E-Portfolio

My e-portfolio!


just incase:

http://elizabethberzonski.weebly.com/

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

It think it’s particularly interesting to consider how social norms and expectations have been instilled in us over the years, and how this affects us later in life.

 One, naturally among many, that I find the most puzzling is that of respecting our elders. Maybe I’m just too punk rock to feel like I should simply respect my elders, but I think there’s more to it. I would say that I was raised to believe that respect goes hand in hand with trust, and that I should learn and grow to respect someone, rather than blindly do so. Of course, I wasn’t raised to be a little ankle-bitter that ran around ruining people’s lives, but respect isn’t something you’re going to get from me just because you have Ph.D. or you receive a social security check and you’re wearing orthopedic shoes. I’ll be polite to nearly anyone, because I’m not a heartless monster, but I really think respect is something that’s earned and can be lost. I also expect that I must prove to be people that I deserve their respect and trust. 

But this is only the way I was raised, and I would be willing to bet that there are those who were raised to always respect their elders or superiors, disregarding circumstance. Of course, I can’t help but write from my point of view and cast those who do so in a slightly negative light because I really think it’s ridiculous to put trust and respect in someone based on how many wrinkles they have. Old people can be wrong. Old people can be mean. Old people might seriously think the 50s really were a better time.

Now, this of course is a fairly harmless, but true, example of how I was instilled with a certain view. I can only imagine that the same kind of conditioning can be seen in other instilled values. Instilled racism or bigotry would likely feel the same to someone with those values. Whether we like it or not, we’re instilled with certain beliefs and core values. Our sense of basic right and wrong is taught to us. We learn we’re not supposed to throw blocks at our little brother because someone tells us not to. We learn expected gender roles and what things we should “naturally” want in life from our parents and friends. We also learn who to hate and who to distrust. 

It’s an interesting take to consider just how much we’ve been conditioned to respond to things in a certain way.

I can't be bothered... Not today...

                  It seems to me that the only thing that prevents or hinders civic engagement is indifference or forced. Certainly in some cases, a subject may have absolutely nothing to do with an individual at all, but I’d be willing to bet there is some kind of after-effect that could prove relevance. If the butterfly effect is a notion you accept, then there should be no reason to not become engaged.

                  It seems most critical to understand how indifference can be a detriment. For example, our age group is least likely to vote. In return, our interests are the least likely to be represented and fought for. Granted, most of us have only maybe had the opportunity to vote once in local elections, but the general college-age to mid twenty-something’s hardly vote. So, we see that our public education and higher education suffer because no one is really expressing their concerns, or engaging. Sure, we’ll be pissed off when we come to realize that our tuition is going up, and maybe we should have gone to Pitt because they’re tuitions is increasing by a smaller percentage per year… But what can we really do..? Nothing now, at least until the election. Then, we’ll come to realize that no one in our age group really votes, so yeah, I’ll vote, but what’s it doing… Oh, there’s a Lord of the Rings marathon on… I guess I’m staying in.

                  It seems that it is our lack of  a sense of “voice” in voting scenarios, and for that matter, any other sort of civic engagement that leads to eventual indifference. How can this be combatted? How do we suddenly understand that what we do matters, and we have to make out opinions and preferences heard if we want to ever see an outcome for which we’ve been hoping.

                  Maybe we have to engage in a mild form of delusion, and really become so self absorbed just so that we feel highly important and that our opinion is the only one that matters, and the world must know… Just so we get our butts out the door. But, Lord of the Rings is still on, and someone else is surely going to the polls today.

Drugs are bad, mmkay...

source

I think it's pretty interesting to consider the rhetoric behind the 'Above the Influence' campaign and similar anti-drug campaigns. We can all easily imagine an Above the Influence ad. The ads show drugs as being poisonous, as rat poison or something similar, or they show us our dogs being disappointed in us. Regardless, we’ve been exposed to anti-drug, alcohol, and tobacco ads and ploys since we’ve been in fifth grade. At this point in our lives, every single one will seem like another person saying “Don’t do drugs, mmkay”.

So how exactly do anti-drug campaigns deal with the apparent indifference of their target audience? They really can’t. To me, it seems like you’re going to drink if you want to, smoke if you got ‘em, and get high if you’re into it; and if you’re not you won’t. These ads essentially are created to scare kids that already use straight, and paralyze kids that don’t with fear. The fact of the matter is, we all know that it’s bad, but we also know that we’ll never be this girl:

source

The rhetoric is based on an emotional appeal. We’re supposed to reflect on our behavior, the times we messed up, and feel ashamed, and if we’ve never been drunk, puking at a party, the emotion of the ad is supposed to be so visceral that we immediately feel the girl’s shame. This of course is based on the assumption that most teenagers and young people act impulsively and disregard rules and common sense. Of course, we do all have lapses in judgment, but if every one of us was a purely emotional unit, Above the Influence ads would actually work.

But we legitimize our actions continually telling ourselves that “that isn’t me”, and for the most part, it isn’t us. I would be more than willing to bet no one you know is running around doing meth on the weekend or shooting up. We’re not extreme. And if you are, stop ‘cuz drugs really are bad don’t ya know.

But we do know, and we’re sick of hearing it, so we don’t care. I can’t even imagine how to suggest anti-drug campaigns better their ads, to combat the war on drugs. Even writing this entry, I can’t help but thinking I should start over and write about something else, because who really cares? We know.

I am who I am for you... but really... for me..

            I think it’s interesting consider how rhetoric influences how we present ourselves and develop our ‘image’. We all know rhetoric is used to convince or sway people, but what portion of our persona could be considered rhetoric? In many ways, I personally believe most of what we do and how we present ourselves is done to show how we view ourselves and how we want others to view us. It seems almost cyclical to see that we do things because of other but ultimately, we do things for other for ourselves.

But how exactly can this apply to our grand image of ourselves and others..? It does in everyway. If you choose to be boisterous, loud, and noticeable, it’s because that’s how you want to be viewed, and maybe you saw that type of behavior work for someone else. Maybe you’re quiet and reserved. We all act the way we do because ultimately it’s how we like ourselves the best. It doesn’t matter what type of person you are because regardless, your public behavior, how you dress, how you speak, who you are friends with, and who you admire all create your image. All of these facets of a person that can be viewed by others at face value, will be used  to create an impression of who most will think you are.

Now this may all seem shallow and a one-dimension manner of looking at others, but it’s not far from reality. We’re told not to judge a book by its cover, but on the same token, that’s all we do. We instantly form opinions of anyone we take longer than a second to look at.

It’s why image consultants have a job. They understand that persons of interest are viewed no differently than different brands of cereal in the grocery store. We’ll buy into whatever brand we find most appealing.

In some ways we’re all trying to sell something about ourselves. What’s even more interesting is when someone doesn’t think they care about what others think. In that case, they’re selling indifference and a rejection of social norms. It’s just a different product.   

Justify This...

Whether you’re trying to justify your own laziness or the actions of someone you love, it is interesting to examine how rhetorically, we develop such justifications for ourselves. Ultimately, excuses are made to protect emotions, however, the excuse has to appeal to logic or it’s utterly useless. If the excuse bares no logical weight, it won’t serve as valid justification to whichever party receives it.

            We’ve all procrastinated, we’ve all covered for a friend, and at some point in time we’ve all believe our own lies. When I procrastinate, I do it because I feel I deserve a break. I’ve been working hard, I relatively been keeping up with my work, and therefore, I should by all rights slack a little. Now, this pacifies the guilt of not doing what I’m supposed to, but it also serves to make a great deal of sense. What’s unique is that sometimes we can lie to ourselves better than anyone else. I’d be the first to say that generally, procrastination is relatively harmless, but self-justification, is a slippery slope.

            It’s an extrapolation, but if we consider an addict, or an alcoholic. They webs of lies and justifications for themselves, and at some point the compounded justifications become a living reality. There’s no way an addict of any sort can be told they’re wrong, because they’ve told themselves a thousand times over that they’re right. They’ve logically come to the conclusion that that are so, and someone else will never change their minds.  

            Of course, most addictions spiral based on shame and many factors that I’m sure anyone that’s taken a psych class could rattle off, but perhaps it’s simply based in telling ourselves that we are right. I don’t need to finish this paper now. I deserve this time to myself. We’re always right.

            It’s interesting to consider that we have these kind of rhetorical conversations with ourselves without even considering the different methods we use to convince ourselves of our actions. I think it’s more interesting than anything to consider.

Rhetoric of Social Issues

I’ve always found it rather unique the way conservatives and liberals respectively present their views on very sensitive social issues. The two ideological groups certainly talking about different things, but they present the issue in completely different ways to appeal to the voters.

Regardless of political persuasion, there is no denying that one of the most hot-button social issue of the day is birth control coupled with abortion. I’m a little nervous about coupling birth control and abortion because I think it’s easy for people to simply view abortion as a means of birth control, and ignored the multitude of reasons women or couples may seek this option.   In many ways, when I consider the differences in the way conservatives and liberal present their views on these issues, I find it relatively hard to remember they’re the discussing the same topic.

To begin, conservative views of social issues are usually swayed by largely traditional religious influence. The same religious and traditionalist argument is used to validate the conservative notion in deny gays equal rights. In turn, conservatives view the use of birth control or abortion as a means of defying God’s will, and in both circumstances denying or taking life. Regarding birth control specifically, conservatives use the rhetoric that conveys the idea that family planning and means of restricting birth are defying the almighty. This of course largely appeals to the pathos and logos of individuals of a similar conviction. It is never seen that a staunchly conservative figure concedes on the fact that birth control is widely used to prevent disease, as abstinence is widely supported. In many ways, you can’t argue with the fact that if you’re not having sex you won’t catch something, or you won’t get knocked up, but realistically, abstinence is hardly the answer. The Guttmacher Institute regards premarital sex universal in the US, and has been for numerous decades. It is also rarely mentioned that women might use birth control to simply regulate biological functions, regardless of sexual activity. Of course, this religiously fueled rhetoric directly resonates with religious Americans that agree that birth control denies God’s will, and should not be left up to mere mortals to decide the fate of a life.

Liberals, on the other hand, capitalize largely on the fact that denying individual the right to use birth control is directly an impedance of personal freedom. Much like the rhetorical appeal of the conservative argument, this resonates with a sympathetic voter’s pathos and logos. This would largely resonate with men and women that are sexually active that hope to protect themselves from diseases and prevent unwanted pregnancy. It also resonates with advocates for women’s rights that argue the right to choose to regulate one’s own body should be unquestionable.

In case you couldn’t tell I’m extremely liberal in my political views on social issues, and I’m of the belief that denying people the right to birth control is a direct attack on personal freedom. I just can’t reconcile my views on the necessity of separation of church and state to be sympathetic of the conservatives’ justification of denying rights because it flies in the face of a certain groups’ religious beliefs. However, I can also recognize that the liberal view on birth control could be difficult for the majority to align with, because it fails to address religious beliefs, and in being honest with ourselves, the majority of people are dedicated to some kind of religious belief.  Again, I am of the opinion that our government has the duty to protect minority interests, and the moral majority certainly doesn’t have the right to dictate actions of the individual based on a religious conviction.

Again, it seems to me that the two ideological groups use such different justifications in their arguments and use such different tactics to appeal to voters that it creates a sort of no-man’s-land for more moderate voters, as there’s no rhetoric that targets the middle ground.

1800 vs. Patron

After I finally found my commercial on Youtube, I decided to take a look at the 1800’s other ad campaigns to see if they matched the format of the one I chose. I found that the most recent ad campaign included about eight commercials, all with the same actor, however, a few different techniques were used. The first, like the one I will be speaking about next week, attacks current social practices. A few were commentary on ‘manliness’ and a few attacked advertising methods.

The most interesting, however, is that many advertisements basically worked as attack ads against Patron’s brand of Tequila. More or less, the ads juxtaposed the possible lifestyles both brands of tequila had to offer. 1800 colored Patron as showy and foolish, while 1800 was refined, but still easy-going.

1800 Tequila (I guess) has this topper that can be doubled as a shot measurer, in that you simply turn the bottle upside-down while the toppers on and it pours you  a shot. 1800 then used a Patron bottle in the same ad, saying “What can your stopper do? Nothing”. And for some reason, while watching this commercial, the 1800 bottle began to look way better to me! The patron bottle just looked dumb with its little green ribbon and cork stopper. Because the actor in the commercial was, in a way, laughing at this useless bottle, I too wanted to view it as useless. I can honestly say, I was a little tricked by this.

I mean, tequila’s tequila’s tequila’s right? I’m sure the two are comparable value and comparable taste. I certainly wouldn’t have the refined palate enough to taste the difference… But this little attack add might lead me to buy 1800.

It really is interesting how many advertisements covertly attack other brands and products. This ad was just a little more blatant, and the honesty of them more or less saying their product is better seems kind of believable.

V-Day and Rhetoric

What was once a wonderful day to celebrate the stoning of a saint has turned into something dark and unholy. That’s right, Valentine’s Day.

Geoffrey Chaucer’s original notion of courtly love has been bastardized into a holiday of consumerism and impending loneliness. That’s right, you can blame Geoffrey Chaucer and Hallmark for why you don’t want to wake up on February 14. Poor guy turns a saint’s day into a day of love through a dinky little poem, and he never got any royalties from greeting cards. I’ll tell you that is a fact.

Full disclosure, I’m really not bitter about Valentine’s Day, but vehement hatred is far more interesting than grave indifference.  Really though, Valentine’s Day has turned into another day of buying things for someone because you want to (have to), or talking about being alone (because you have to).

So let’s talk rhetoric of the day of days. We’re heavily sold the idea that certain ideas must be bought more a significant other on the day. A card, candy, jewelry. Interesting how heteronormative and focused on classic gender roles these expectations are.

I rest my case, with this.

I suppose in many ways, one could argue that all holidays are based on rhetoric promoted by Hallmark’s sales, but few days are less striking than the feared Valentine’s Day. Perhaps the stigma of being in a relationship or not develops a unique kind of social rhetoric. At the end of the day, Hallmark’s going to be in the black, mainly because the emotion of it all tells us to consume consume consume, or we’re lacking. We’re unloved. We’re always being persuaded to understand that a relationship is good and normal and without it, you’re not complete. I would never argue that this isn’t true. We all need to be loved in some way, or I’m pretty sure we all would end up like the Unabomber, but we don’t all need a heart filled with chocolates on February 14 to live on.

At the end of the day, the rhetoric of any holiday is based on expectations, and advertisers exploit this to get a buck.

If I were you, I’d celebrate the 15^th and get all the candy and things on the cheap. Beat the system but still have some delicious cocoa goods.