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.
No comments:
Post a Comment