use of the presupposition that certain components of the fast food industry have gone too far. This sandwich is the epitome of excess and makes the viewer feel somewhat disgusted. The viewer will feel guilt if this is a food item they eat themselves. They may also feel anger about others consuming food that is so clearly a poor dietary choice.

                The fifth image is of a large feedlot. This pulls the viewer into a much harsher component of the industry, and again points to the change in the way the industry functions. The image itself makes the viewer feel dirty and wary. If the viewer has ever been near a feedlot they will be reminded of the putrid smell of feces and filth the environment creates. The viewer will feel a sense of pity for the animals awful living conditions. Again, they will feel more guilt or anger depending on the role they play in supporting the fast food industry.  The viewer may also be grossed out by the food they have consumed in the past given the conditions the ingredients are raised in. The sixth image is of several obese children eating at a McDonalds. This brings the viewer back to something that they are familiar with, whether it be because they see obese children or because they themselves are obese. This makes the viewer feel an even greater sense of guilt and anger, and at this point should have them questioning their consumption of fast food. They should also be questioning the necessity and general nature of the fast food industry. These children represent a presupposition about America’s growing reputation as a fat unhealthy country that lives off of fast food. The viewer is again reminded of overconsumption and excess of the industry as a whole.

                The seventh image is of McDonalds’ executives at a press conference. This gives a face to the industry, and brings in the business elements (a pursuit of profits) that perpetuate the consumption and low prices of the food. The viewer feels a sense of anger toward the stereotypical white males who run the McDonalds Corporation. Presuppositions about corruption and the elite class exploiting the common man are utilized in this photo. The viewer may be made to feel as though they have been wronged and, if they consume fast food, a desire to stop supporting the industry. The eighth picture is of two hands shaking with foreign currency turning into a gooey mess in their hands. The background shows industrial images of smoke stacks on the top and a clean image depicting industry on the bottom. This utilizes the presuppositions from the previous image to solidify the idea of the industry and the government being in cahoots. This furthers the anger and paints the fast food industry in a very malicious and negative light. The viewer can’t help but draw associations between the changes in the industry and the involvement of the industry in the government. It also makes the viewer consider why something that is clearly so damaging for society and the environment is able to continue thriving.

                The ninth picture is a kid eating a burger with a McDonalds’ logo in the background. This is an interesting picture. The ketchup surrounding the kid’s mouth resembles blood and creates a very dark, almost evil, feeling about the act of actually eating fast food. This brings the viewer back to something very familiar. The kid in the picture is nondescript and could easily be the viewer or someone the viewer knows. The bright blue sky in the background is contrasted with the gross image of the kid eating the burger. This brings the viewer back to feeling disgust, and makes them consider the other images and the functionality of the industry as a whole. The have been brought through various processes and ideologies about the industry and are then presented with an  image they can relate to of someone simply eating a burger. The preceding eight images set up the ninth up to really shine. The other images really bring out the dark and grotesque nature of the ninth.

Photographs:

1.          1.       http://www.doobybrain.com/2007/10/22/mcdonalds-pampers-its-burgers/

2.       http://ruraltiestalesofacountrygirl.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nz-dairy.jpg

3.       http://kidsblogs.nationalgeographic.com/you-are-here/beijing/behind-the-scenes/

4.        http://www.evilchili.com/blogs/403/The_Horrible_Secret_About_Fast_Food

5.       http://www.ruralvotes.com/thebackforty/?p=3132

6.       http://www.popaholicsanonymous.com/tag/mcdonalds/

7.       http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/JIcTIIyTR_k/McDonalds+Holds+Annual+Shareholders+Meeting

8.       http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow&id=340

9.       http://foodworldorder.blogspot.com/2010/11/mcdonalds-pepsi-to-help-write-uk-health.html

Kennedy

This piece did not resonate with me because I felt that it forcefully incorporated rhetoric as a function of it's argument. What I interpreted to be the point of this piece, and what I feel Kennedy says quite explicitly, is that by studying behavioral and communicative characteristics of animals the evolution and development of rhetoric can be better understood. I can presumably follow that argument, and can also see potential for it having intriguing characteristics; however, I find myself a bit unclear on how this is an expansion of what we already know about rhetoric. Kennedy states "This brief discussion is intended to direct attention to animal communication as a way of understanding some basic features of rhetoric that might be restated as general rules" (p.20). I fail to see where he outlines anything that isn't logical, and in terms of rhetoric (which I personally feel is a subject that often over extends its boundaries and application) is imaginative or insightful. The general consensus that I came to roughly halfway through this piece was that Kennedy was effectively forming a logical manipulation of the principles of rhetoric in order to apply them to the behavioral and communicative characteristics of animals. I feel that this quote was almost an admittance of my accusation:

"Using the traditional parts of rhetoric as a basis for discussion may be objected to by some as analogous to ethnocentrism in anthropology, the imposition of a later, and Western, structural scheme on phenomena that in their natural state might be related in different ways. My response to this criticism is to agree that the categories of traditional rhetoric may not be a satisfactory basis to describe animal communication and I do not use them for that purpose. What I am looking for are features of animal communication that resemble categories of traditional rhetoric and that therefore suggest that these categories, though conditioned by cultural conventions, represent the survival of certain natural phenomenon" (p. 14).

I find the notion of "the survival of natural phenomenon" interesting on its own, but after reading this piece I did not feel like the imposition of rhetoric as an explanatory characteristic gave me greater insight on this topic. Kennedy presents some conceptually sound arguments which link rhetoric to animal life, yet in my opinion fails to develop anything more than that. He has managed to fit rhetoric into a mold, yet has failed to give it any meaning. Just because you can formulate a relationship between subjects does not mean that the relationship has anything to offer in terms of expanding an understanding of the subjects being related. Part of me feels that there is something to be said about examining the evolution of rhetoric in terms of survival strategies, yet I felt the approach taken by Kennedy was an effort to (in my opinion unnecessarily) give rhetoric an artificially higher calling.

This manifests itself most obviously in some of Kennedy's language choices. I found some of his arguments to be suggestive, rather than actually founded. I question his fourth thesis which claimed "The function of rhetoric is the survival of the fittest." Does he mean "A function of rhetoric"? I also question his logic here:

"...the claim of Aristotle (Rhetoric 1.1.14) and his successors that the function of rhetoric is not persuasion but observing the available means of persuasion. A speech may not succeed, but in Aristotle's view may still be the best possible speech and demonstrate the speaker's rhetorical skill. Of course a speech, though ineffective with an audience, may successfully fulfill the speaker's need to speak--to put himself 'on record' as it were; a bird that gives a cry indicating a predator fulfills a need to express that, even if the bird is mistaken or ignored by others. A speech that is not successful at the moment may affect future conditions indirectly" (p. 8).

I understand the connection... A human speaker has a need to speak as he feels his words hold a meaning that must be said, and a bird fears a predator and feels the need to indicate danger; despite the success of either "speaker," their motivation is in a similar vein? I just feel that if I break down this excerpt all he is really doing is establishing his ethos as a rhetorical authority and then loosely incorporating a hypothetical situation involving a bird's instinctual fear of a predator as some sort of relevant rhetorical function. It seems that rhetoric's relevance in this logic is suggested more than substantiated, and contrived rather than necessarily insightful.

This quote is in my opinion very indicative of Kennedy's attempt to stretch rhetoric's application in what seems to me a bizarre attempt to glorify its importance:

"In theory, one might even seek to identify some quantitative unit of rhetorical energy--call it the "rheme"--analogous to an erg or volt, by which rhetorical energy could be measured. I leave that to the experimentalist" (p. 2)

Is this not a rather desperate attempt to link rhetoric and science in a completely unjustifiable way? I found his qualifier ("I leave that to the experimentalist") particularly hilarious. I guess I just don't find many profound, thoughtful implications within this piece that resonate outside of the egocentric misguided logic, and the rather suggestive language that dominates (for me) its entirety. Someone please explain the point of posing some sort of measurable rhetorical energy "rheme" as being anything other than an attempt by Kennedy to give his reasoning and profession a sort of self fulfilling pseudo-scientific application.

Damasio Ch. 1-4

I recently came across several ideas from Naomi L. Quenk's "Beside Ourselves: Our Hidden Personality in Everyday Life" which I feel pertain to, and provide insight on a lot of the material we discuss in class. Quenk's book is an interpretation and application of the work of Carl G. Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist who studied under Freud.

Excerpt from Chapter 1: Jungian Psychology and Hidden Personality: The Principle of Compensation

"Psychological opposites are essential for the whole of Jung's personality theory, just as they are for his type theory. This opposition provides a way for our psyches to correct one-sidedness. Jung called the mechanism for correcting one-sidedness compensation."

Excerpt from Appendix B: Selected Quotations From Jung on His Typology: Differentiation of Functions

"So long as a function is still fused with one or more of the other functions--thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc--that it is unable to operate on its own, it is...not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself. Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations and fantasies... To the extent that a function is largely or wholly unconscious, it is also undifferentiated; it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with the functions... Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed."

These quotes create solid iteration of how I interpreted the post-accident affects of Phineas Gage and Elliot from "Descartes Error" in their abilities to perform certain functions. I remember in particular Elliot's inability to effectively sort papers etc. I feel that this quote is a good depiction of the failure of these processes: "Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant." I find the idea of various personality characteristics struggling to work harmoniously very interesting. Jung proposes that if one characteristic becomes dominant (as often happens as Jung believes we are born with a predisposition to certain characteristic) opposite functions will suffer. He also claims that the dominant characteristic can develop into a "one-sided" form which becomes problematic for outward and inward representation and interpretation of one's dominant personality characteristics. I propose that this is somewhat explanatory of the patients described in "Descartes Error." If these patients functions (specifically emotion) became differentiated, whether it be because they were removed entirely or if they were merely separated from other functions (evidence from "Descartes Error" points to the former), the problems Jung describes as "one-sided" development would provide insight into their inability to perform certain tasks and manage certain aspects of their lives. By this logic, Elliot is unable to effectively sort a stack of papers because the unconscious function of his emotions no longer give his actions direction.

I also find it interesting that Aristotle explains emotions by forming pairs of opposites, and Jung explains the development, explanations of, and restructuring of personality in pairs of opposites as well. The pairing of Jung's explanation of personality with Aristotle's explanation of emotion is a very interesting one. Aristotle does not discuss the balancing act that occurs as a natural human process as described by Jung, but I do feel Jung's work can provide insight into the rhetorical application of Aristotle's appeal to emotion. Jung addresses the notion of projection, simply put the tendency to observe our own insecurities in other people. This can be a manifestation of characteristics we like, yet lack in our own demeanor, or dislike, yet have tendencies to have ourselves. Jung's work adds to the understanding of how emotions and personalities functions within the human psyche. I recommend researching this stuff on your own, as it is very interesting and provides a lot of insight into the material we cover in class!

Written Pathetic Appeal

The purpose of my piece is to point out and intensify the insecurities of a generation. In particular, those of us who are less equipped to combat the rise in unemployment that has resulted from a global economic collapse. I am trying to point to the lack of change that has resulted in the way a system that is spiraling out of control functions. I understand that this piece may create some disdain toward me, as I am the author and the subject is a bit abrasive. I accept this as part of what I wanted to create; which was to encourage an active pursuit to deflect potential defeat, rather than a submissive acceptance of failure. I attempt to create a sense of fear, anger, and discontent that is coupled with a logical assessment of reality. I hope that this piece resonates with you enough on an emotional level to give you the inspiration to consider your life, place in the world, and future success from an alternative perspective. I am not simply trying to get a rise out of you by attacking the one definitive thing I know about most of you, your major.

Revision:

I took my argument and made every attempt I could to make it more specific. My first submission had a lot of ambiguity and left a lot of things open to interpretation. This revision is more focused on exactly what I wanted to argue, as well as more specific in terms of how to interpret what I say. I also tried to reduce interpretation in terms of what I am saying regarding liberal arts education. I also worked out several mechanical/grammatical errors and issues of word choice.

Written Pathetic Appeal

Smith and Hyde

Least importantly, I felt that Smith and Hyde's point could have been summed up using much less paper. The whole piece just seemed far too redundant. I often found myself questioning the relevance or the necessity of a lot of the people they referenced. However, altogether, I felt that they did a good job providing an applicable understanding of Aristotle's take on emotions.

I felt that they should have included in their conclusion, when debating potential discussion of their analysis's applicability to a modern crowd, the following point:

They discuss the fragmented media as a potential criticism from McGee and Martin. They quote McGee saying "One clear truth will not change: The publics business is now being done more often via direct mail, television spots, documentaries, mass entertainment, and 'quotable quotes' on the evening news than through the more traditional media (broadsides, pamphlets, books, and public speeches.)" They say "doesn't this phenomenon create grave difficulties for orators seeking to define and sustain audiences with public discourse?" The idea being that their point regarding the importance of emotion becomes less important when people most often receive things in a much hastier, fragmented fashion. They should have pointed out that the fragmented media creates very specific niches that allow people to reinforce, and surround themselves with, things that they are biased toward. While you may not have the opportunity to play with emotion the way Edward's did, due to time and delivery constraints, speakers have the same advantage as Edward's in that they can often know what their audience fancies. Emotion can play just as significant a role, although arguably not the EXACT same role, as it did in Edward's time. The fragmented delivery of media, I would argue, has helped to keep the importance of emotional appeals alive in this rapidly expanding world. The internet allows speakers to reach very specific, and easily categorized, groups of people who migrate towards the things they agree with, like, etc. This isn't necessarily good for the human race as a whole, as it allows people to further narrow the scope of the information they receive, but I do feel that it helps an orator target specific emotional appeals. When so many things are changing so rapidly, and people have access to such a variety of content, it can often be hard to read, or even know anything about, an audience. The world is far different, and more relevant to my point groups of people are far more expansive and diverse, than it/they were when Edward's was speaking to the masses. I would argue that as outlandish as Edward's methods may seem to a college classroom full of rhetoric students, given fragmented methods of media delivery Edward's could very likely find a group of people, in 2011, that would be affected by his sermons emotional appeals.

Check it out!

This is kind of how I feel about rhetoric...

Visual Analysis

I found this advertisement on the www.thecoolhunter.net. I am unable to find reliable information regarding the original context of the ad. I don’t really think it is of much relevance to the audience considering only a small fraction of human beings can afford the product. This seems to be, if anything, a bit of guerilla marketing. It appears to have circulated the internet, and has been associated with "ad-wars" between BMW and Audi. This was proposed as an "end of discussion" from Bentley to the bickering companies. However, there is not solid evidence that this is the case.

The argument the image is making is that Bentley has the status and the product to literally tell the competition to f*** off. Also owning a Bentley puts you in a position to tell everyone who doesn’t to f*** off as well. This works in multiple directions. It makes those who are not owners envious, and it makes potential owners smitten about entering into the ranks of Bentley owners. The man in the picture exudes a smug, confident sense of pride.

The ad makes fun of itself, as well as its competition, and manages to do it with class. Very few companies could pull something like this off; Bentley has a reputation for producing some of the most luxurious and expensive cars in the world. The image of the car and the brand is depicted blatantly by the cliche luxury environment created in the room. Considering the niche market the company serves (the extremely wealthy) the ad is speaking to the mentality of status symbols we typically keep to ourselves. Everything we buy is, in one way or another, a representation of the image associated with the brand.

“I drive a Bentley-- I am better than you.”

This is essentially the gist. A simple concept that is at the root of most advertisements, but can hardly ever be said out loud without seeming pretentious. The type of person likely to respond to this would be someone who was not easily offended, and someone who doesn’t mind laughing about their elite status. This appeals to literally the person it depicts. Bentley is saying : yes you are a rich, white, elitist male, and you have every right to give everyone else the finger. You, and your car, rule. This is not to say that being a white male is essential, it just appeals to a pseudo-ideal. The stereotype shown can be applied more to a mentality rather than literally a type of person.

The subject is surrounded by shiny leather and a dark ominous background, which leaves the rest of the room up to the viewers imagination. It is  hard to envision a place where a man in a nice suit comfortably rests on a fancy leather couch as being anything other than grand. This creates the exclusive nature of wealth itself and appeals to most peoples desire to be a member of the (fiscally speaking) elite. By keeping the contents of the image simple and vague, the viewer can feel more of the room itself. The sheen coming from the leather couch gives the audience a sense of the familiar, cold touch of leather. Requiring the audience to utilize their imaginations brings them closer to the situation, thus making them want it in actuality even more. The only source of light in the room comes from the right side, which accents a seat on the couch directly out of sight right next to the subject. This brings the audience even closer to the aforementioned exclusivity as to say "there is a spot right here for you, just go buy a Bentley."

An alternative interpretation of this advertisement might be that it is unnecessary and offensive. While this would largely depend on the context, it is not fair to speak solely in terms of the intended audience. This ad could make some people feel a strong sense of discomfort, anger, or even disgust. This could be the result of (1) the offensive hand gesture the subject is presenting, or (2) the blatant expression of wealth as a means of entitlement. It is unlikely that this would matter in terms of successful marketing for Bentley, but it is relevant in analyzing the pathos of the image. The rooms vague presentation could easily become a very evil representation of social hierarchy for those who this advertisement is not directed, or those who find obscene gestures and gross displays of wealth offensive.