A Star Spangled Rhetoric

You have heard it a million times before.  Before every Super Bowl game and at every graduation the national anthem is sung.   Every rendition is different and some are better than others; the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Have you ever stopped to think about why you enjoy certain renditions more so than others?  If you analyze different celebrity performances of the star spangled banner, you will see that rhetoric and the devices thereof play a vital role in your overall impression of each version.  Transmission of affect, the preceding situation, and delivery are three components of a successful presentation of the national anthem.

            Let’s begin with the ugly.  On July 25, 1990, Rosanne Barr, Emmy Award winning comedian and actress, sang the star spangled banner at the commencement of the nationally aired baseball game between the San Diego Padres and the Cincinnati Reds at the Jack Murphy Stadium in San Diego California.  Baseball officials encouraged the comedian to “bring humor to the song,” with no expectations of a showcase of musical expertise.  Rosanne did exactly what the officials asked, not knowing that her “humor” was sure to back fire.  Upon the pitcher’s mound, she began to screech and scream the words of the national anthem as loudly as she possibly could.  Midway through the off-key first stanza, she chokes back laughter at her obvious lack of skill.  She finishes her performance by throwing open her arms, harking a loogie, spitting it on the ground, and grabbing her crotch before exiting the field with a huge smile on her face.  That smile was soon turned upside down as a result of the overwhelming backlash weighing down upon Rosanne.

            The controversy that spurred from this incident is a perfect example of the transmission of affect as discussed by Teresa Brennan in her book, The Transmission of Affect.  Brennan believed:

Affects can be compounded by interactive dynamics that some groups will carry more affective loads than others will.  Similarly, codes of restraint where the affects are concerned also vary, with emotional displays being looked upon favorably in some contexts while they are discouraged in others. (Brennan 51)

This belief shows that people’s emotions change when they enter a group and combine with others to form a new “group mind” or collective state of emotion.  People might have individually found humor in Rosanne’s performance, like when I burst into laughter every time I watch a recording of this performance, but because the mix of emotions in the stadium that day created a sense of offense no one there laughed.  Instead, people felt like Rosanne was out of line and disrespecting America.  Many felt that crotch grabbing and spitting were inappropriate actions for a female to enact, especially in public.  One by one, they began to boo.  Immediately an emotional contagion took place.  People saw other people looking around in disgust and heard other people booing which resulted in them doing the same (sight and hearing as the principle mechanisms in the communication of affect 56).  Brennan describes this domino effect within a crowd saying, “The greater the number of people in whom the same affect can be simultaneously observed, the stronger does this automatic compulsion grow,” which explains the spread of disgust throughout the crowd and individuals watching the game on television (56).  National Disapproval was ultimately solidified when President George H. W. Bush labeled her rendition as “disgraceful”.

            Next, we’ll discuss the bad.  On September 11, 2001 the United States of America faced one of the biggest tragedies in our nation’s history.  A group of al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes.  Two were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City killing 2,606 victims along with the plane passengers.  One was crashed into the Pentagon killing 125 people plus the plane passengers.  The fourth plane was crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania killing only its passengers.  The country was in massive mourning and injected with fear, but life went on.  A few months later, officials postponed the Super Bowl in fear that terrorist may sabotage this nationally aired event.  A week later, Mariah Carey was selected by NFL officials to sing the national anthem on game day with high hopes for the high caliber of her performance.

            February 3, 2002, Mariah Carey sang her rendition of the Star Spangled Banner at Super Bowl XXXVI at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans for the game between the New England Patriots and the St. Louis Rams.  In her strapless blue evening gown, she begins the song.  Immediately, her prima donna mannerisms cascade over the lyrics.  Spectators see one hand on the microphone with the other in a flat hand, spread fingers, 5 position waving back and forth as she periodically closes her eyes to complete one of her bountiful vocal runs.  A little high octave, then she’s done.

`           The performance wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t awe inspiring either.  People were expecting a performance that would wow the masses and comfort those in grief, but they got just a typical recital of the national anthem.  The moderate feelings towards this performance can be attributed to the choppiness of her delivery.  Brian Massumi said:

Language belongs to entirely different orders depending on which redundancy it enacts, or it always enacts both more or less completely: two languages, two dimensions of every expression, one superlinear, the other linear.  Every event takes place on both levels. (Edbauer 4)

He termed these two halves expectation and suspense.  Jenny Edbauer claims that these two halves also apply to the body and not just language.  She says:

A cultural theory of affect is a theory of the body.  The affective body is an event; it is implicated in the doubleness of the event.  Whereas many readings of the body begin in qualification and ideological realms- - in meaning- -we must not neglect the body’s total event.  That is, we must not neglect both halves of the body: qualification and intensity (5).

This means Moriah’s body language and movements could have taken away from the impact of her performance because the jerkiness of her waving hand and disconnect from her closed eyes disrupt what the audience was expecting.  They were expecting a smooth inspirational performance based on our country and the terrors of  9/11.  She gave them a performance showcasing her vocal range with the emphasis on her instead of the country.  This can be paralleled to the example of President Reagan’s speech and how his jerkiness hindered spectators from following his speech (8).  Moriah’s body didn’t relate to her audience in a positive way, so some viewers failed to feel any emotion from her performance.

            Finally, we consider the good.  In December 1990 when Whitney Houston was determined to sing the national anthem at the Super Bowl, she knew that she wanted to add a jazz and soul feel to the song.  Whitney decided to take the song out of its standard waltz tempo, three quarters time, and add an extra beat per measure.  Many NFL officials, knowing that the Super Bowl would be aired worldwide for the first time in countries other than America and the UK, warned her that this approach was too flamboyant for wartime and feared viewers thinking her rendition was sacrilegious.  However on January 27, 1991, Whitney Houston stood center field before 73, 813 fans, 115 million viewers in the United States, and 750 million viewers across the world to perform her rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.  At Super Bowl XXV between the New York Giants and the Buffalo Bills, she wowed the masses.  One week later, she released a vocal recording of the performance and it reached number 20 on the Billboard Hot 100 list making her the first artist in history to sell their rendition of the national anthem as a hit single.  The visual recording of her NFL performance was used as the music video for this single.  Years later, Whitney's single continued to move audiences.  After the September 11^th attacks, Arista Records rereleased the single.  This time it reached number 6 on the Top 100 Chart, became certified platinum, and peaked number 5 on the Canadians Single Chart.  Now the big question is, “What made Whitney’s version so widely acclaimed?”

            First and foremost, the rhetoric of this performance was in response to a rhetorical situation.  Lloyd Bitzer defines the rhetoric as,

Rhetoric is a mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action.  The rhetor alters reality by bringing into existence a discourse of such a character that the audience, in thought and action, is so engaged that it becomes a mediator of change.  In this sense rhetoric is always persuasive. (Bitzer 4)

The discourse he mentions comes into existence because of some specific condition or situation which invites utterance; the rhetorical situation.  In this case, the situation is the start of the Gulf War.  The country was torn on the issue of entering the war.  Soldiers were being deported.  A cloud of uncertainty and fear hung over America.  Whitney, in the position of rhetor, utilized her performance to responded to this sense of uncertainty by reminding Americans of American pride and offering a message of unity.  Her message was the rhetoric that brought about a change by giving viewers new hope and opened a discourse about the war that had been previously dreaded.

            The other major component of success for Whitney’s performance was the transmission of affect for those present and those watching on TV.  For those present at the stadium, the sea of American flags in the stands that almost every individual present carried, the posters and signs people had made reading “God Bless America,” the crying, and the empowering gestures of Whitney as she sang created a patriotic atmosphere that itself was transmitted into the individuals there.  The fans were unified, comforted, and proud to be Americans. 

            For the fans watching via television the affect worked in a similar way.  Houston takes the field.  She wears a white hair band and white tracksuit with a red and blue print, an athletic uniform that refers to the national tricolor red, white, and blue. The announcer asks the audience to join in the honoring of "America" and "especially the brave men and women serving our nation in the Persian Gulf and throughout the world." While the athletes are notably absent on the field, the military personnel, dressed in various uniforms to signify the solidarity among different army units, display the flags of the different American states. Two male members of the military are singled out through the use of close-ups: an African-American officer and a white officer. The close-up of the African-American officer raising his hand in salute overlaps with the close-up of the audience. And the close-up of Houston dissolves into the close-up of the white officer, and back again. For a second, both Houston and the white officer are captured within the same frame. The American flag is omnipresent in all shots, either explicitly in the form of an actual American flag, or implicitly through the use of its colors red, white, and blue. In addition to the waving American flags, best visible when shot from a distance, on several occasions, the presence of the flag is emphasized through the use of close-ups in connection to the words Whitney Houston sings. When she sings, "...see, by the dawn's early light," a close-up of an American flag dissolves in and out of the close-up of Houston. Houston does not leave the frame, but for a second, the image of American flag is transparently placed over her image. At the point when Houston sings "through the night that our flag was still there," the camera cuts to a close-up of the American flag waving at the top of the stadium. Throughout the performance, there are medium shots and close-ups of the audience waving small American flags. With Houston throwing her arms into the air, as if she’s in victory and endowed with strength, the scene is made complete with four F-16 fighting jets from the 56th Tactical Training Will at MacDill Air Force Base flying over as the performance's grand finale.  The imagery and special affects helps to constitue an image of a united America which caused widespread praise of this performance.

            In conclusion, rhetoric plays a vital role with how individuals perceive different performances.  When performing the national anthem it is beneficial to do so in response to some situation or tragedy, keep in mind the different ideals among your audience, and deliver the song in a manner appropriate for the occasion.  Whitney Houston maintained all three of these components in her rendition of the national anthem which has lead her to be considered the best performer of the national anthem in America's history. 

Work Cited

Brennan, Teresa.  The Transmission of Affect.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004.  Print

 Edbauer, J. (2004). Executive overspill: Affective bodies, intensity, and Bush-in-relation. The University of Texas at Austin. 

Bitzer on the Rhetorical Situation

Lloyd Bitzer defines rhetoric and explains what exactly the rhetorical situation consists of in his article, The Rhetorical Situation.

He says that rhetoric is a context of persons, events, objects, and relations with an exigence which strongly invites an utterance.  Rhetoric exists to produce an action or change in the world in response to the exigence. Or in other words, the speaker’s intentions and audience expectations are functions of the situation that has “invited” the rhetor’s response.

This means to me that rhetoric is everywhere in everything because there is a situation in everything everywhere that could gather a response.  For example, if you hear your stomach growling then the situation is that you are hungry.  As a result, you the rhetor might try to convince you the audience to get out of bed in order to make yourself something to eat.  One of the many constraints of this situation may be that you don’t have any food in the Frigidaire to cook.  Thus you have a rhetorical situation within your own self.

I think that Bitzer breaks rhetoric down to a level that is easy for everyone to grasp and understand.  

Affective Economies

          Sara Amed suggests a new way of approaching emotions.  She says:

Rather than seeing emotions as psychological dispositions, we need to consider how they work, in concrete particular ways, to mediate the relationships between the psychic and the social, and between the individual and the collective (119),

in order to introduce her idea of the affective economy that uses emotions to construct the boundaries and the world.

            This idea is very interesting and true in the American society today.  If you were to talk a walk into a high school cafeteria during lunch time on a regular day, you’ll find wide scale segregation of the students.  Most of the black kids will be at a table with other black kids; the same for Whites and Hispanics.  This is so because of the affective economies at work.

The failure of emotions to be located in a body, object, or figure allows the emotions to reproduce or generate the effects that they do (124).

The black kids at the same table share a type of love.  This love may come from sharing in the same experiences, being raised in households with similar beliefs, and the same ancestry.  Out of the love that they share, a degree of hate is generated towards students in other ethnic groups.  The emotions at play in the high school basically dictate who hangs out with who, thus creating the boundaries of this affective economy.

            Though I agree with Amed, I think that emotions are generated from the individual from some extent.  For example, black slaves in America might have held a lot of contempt towards their masters, but when slavery ended the effects prevailed because someone voiced that contempt.  Whoever spoke out first did so based off of their emotions.  That idea of pain and hurt spread throughout the black community and has permeated down through the generations.  Now social boundaries are established, but that would not have been so if these emotions would have never pushed an individual to speak out.

Revision of Written Appeal

Early Monday morning April 16, 2007 the day begins.  A day that started the same as every other but ended in infamy.  Around 7:15 a.m. Emily J. Hilscher is murdered in her dorm room.  7:19 a.m. Ryan C. Clark suffers a similar fate.  Approximately 2 hours later around 9:40 a.m., Professor G. V. Loganathan and 9 of his students are killed with two others severely wounded; room 206.  Across the hall in room 207, German professor Christopher James Bishop along with four of his students die next.  Six other students left injured.  Down the hall, rooms 211 and 204 frantically scramble to barricade the doors.  Professor Librescu and one valiant student are shot to death as the rest of room 204 escapes out the window.  Instructor Nowak and Henry Lee die while holding closed the doors of 211.  Reload.  Back to 207 and 206.  Then down to 205.  Around 9:51 a.m. the last shot sounds as the shooter bites his own bullet.  2 buildings, 2 hours, 2 guns, and one shooter leaves 33 dead and 25 injured; the Virginia Tech Massacre.

On February 7, 2011, republican representative Van Taylor filed House Bill 1167 in an effort to legalize the carrying of concealed handguns on college campuses.  In order to obtain a license to carry a gun on these campuses one must be at least 21 years old, undergo an extensive state and federal criminal records check, complete handgun safety education, and qualify using a handgun on a range.  Taylor says, “They (students) deserve the right of self defense off and on campus.”  The longtime second amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) supporter is backed by the National Rifle Association.  “Colleges and universities are not crime free zones,” Tara Mica, the NRA’s state legislative liaison told The New American reporter.  Her solution to the crime epidemic faced by higher education campuses in Texas is to give everyone a gun so that students and faculty will be able to protect themselves and keep college campuses safe.  However, Ms. Mica and Mr. Taylor seem to have overlooked a couple of issues.

The first qualification to conceal a firearm on college campuses according to the purposed bill is to be twenty-one years of age.   Twenty-one as in twenty-one bottles of beer on the wall?  Twenty-one bottles of beer?  Ok.  I see.  Society should allow 21 year old boys and girls to walk around with pistols strapped to their waists and a bottle of everclear in hand.  Right, because that’s the smart thing to do.  When actually more than half of the students at the University of Texas at Austin, Texas’ biggest college campus, are at least 21 years old and they drink like they’re half whale.  So people should be okay with granting early stage drunkards a license to kill as if they possess a clear mind to judge the proper moment to use a gun.  Who’s to say the student who just turned 21 and started their birthday off with that early morning vodka won’t shoot someone else?  Who’s to say the 21 year old frat boy with the hangover from the night before
won’t is capable of handling a firearm?  Ha! I guess 21 is the perfect age to allow students to start carrying guns. 

Another prerequisite for getting a concealed handgun license is to undergo an extensive federal and state criminal records check.  This is because only people with previous criminal backgrounds are apt to shoot on college campuses.  Just like the shooters at…. Oh that’s right; the previous gunmen on college campuses didn’t have records of criminal activity.  The recent gunman on UT’s campus, and many others, are regular students with mental illnesses or a grudge on their shoulders.  But what the heck, keeping guns from ex-convicts should make anybody feel safe.

You can’t forget to make sure that these 21 year old saints are well educated in handgun safety.  By all means!  There’s absolutely no possibility that authorities could end up teaching potential gunmen how to make sure they injure everyone else, but keep themselves safe.  None.  Also, no one will have to worry about that rare occasion when someone forgets to put the safety on the gun and accidentally shoots themselves or someone else.  This is because when people are educated about something, they practice it.  That’s why people continue to smoke cancer sticks and ride in their cars with no seatbelts.

The last thing that we as a society must make sure we teach our gun holders, our “defenders,” is how to use these guns at a gun range.  We must train a new generation of skilled marksmen who walk among us.  Keeping in mind, we trust our angelic marksmen to use their skills for good and never turn shoulder to our cause.  Though, trust gets lost all the time.  Then what?

History shows us what guns on school campuses can do.  Remember Columbine and Virginia Tech?  Do you remember the pain and the loss?  Parents with no child.  Children but no parent.  Can you hear the guns firing?  Can you see the bullets whizzing through the air?  Can you hear the deathly screams and silent falls to death?  Can you feel the fear?  Do you see the flowing tears and blood stained classrooms?  Do you sense the panic?  Can you hear the silence?

Rewind.  Guns fire.  Bullets fly.  Screams pierce the air.  Now in the midst of the hysteria and confusion people start pulling out guns.  You don’t know who’s who and what’s what.  Is she aiming at me?  Can you steer your nerves?  Who do you shoot?  Who’s the bad guy?

Do you shrink to the floor and cower under your desk wishing, hoping, praying this is all over?  Or do you reach for your gun?  Close your eyes.  Pow!  And again.  And again.  And again until this is all over.  Is that what you want?  More than anything, you just want this to be over.  Do you dare open your eyes?

Final Project Proposal! :)

1)     I found Whitney Houston’s rendition of the National Anthem that was sung at SuperBowl XXV.  It has gone down in the pages of history for being particularly moving, so I will analyze the pathemata used in her performance to explain her successful use of rhetorical devices.

2)      In the equivalent of a 4-5 double-spaced paper, analyze this image, especially for its pathetic appeal.

·         a. describe the context: I found the video on youtube.  The Gulf War had just ended which was an important time period in American History.  The audience was all of the Americans watching the superbowl in person or on tv.  Most Americans were heavily affected by “The Mother of All Battles” and were searching for something to really rejuvenate their American pride.

·         b. explain the emotion(s) this image provokes and how (IOW: what is it in the image that provokes the emotion?): This performance provided Americans with a sense of unity, a swell of pride, and a pat of comfort.

·         c. explain what sort of behavior this image inspires:  This performance encouraged Americans to rejoice that the war was over and to reunite as a nation.

·         d. what is the interpretation that ties the affect to the desired behavior? What does it ask you to believe?

·         e. does the image appeal to stereotypical "types" such as those Aristotle describes in his analysis of age groups?  I think there are many different symbols that resonate with different audiences (more discussion in my analysis.)

3)      Post your analysis on your blog.

4)      Submit your analysis for in-class review and review the analyses of your review partners on the assigned class day.

5)      Link the URL for your blog post to your webfolio by the due date on the syllabus.

Roller Coaster Affect

I really liked Massumi’s discussion of affect.  He separates affect into two main sectors/factors which are qualities and intensity.  He confuses me when he says, “there is no correspondence or conformity between qualities and intensity.  If there is a relation, it is of another nature,” because my spring break experience composed a correspondence between the two, or so I thought.

Over spring break my mom, little brother, and I went to Six Flags Over Texas in Arlington.  I was so happy/shocked that when we got there my 44 year old mother got in line with us to ride each ride.  As the day went on, it became routine for me to give a rating of the “scariness” of the ride based off of my memory.

We eventually worked our way to the roller coaster Judge Roy Scream.  My mom asked for my rating.  I looked at the image of the roller coaster; its high crawls and low drops.  Then I flipped through my mental registry to see what I remembered most about the ride.  I rated the ride an 8, really scary. 

The intensity of the image of the roller coaster was strong.  It had been years since I last ventured to an amusement park, yet the memories of this scary ride lingered within me.  The qualities or context of the image of this ride told me that as I remembered the roller coaster went very fast and was very scary. 

As we approached the front of the line my palms began to sweat and I started getting anxious.  A bit of that might have been due to my expectations for the ride.  However, I think there must have been some type of correlation between me seeing the ride in front of me and remembering the same image from the last time I had rode the roller coaster.  The correlation between the two is what I thought lead to my high ranking of the ride, sweating palms, and anxiety.  The overall affect is that the ride is unpleasant.

What do you think?

Nussbaum and Emotions

In the Nussbaum article we read for class, she makes certain claims that I believe are true, but like everything in life, there's an exception.  Nussbaum claims,

"Thus, rather than having a simple dichotomy between the emotional and (normatively) rational, we have a situation in which all emotions are to some degree "rational" in a descriptive sense - all are to some degree cognitive and based upon belief - and they may then be assessed, as beliefs are assessed, for their normative status,”

which means that a person cannot separate their emotions from their rational.  The two are connected.  She illustrates this claim through an example of anger.  If one is mad it is based upon the belief that someone else has wronged them in some way.  Therefore, the anger is directed at someone or thing and if the person’s perception changes (what they did to me was an accident), then the person’s emotions will change as well or be redirected to something or someone else.

Though Nussbaum argument makes sense for most situations, it doesn’t always ring true because people sometimes feel certain emotions for no particular reason.  My family will be the first to tell people that I can be a bit of a downer at times.  I don’t know why, but every now and again I become the biggest pessimist you’ve seen in your life.  It is not an uncommon event that I wake up in the morning in a pissy mood.  Everything I see or encounter ticks me off.  I’m disgusted with everything for no principal reason.

One time I was having a Debbie downer day.  As I walked across campus on my way to work I saw a boy pass me who pissed me off.  Why?  He was ugly.  I looked at this guy and thought to myself, “GOD! It doesn’t make any sense for anybody to be that ugly,” and was truly disturbed that an ugly person like he was allowed to walk around campus.

Now, I normally don’t behave in the above manner, but because of my mood my emotions were swayed to an unstable level.  So then the next question would be, why was I in such a bad mood?  There is honestly no reason.  Nussbaum should have taken other factors into account when studying the emotions.  One’s mood may affect their emotions, but the mood may not be rational at all.

Bush and Affect

In the article entitled, “Executive Overspill: Affective Bodies, Intensity, and Bush-in-Relation,” Edbauer and Rice examine affect and the components thereof by utilizing past President G.W. Bush’s rhetoric, including the jarring disruptions of thoughts and speech.

        First, the article clearly distinguishes between qualifications and intensity.  Qualifications relate to the indexing of conventional meanings in an intersubjective context.  Depth reactions belong more to the form/content qualification level because they depend on consciously positioning oneself in a line of narrative continuity.  Whereas, intensity relates to the strength or duration in which an image or event remains with the viewer/audience.  Intensity occurs when the skin “flicks” and there is a jump outside the narrative/cognitive line; some form of suspense.  This back and forth between expectation vs. suspense allows affect to occur.

        What intrigued me the most about this article is when the author claims that President Bush’s blunders did not hinder people’s belief that he could do a sufficient job as president because his remarks surprised the audience which disrupted everyone’s expectations causing an affect to take hold of his audience.  I know the author claimed that this relational intensity was supported by sensation of involvement and thought-impingement, but I don’t think that the affect of Bush’s remarks worked how the author says they did.  I personally know tons of individuals who did experience an affect towards Bush’s blunders.  They’d be watching him deliver a speech.  They’d expect one thing.  He’d mess up and say the wrong thing causing a disruption in their expectations.  However, the thoughts of their affective experience was to laugh and think, “this guy is a douche” as they still do this day.

        The author basically claims that citizens were more apt to like bush because of this experience, but I think it worked the same, if not more, against his favor.  Yet, there is an affective experience that takes place.

Visual Argument: Cycle of Domestic Violence

The claim of my visual argument is that one act of domestic violence can have a domino effect causing other acts of domestic violence that have an indefinite end.  I used a celebrity example ofChris Brown (R&B singer, dancer, and actor) to exemplify my claim.  In doing so I tried to evoke sentiments of disgust from viewers by showing the results of Chris Brown’s domestic violence acts in contrast to his apologies, and ultimately relating this entire situation back to its starting point.

            The prezi begins with a picture of Chris Brown as a little kid and a following image of Chris Brown’s abused mom.  Chris looks so happy and innocent, but his mom looks completely distraught.  The juxtaposed tone of these two images causes one to feel disgust towards the person (Donelle Hawkins Chris’s stepfather) who would make a young child witness such a bestial act which imposes upon the innocence of a child.  The images also create sympathy for Chris’s mother Joyce Hawkins because she endured lots of vicious acts against her.  Viewers assume that Chris must have been affected by this family turmoil in some way.  This assumption may cause them to feel a bit sympathetic towards Chris for having a troubled childhood.  These feelings of sympathy set the stage for the next few pictures.

            Next we see a photo that represents the meeting of Chris and pop singer Rihanna.  The two got into a relationship that boosted both of their careers.  However, on February 9, 2009 Chris was arrested and charged with being domestically violent after his girlfriend called the cops saying Chris had beaten her.  The next photo shows Rihanna’s battered face.  Viewers are disgusted and may remember the fear of Chris that Rihanna expressed.  Most people believe that under no circumstance is it permissible for a man to hit a woman and by no means should he go a step further by beating her causing multiple wounds.  The sympathy now shifts from Chris to Rihanna because she is originally in the same situation that Joyce was in. 

            Then viewers see the image of Chris and his mom on the Larry King show.  He went onto this show to make a national apology for his actions, but also revealed to the public that he witnessed his mom being abused by his stepfather various times throughout his childhood.  Viewers can see that Chris’s actions are due to a deep seeded stigma planted by the atrocities he witnessed at a young age. Once reminded of this viewers give sympathy back to Chris and place the blame for these acts and their disgust on Chris’s stepdad.

            After the release of Chris’s current album, Fame, which is the next picture, the buzz about his abuse of Rihanna resurfaced on his recent appearance on Good Morning America.  Chris got so irritated and angry that he picked up a chair and threw it at the window.  The picture shows the broken window that reports say actually sent shards of glass flying into the streets.  After seeing this image, viewers are once again upset with Chris.  Why did he do that?  Didn’t he learn his lesson the first time?  Why didn’t the anger management classes help?  But Chris made a televised apology on BET the following week, which is the next image viewers see, where once again the issue of his abusive stepfather came up.  This makes some viewers even more heated after seeing this image because they do not believe that Chris is truly sorry, though he keeps apologizing.
     The last image shows Chris at the Teen Nickelodeon Awards with his little brothers and a few adoring fans; all under the age of ten.  These little boys are idolizing someone who seems unable to control his anger and acts out in bursts of domestic violence.  What type of message are these children receiving?  If the trauma of seeing his mom abused is enough to set Chris down a violent path, then who's to say children, fans of Chris Brown, will not undergo the same trauma from seeing their idol arrested on public television for beating his girlfriend? 
     The cycle of domestic violence only takes one act to begin a chain reaction of subsequent violent acts.  Parents must censure their kids interactions to guard them from becoming a part of this ongoing cycle.  In this specific example, that might mean prohibitting children from supporting Chris Brown or explaining what happened to make sure the children know that Chris's actions were inappropriate.
ezi: Chris Brown; One Act.  No End.

Brennan Chapt. 3

In Chapter 3 of Transmission of Affect, Gustave Le Bon’s theory of crowds caught my attention.  He asserts that, “groups have heightened affectivity and a lower level of intellectual functioning and regress to the mental life of ‘primitive people’,” which means that due to some social contagion in a crowd setting people commit inexplicable actions based off the attitude of the crowd.

The prime example of this is protestors.  Especially in America, most protests begin in a calm manner, but usually shift towards hostility and violence by the ending.  Like when schools were first integrated in America many respectable White people in the community threw rocks at, spit at, and cursed at the Black children.  This was because the mind of the crowd jolted them to partake in acts of hatred.  Their own personal interests were overshadowed by the interest of the crowd which collectively became primitive and brutal.

William McDougall took this concept of the primitive crowd even further by explaining how affect is transmitted.  He said that affect is transmitted through our senses.  One may see or hear the emotions of someone else, then drum those emotions up within themselves unconsciously until the same affect has permeated throughout the crowd.  This is so true.  I remember at my great grandmother’s funeral my mom broke down in tears.  Immediately, as if on cue, I began to cry as well.  At the time I was about 8 or 9 and I didn’t know my great grandmother that well.  There was absolutely no reason for me to cry besides the fact that I cried because my mom was crying. 

I can see how this can be very dangerous within a crowd of people.  I didn’t consciously decide to cry because my mother began to cry, I did it just because it happened.  So if the same transmission can occur with anger and fear, then crowds can very easily become mobs.

Revision of Visual Analysis

Trevence Mitchell

          People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, more commonly known as PETA, released a controversial internet ad on March 1, 2010 in response to the rising death toll of domesticated animals for food.  The ad depicts a woman (appearing dead) wrapped in plastic with blood splattered from her chest and a food package label that reads “HUMAN MEAT” on the front.  It’s fair to say the picture aroused many emotions as well as reactions.  Some however, don’t coincide with the organizations push for vegan and vegetarianism[d1] . 

           This image revolts most any observer at first glance[d2] .  The thought of killing a human being and packaging that person to be sold for food is simply inhumane. Who would do such a thing?  "Only a cannibal would be so cruel," most people would answer.  Cannibals are viewed as nasty soulless monsters with no regards for life other than their own.  A defenseless hands up gesture helps to create a sense of hopelessness for the victim[d3] .  The splatter of blood strung across the plastic turns the stomach and makes one woozy.  For the caring soul - mother, nurse, teacher, or friend - the parallel of a human to an animal may subside any cravings for meat[d4] .  These individuals might see how animals are subject to abuse, pity them, and want to help them because of their gentle nature.         

            A dominant male personality might also be persuaded to eat less meat by viewing this ad.  The woman in the picture just so happens [d5] to possess striking features and an enticing body.  What a coincidence?  Seeing pretty eyes set off by a few coats of eyeliner, perfectly arched eyebrows, just enough blush to accent the cheekbone, and a little stud in the ear to capture the elegance of her neck, a man might become aroused.  If not, then her near naked body covered only by a nude colored pair of panties will do the trick.  This arousal mixed with lust and the inferior nature modern men associate with women may evoke some level of sympathy for the animals rendered a similar fate[d6] .  The male may feel obligated to protect the innocent female because she cannot help herself and apply this same logic to abused animals.  This need for protection is further demonstrated by the position of her arms.  The woman is practically pleading for mercy and help.  It is common for a domineering male to adopt a hero mentality and think that he is the one who can save the damsel in distress.  He may become a vegetarian or vegan just to score chicks.

           On the other hand, this image may cause the viewer to become angry [d7] or disgusted with PETA for publishing this ad.  This anger comes from the value of human life[d8]  which this image totally disregards.  Some people may feel that under no circumstances is it permissible for an organization to portray a human being as food or the equivalent of an animal because they think the human race is superior to animals.  The notion of being able to stop by Wal-mart on your way home from work to pick up a package of "HUMAN MEAT" should not be downplayed.   "Beep! Your total is going to be $785," isn't funny[d9] .  Someone who might feel this way may not be an “animal lover” in the same sense that most individuals in favor of this ad may be. These people may even be scared by the symbol of any human being dropping on the food chain. These may be the same people who are disgusted by gory horror films like “Chain Saw Massacre” or “Saw.”[d10]   Inevitably, these viewers are offended by the add and turned off to PETA’s cause because the image is simply too much.

           Others may argue this type of advertising is degrading for women.  Many times in advertising and commercialism women are portrayed as objects.  This is evident from the different perfume and lotion bottles shaped to look like a female physique.  Because the model in the image is adorned with earrings and a bracelet and has on her full makeup, viewers may contend that PETA was gearing their focus towards a male audience in a lustful manner.  After all, sex sales.  This use of sex may cause people to associate a negative connotation with this company and all of their efforts[d11] .

            The image aims to coax consumers to steer clear of eating meat that comes from animals slaughtered for food.  PETA wants to discourage the high consumption of animals we eat.  The people who respond positively to this ad will become more conscious of how much meat they are consuming.  They may not entirely stop eating meat, but they probably won’t eat as much as they had been.  Some people may become vegetarians or vegans depending on how severe they perceive this topic.  However, to think that people will stop eating meat because of one ad is farfetched.  PETA may have intended for this ad to simply draw more attention to their organization and to get more people interested in their cause.

            Overall, this ad works best with the individuals who Aristotle described as being, “quick to shame.”  [d12] These people are more likely to perform a self-examination, admit they’ve eaten meat, admit the number of animals killed for food is unreal, and feel compelled to change their participation in this epidemic.  Yet the question still stands of, “Where to draw the line?”  If this add clearly crosses the line between humane and inhumane into the inhumane side, then even the quick to shame may shun the credibility and intentions of the organization.  This will create a negative connotation associated with PETA and inevitably decrease the number of individuals willing to consider PETA’s cause with an open mind.

            All in all, this image does evoke an emotional response from its viewers, but the view may not be the intended response the organization wanted to receive.  In order to cause more widespread participation in their cause, the company should tone down the gore of their ad.

*In comment #2 you asked about other emotions.  I think I covered the other emotions anger, pity, and sympathy in the following paragraphs. 

*In comment #5 you asked what it planned.  Yes, it was.  In my original paper the phrase "just so happens" was meant to be sarcastic.  I added the rhetorical question "What a coincidence?" to help clarify my sarcasm and let you know that I did know what the intent was in this part of the image.

*In comment #6 to answer your question, "yes, i think so."  I went back and added more commentary to help clarify why I made that claim.

---

 [d1]Good context analysis

 [d2]Shock, too, righjt? The analogy is supposed to be shocking. Aristotle would like it for that reason: it’s both shocking and/but easy to understand.  But what else? Pity? Sorrow? Anger?

 [d3]good

 [d4]So there is an attempt to create an identification with nonhuman animals, correct? So that humans identify with their plight and want to help?

 [d5]Or is it planned?

 [d6]Do you think so? Or do you think someone aroused by this image would associate it positively with meat consumption? If he wants to rip into the bag to get at her, isn’t there a possibility that he’ll positively associate that fantasy with ripping into a meat package?

 [d7]good

 [d8]So you’re saying that the metaphor goes too far? That the ad is overdone b/c the metaphor will strike those who aren’t already sympathetic to animals as false or outrageous? If so, say it.

 [d9]good

 [d10]punctuation goes inside the quote marks.

 [d11]Agreed. It also suggests an analogy b/w killing animals for meat and thinking woman as “meat,” right? So women’s rights groups may or may not appreciate the image.

 [d12]Punctuation goes inside the quotes.

Brennan Chapt. 1

In the first Chapter of Teresa Brennan’s, The Transmission of Affect, she begins to explain this idea that feelings and emotions can be outside of an individual person.  She describes this occurrence as an “atmosphere” in which the environment literally gets into the individual.

This idea of the transmission of affect is supposedly a new concept, yet we use this idea in the form of idioms all the time.  The popular 1990’s phrase, “the roof is on fire,” describes a type of atmosphere one feels when the emotions within a room or at a particular setting that is electric.  This idea of fire symbolizes fun energy that cannot be pinned onto one person, but the gathering as a whole.

Another example is whenever people say that they can “feel the tension in the room.”  Clearly, nobody has to announce to everyone present, “There is now tension in the room,” it’s something that everyone can sense.  This type of tension maybe what sparks riots at soccer games that result in violence or broad scale stampedes.  It seems that the emotions of the players can somehow spread throughout the spectators that can cause much of an uproar.

I personally have experienced this sensation or transmission of affect.  There have been times I was extremely sad or depressed.  During these times my friends would scoop me up and take me out to eat.  While at the restaurant, I may not partake in any of the conversation, laugh at any jokes, or stuff my face with food, but at the end of the night I tend to feel better.  It’s something about being around happy people that took a toll on me and my disposition.

I look forward to seeing what else Brennan has to say.