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.

NO GUNS!

My written pathetic appeal is a cry against the legalizing of carrying guns on college campuses.  My claim is that we should not allow students or professors to carry guns because there is no way to regulate their gun use.  I structure my argument by counterarguing the criteria to obtain a license to carry a gun on college campuses set forth in the proposed gun bill.

Pathetic Appeal