Week #4 Question #3

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading (Chapter 9) that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

I found the section on context and rhetorical situations to be very interesting as I personally believe this section outlines much of what is going wrong and right in the current Presidential race. It seems to me that both parties, but especially the Republican party, are not concerned with presenting their side of the debate within the framework of historical context and rhetorical situations until the fallacy of said statements are brought into the light. For example, McCain's VP choice could be seen as an attempt to hijack the historical context of the presidential race away from the first African American presidential candidate with a small town, self proclaimed "redneck hockey mom." Now whether or not this tactic is one of genius or not is up for interpretation. I for one see through the ploy and laugh at his attempt...but the rest of America seems to have been fooled by the Wizard of Arizona.
An example of how rhetorical situations have been avoided would be how the current economic crisis has been all but ignored by both presidential candidates till just a few days ago when the news took center stage. I believe that not being able to address issues before they reach the crisis point is a con for both candidates as they appear to me to be reacting to the news rather than being ahead of the ball as a President should.
On the other hand, both parties (and ESPECIALLY the Republican party) are very good at presenting their statements in a way which correlates with physical setting, medium and occasion. I believe Fuhrer Bush's rise to the throne through the manipulation of Bible Belt and Midwest voters is a clear example of that.

Week #4 Question #2

2). Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States (or Presidential candidate). What is this speaker's strongest characteristics as a speaker? Is it credibility, attractiveness, power, or all three? In what ways could the speaker build ethos in these areas?

The strong points of the current Democratic Presidential candidate, Barrack Obama, are one of the most hotly debated issues in popular news media today. For 25+ years we have heard of John McCain being a war hero, a maverick, one of the greatest Arizona senators ever and most importantly: experienced. These are all great things to contest with when the majority of Americans do not research candidates and take most of what they hear as truth (a major problem with this year's campaign as nearly every public statement made by McCain and his running mate are strewn with misinformation and flat out lies). Despite all of this I believe Barrack Obama's strongest characteristics lie with his credibility and the attractiveness of his message.
We have all heard that the big issue this campaign is change. Barrack Obama championed this theme during the Democratic primary and into the national race. He clearly believes that the working system in Washington is broken and the American people pay for it year after year while those in government are more interested in holding power than insuring that government power is working. This core statement has made Barrack Obama's message very appealing/attractive to the voting masses as the majority of Americans (regardless of party affiliation) do feel the everyday workings of Washington need to be changed. This then caused Republican nominee John McCain to switch around his core running issues to match the national desire for change. Here we run into the issue of a speakers credibility. I believe Barrack Obama is extremely credible when it comes to the issue of changing the Washington system as he presents ideas and plans which have never been implemented before. McCain, on the other hand, who first claimed he was the best Presidential candidate based on his 25 years of senatorial experience and that he would be able to hit the floor of the Oval Office running now claims that based upon those same 25 years of experience he is the best candidate to evoke change because, in the past, he has been a "maverick" (I ask you this...does voting for the right and honorable thing, despite your own party taking a clearly racist and elitist stance against it, make you a "maverick" or make you just a normal senator doing his job while being surrounded by district elected snakes? After all...lets not forget that senator Strom Thurmond was considered to be a maverick too due to his beliefs and political attempts to keep racial segregation lines drawn). This current statement, when viewed in to context of John McCain's career and previous statements, is clearly an oxymoron but apparently the vast majority of Americans just don't get it. This, to me, makes John McCain HIGHLY not credible(along with his attempt to sway Clinton voters with a self-proclaimed "redneck hockey mom" with no real government experience at all who, according to McCain, has kept Russian invaders out of Alaska...Alaska people. That and I'm pretty sure Russia would not risk massive military/nuclear retaliation over Alaska...but apparently that's just me and John McCain is still living in the Kennedy-Reagan Cold War era).
I believe Obama's current stance of not participating in the old Washington way of smear/attack ads (which John McCain seems more than happy to pump millions of dollars into) clearly shows an extremely good quality of ethos which in turn make his statements that more credible. I honestly think the only thing that Obama could do to boost his ethos would be to openly challenge John McCain to a series of presidential debates in various areas of the country (both blue and red states/industrial and agricultural states). If McCain accepts then Obama has a real chance to make McCain look like an old fool in his own territory and really swing the vote his way. If McCain denies the challenge then Obama can then truthfully and factually state that his opponent, John McCain, is afraid of confronting important issues vital to the American nation and government and there for can not be trusted in the White House to act in the best interest of the country. As it is, I would argue that Barrack Obama has the highest degree of ethos in any presidential candidate that I have ever witnessed/heard in my 25 years of life.
On a side note, when it comes to the notions of credibility, attractiveness of message, and power the current two party system in the United States leaves quite a bit to be desired and offers no real opportunity for those with real ground breaking ideas to enact change. Often times the only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the color of their tie...

Week #4 Question #1

1). Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you've ever heard. What was it about that speaker that made his or her communication memorable? Think of the worst speaker you've ever heard. What do you remember about his or her message?

The best speaker I have ever heard would have to be my 6th grade English/reading teacher, Rafael "Coqui" Ross, who also became my mentor in the medieval arts of combat, heraldry, archery, armour craft (leather, chain maille, and plate), leadership and (most importantly) the code of chivalry. From the age of 11 till I left Miami, FL at the age of 21, Coqui Ross spent 10 years dedicating his time, not only to his students in school, but also to students such as myself who's chosen course work did not exactly fit in with the normal school curriculum. Looking back I know that one of the main reasons why I stood by, and still stand by, Coqui Ross is his amazing sense of character, ability to lead any group toward success, and ability to make you feel nearly every emotion possible with but a whisper of his words.
In 6th grade I first met Coqui Ross at Belen Jesuit Jr. High in Miami, FL. As a non-Christian stuck in an all boys Jesuit school...lets just say I wasn't happy. That all changed, however, when I first took Mr. Ross' English/Reading class. From day #1 he challenged our minds and was not affraid to let us know if we were wrong, stupid or just crazy. When we read, we did not just read, no, we acted out and attempted to experience what the author was depicting in a certain work. When we read difficult pieces, such as Sir Thomas Mallory's 'Le Morte De Artur', Mr. Ross took the language within the text and was able to present it to his students in a way which I believe no other has ever been able too. In the period of two months I and other classmates were able to read, understand and decipher one of the oldest Medieval texts known to the Western world...all at the age of 11.
Following my experience in Mr. Ross' 6th grade course he asked me to assist him during the summer with a project he had revolving around actual medieval reenactment. That summer the Summer Knights INC. program was born in Miami, FL and over a period of 10 years both Mr. Ross and I taught thousands of students in various medieval arts but I mainly focused on combat and the code of chivalry. By the age of 15 I was honored to have parents of my students (who happened to be my same age) approach me and personally thank me for "saving" their sons who apparently were on the brink of boarding/military school. After hearing this Coqui Ross made it a point to put our "hardened" students directly under my control and order to be "whipped into shape in a timely and chivalrous manner." I am very proud to say that working with those groups of troubled kids over the years and watching them grow into honorable citizens was the most rewarding work I have ever been honored to be a part of. Without Coqui Ross' amazing ability to inspire his students and then take that inspiration and form it into a working, and quite functional, model I honestly believe I would have chosen another path in life and I would not be the experienced person I am today. Coqui Ross...I owe it all to you.
The worst speaker I have ever heard (and this is no easy thing to narrow down as I have heard far more worse speakers than exceptional ones) would have to be our current President, George W. Bush. I have never heard anyone in my entire life who, but with a single word, wrought such contempt and hatred from my living soul. Now, this is not to state the Bush (I will not give him the courtesy of affixing the presidential suffix to his name again) is a horrible speaker in technique. On the contrary, one could correlate his 8 years of "success" to his uncanny ability to preach to the American people of the Midwest, South and Bible Belt (where the vast majority of voting Americans live) and essentially tell them exactly what they wanted to hear. This takes time and an extremely conscious effort on the part of Bush and his advisers. Bush's attempts at silencing critics and government whistle blowers is also an example of his speaking abilities. When confronted by issues such as these Bush has shown that he and his writing staff are very talented ad dodging questions and issues and leaving everyone in the dark...essentially ending the issue. What then makes me believe Bush is a horrible speaker? I would have to place it on his uncanny ability to spurn me toward the opposite of everything he proposes and the unconscious (yet consciously motivated) belief that every thing he says is a lie. No matter how well someone plays the game of speech, if you can't mobilize your listeners to your cause and those very same listeners question the credibility of everyone of your words you wind up with approval ratings around where Bush' are today.

Week #3 Question #3

*Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it*

I found the final section on the cultural studies perspective to be very interesting. While many of the practices, I believe, are similar to those in the social constructionist perspective (viewing how cultures form norms), the cultural studies perspective demands the deeper question be asked. It is not only concerned about how these norms are formed and passed on, but how the norms themselves are transmitted, acted upon or forced on those within or outside of the culture. I believe as time goes on and the world becomes more and more interconnected with the global economy and global mass media it will become more and more important to use the cultural studies perspective in order to successfully communicate.
I also found the cultural studies perspective to be very useful as it promotes an awareness of one's own ethnocentrism (belief and practice that one's own culture has the correct ideology and all others have it wrong) and pushes the speaker and listeners to get past that same ethnocentric boundary. Being able to speak with others with an awareness of their cultural backgrounds, beliefs, and practices is absolutely imperative in order to secure success during international/intercontinental speech.

Week #3 Question #2

*Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?*

When I read the section on pragmatic perspective in the text I immediately thought back to my years of congressional debate competition in the state of Florida. What the book describes as an apparent "chess game of communication" is actually a very accurate depiction of debate itself. There were countless times I, or one of my teammates, would unknowingly fall into a trap created by a debate opponent only to watch our argument slowly crumble away due to one miss step...a counted on miss step none the less. After my first year of debate competition I began to realize that a cutthroat attitude was necessary in order to succeed (or even just get called to speak)...in other words I really needed to get my head in the game. I eventually found that by using logic I was able to often confuse an opponent and get them to vocally commit to some fact or figure which in reality is the bomb meant to sink their boat. In order to do this, however, you yourself must be very ready with exceptional factual knowledge of the topic at hand and any others which may tie into it because as a debater you must always be aware...and you must catch your opponent unaware.
While communication is very much like a game there are also noticeable differences. The first and most apparent difference is that in a game, once the game is over, that's it...it's over. There are no true worldly consequences other than the loss of bragging rights till the next game. In communication, however, the results of the communication game have very real consequences and repercussions and can themselves be the reason for great change. Another difference is that in a game the rules are normally always set and must be followed a certain way. In the communication game, however, the rules constantly change based on the statements made by the previous person (for example: In a debate one's family and family history may seem obviously off limits...but if an opponent makes comments regarding your family that are false then all bets are off and it's time for the gloves to come off too) and the rules themselves change from culture to culture. While Monopoly is played the exact same way around the world the communication game has many many different ways to play it.

Week #3 Question #1

*Consider the social constructionist perspective. How do we “build worlds” through communication? Think of some ideas we talk about in our culture that may not exist in other cultures. How do these concepts contribute to our happiness or success (of the lack of these) in our culture?*

As a Cultural Anthropology major, the social constructionist model presented in the text is very familiar and, I believe, presents the most plausible theory or perspective on how and why we as humans communicate. In Anthropology the term "world view" is used to describe a particular culture's ideas (current, present and past) and how those ideas, or ideology, were (are; will be) put into practice. Cultural norms of public practice (even speech itself) are created by the masses over time and passed down, generation to generation. One could even argue that the greatest aspect of one's private practice, religion, is itself a "built world" of communication.
While around the world most of the norms described by the social constructionist model are based upon years of cultural experience, adaptation and the direct passage from older generations to the young, in the United States, I believe, the majority of our "world view" is not passed on my elder generations but by commercialized mass media. Here in the United States (and now elsewhere around the world due to the globalized economy and international/intercontinental flow of cultural ideology/practice) nearly every aspect of our world view can be seen promoted on air by one FCC approved station or another. Want to know what American cultural norms concerned with health, hygiene and beauty are: watch all the pharmaceutical ads, cosmetic promotions (plastic and not), and toiletry commercials during day time, prime time, all the time...because after all...if you didn't use Krest...you're really not Krest Clean(tm)...right? Even the social norms of politics, religion, and the arts are controlled and promoted by the media in the United States. I believe the American people's willingness to look toward media outlets as a "world view compass", when those media outlet's primary interest is the production of revenue, is a communication practice which separates use from other countries in the world. Now, whether or not this is a good thing...that is the true debate.
Our created world view can build worth out of the smallest things which in another part of the world may be viewed as absolutely useless. Those things we culturally create to be important can often times dictate one's social status and entire future, while in another culture those very same things would be viewed as useless (or the other way around). Happiness in both the material and the mental (religion for example) stem from communication passed down and created into a culturally accepted and promoted norm.

*Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.*

I personally found the section on the five cannons of rhetoric to be very interesting and full of detailed information on how speakers would form and present their arguments.
The first cannon, invention, states that speakers must shape their arguments to fit their audience and persuade them toward their side by using proof (ethos, pathos and logos).
The second cannon, style, states that how a speaker uses their words can be used to instruct, please, or persuade an audience. In ancient Greece the use of figurative language was a common stylistic preference.
The third cannon, arrangement, states that every speech needs a structure in order to be presented to an audience. This structure usually consists of an introduction, body, and a conclusion.
The fourth cannon, memory, states that a speakers ability to remember all vital information and formation of a speech is vital to success. In ancient Greece, which practiced an oral tradition, one's memory was often a prized possession for anyone interested in philosophy, pubic speaking or politics.
The fifth and final cannon, delivery, states that the tone a speaker uses to present their words is also very important. The way an audience interprets a speakers tone can either draw them closer to the topic or push them away.

Week #2 Discussion #2

*The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?*

I believe the above statement to be true...in the Greek sense of what is morally believed to be good. The morality we promote today in no way, I believe, reflects the majority of those morals which were lived by in ancient Greece (one need only look at the systematic brutality of Sparta, along with the drugged Oracles and masses at the Eleusinian Mystery, to find proof of societal morals and promoted norms which we today view as taboo). I believe many of the moral issues we confront modern speakers with would have been a none issue in ancient Greece and if raised by the opposition such attacks would be viewed negatively (excluding the big "No No's" of course: murder, theft, incompetence, betrayal, etc). The problem today, however, is that many public speakers make moral issues a part of their public crusade, only to later be proven not to practice what they preach. While there are basic moral norms in which to hold public speakers to I believe we today (especially as a majority conservative Christian society) look for everyone in the public eye to be living saints...and there haven't been many of those in years as far as I'm concerned.
There is of course a connection between a speakers goodness, public communication skills and truth of statements and action. All speakers must be viewed by their chosen audience as "good" in order for their message to truly be successful. This of course needs to be examined in a cultural and historic time frame. For example, one could argue that many Germans who listened to Adolf Hitler's many racist charged speeches was in fact acting and speaking for the "good" of the German people. This of course we, and a vast majority of Germans today, know not to be the case but the context of culture and history can make a people believe the impossible. One's skill in public communication is also vital to a speaker's success because in an oral tradition, if the words are not remembered, then what was the point? Truth of statements and action are also very important in order for a speaker to be credible. Today, however, I believe the current tactic of misinformation, media outlet control and near libelous campaign/promotion ads truly brings all speakers and their credibility closer to the public's microscopic lens. Why truth of statements and action are no longer scrutinised and expected from the listener is the true question I believe...

Week #2 Discussion #1

For as long as I can remember I have always been fascinated with how speech (not only words, but emphasis, placement and historical timing) have an effect on people and events and can spurn great upheavals or cause widespread merriment. I also knew that these great speakers knew exactly what their words were meant to do and had picked and chosen them carefully much like someone who would prepare their tools for a day of hard work. Knowing this and the great power speakers in history have wielded I further asked myself, "Has there ever been a speaker who has used the art of speech to advance society, culture and justice and, despite their clear and impending doom, used their words for the good of all and not for the good of their own neck?" After much thought and debate with friends, especially over whom we could truthfully and historically state was once a living man and had their ideology documented during or directly after their life (this was mainly to dis way my friends, many of whom are quite religious, to choose their adopted religion's mortal figure head), I and a few other came to the conclusion that Socrates was the man who perfectly fit the bill.
Socrates, who taught Plato and is considered to be the father of logic and ethics, used ethos and logos during his life long philosophical quest for truth, good and justice. Many of Socrates' arguments are based in logos as Socrates is considered to be the father of logic and the Socratic Method. Socrates' messages also attempted to promote ethos, not only within himself, but in his listeners as he believed, despite being defiant, being a good and honorable citizen was above all else. In Socrates' most famous oration, his statement before death to the people, jury and court of Athens, one can see pathos take hold within his final words. Rather than attempt to refute the claims of the State (that Socrates was willingly corrupting the minds of Athenian youth) he instead uses his final statement to passionately defend his chosen way of life, beliefs and actions and also makes a mockery of the entire trial itself (Socrates is said to have refused several escape attempts which had been assured success by the finances of his friends; Despite the court's willingness to subject Socrates to a punishment other than death [Socrates is believed to have concluded that death was a reward and not a punishment] he mocked the court by suggesting a better sentence then would be to have the government pay him a salary and provide free meals for the rest of his life due to his service to the people and state of Athens).
I believe my personal sense of logos and pathos are my greatest tools while waging speech. As I do not consider myself in any way to be the image of "American values and ideals" my ethos often suffers as many listeners will make a preliminary judgment based upon their conception of cultural and societal norms (though I have found that the opposite can be true depending on topic of speech and audience make-up). My sense of logos stems from years of reading, meeting strange people with even stranger ideas, traveling all over the Western Hemisphere and living outside the United States, never taking what the media promotes as truth and not being afraid to do, think or act in a way that others may view as "against the grain". Before the revolution there need to be revolutionaries...logos indeed.
My sense of pathos, I believe, is a mix of my cultural background and experiences with my father. I'm a jumbled mess of Cuban and Irish blood which, when mixed, cause a reaction similar to that of nitroglycerin in the right circumstances. My father, a civil attorney in Miami, FL who serves the poverty stricken Haitian community, also taught me that passion in the right cases can go a very long way. I watched many a time as my father turned the tide on a custody, property or will and final testament case with a passionate plea to the judge made in the name and interests of his clients.
I do believe that Aristotle's scheme can be used to categorize the qualities I believe make me a good speaker. Some things can be used in multiple spheres at the same time during speech but the classifications of ethos, pathos and logos still stand.