Sunday, November 27, 2011

A Rhetoric analysis of natural and technical approach

     In my text Rhetoric and Human Consciousness, I read about the topics of rhetoric from the perspective of rhetorical thinkers. In the Rhetoric chapter titled "Context, Function, and Media," I learned some information on technology and it's use of rhetoric to the world. Well, I'm going to make a careful examination of this chapter and the thinkers theories within the text.
     In chapter 11 of Rhetoric, the chapter starts off by discussing the thinker on technology Marshall McLuhan when it states, "Marshall McLuhan, who built his theory around modern technology and argued in typical overstatement that " the medium is the message." His radical theory about how form overwhelms substance is as relevant to cyberspace as it is to television"(Smith 301). From my experience with technology, I can definitely agree that form is a vital ingredient to modern technology today. Through out the chapter, there are many thinkers who come up with many deep examinations of technology such as the internet and such that include form, and affect our perception on how to deal with the natural world they inhabit. Another thinker brought up in this book is Ivorson A. Richards and he "sought to match word (signs) with objects (referents) by pointing out how context, past experience, and cultural interference can corrupt or clarify meaning"(302). I've discovered this trouble myself when reading books and getting confused myself on the subject and meaning of the text and being unable to not distinguish between the two. I glad such people as Richards were trying to approach the topic in a logical way in order to help others understand context and form more clearly.
In the section of the book that focuses on the two theorists Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, I read that they were trying to change the way knowledge and how to present that knowledge for people to listen, As the text states, "Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca were interested in bridging the chasm between logic and rhetoric that had been created by Ramus and Descartes"(Smith 309). So the two men were expanding on the philosophies of past thinkers in order to expand on their hypothesis' of rhetoric. I can assume that they were not the only one's to practice this method. Many people have done this sort of compare and contrast with people who share their approach to life. The last philosopher I will talk about is Stephen Toulmin, and in the text it states that he "converted argumentation into a rhetorical process and in so doing strengthened the rhetorical arsenal upon which we can rely to reconstruct our lives and our world"(311). Argument was the main area of Toulmin's approach to rhetoric, and I guess he was trying to put serious effort into explaining the form of rhetoric's use of argument. In my time during my study of environmental rhetoric class, I found that I was being instructed on not to merely present a speech on environment, but to also use logic responsibly and present my argument in a logical way that possesses a structure that will give my argument some credibility. I hope that I still remember to use that information again in the future.
   

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Turner and The White Pelican Identification.

     There was one particular reading that I was assigned to read a week ago that I wasn't absolutely thrilled to read, but as I starting reading the text I began to enjoy not only the story but also the hidden philosophy of Jack Turner within it. In my Rhetoric and Literature class, I read in my American Earth text a background on adventurer Jack Turner and his nature story called "The Song of the White Pelican." It's a first person examination of Pelicans, most importantly White Pelicans.
     In this text, Turner makes an examination of Pelicans, both Brown and White, and it's in the first person. The location of the writer's study of Pelicans takes place in the American region of the Grand Teton area of Wyoming. The main question that is being asked throughout this text is what exactly is the song of the White Pelican. Eventually Turner states that particular song, but before that I believe I should bring up some helpful fact about the Pelicans that I read from the text. What Turner says about the bird was, "The white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), one of seven species in the world, is a large bird often weighing twenty pounds, with some individuals reaching thirty pounds"(Turner 836). This information is impressive for Turner to obtain along with info on another bird like, "the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentakis), is smaller and restricted to the coasts"(836). The writer has manged to distinguish important differences between the two kinds of pelicans. Another important quality of Pelicans that Jack Turner mentions fro m his observations is, "The silence of pelicans, along with their great age, contributes to their dignity"(Turner 839). His writing of their quietness is one of the most unique traits of the white pelican, and that's why the search for it song is so motivating for anyone who doesn't know what it sounds like. In one reading of the text, I learned that White Pelicans are friendly with human who fish as oppose to humans who watch them from afar or go up toward them. This observation of Turner is what I concluded as an example of Kenneth Burke's theory called Perspective by Incongruity, This looks for what can be exposed by examining relationships between objects ignored. In this case, pelican and humans.
     In conclusion, Jack Turner reveals the song of the White Pelican. The writer says, "I believe the clacking in the sky over the Grand Teton is the song of the white pelican. I believe they sing their song in ecstasy, from joy in an experience unique to their perfections"( Turner 848). I've come up with the explanation that Turner believes the clacking of white pelicans in the sky over Grand Teton is "The Song of the White Pelican" from the excitement the animal gets from flying and soaring in order to get some kind of release.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Barry Lopez and the sympathizing outlook of whales.

     Out of all the examples of environmental literature I read in the text American Earth, I would have to admit that the most touching and emotional story I read so far was A Presentation of Whales by Barry Lopez. In this text, Lopez tells the story of a group of sick and dying whales washed up on the coat of Oregon, while the inhabitants of the Oregon region watch as scientists, reporters, and other groups of people going to great distances to get a glimpse of the suffering whales for their own agenda. From Lopez's point of view of this story he wrote, I suddenly felt a sense of compassion and humanity for the large mammals that I don't think I felt before.
     Before discussing the environmental story, I would like to describe the writer Barry Lopez and his reasons for writing a compelling story about sperm whales as he wrote it. In American Earth, Barry Lopez is described " in certain ways the elder of the disparate tribe of nature writers across the continent, helping new voices emerge and coordinating projects"(696). Indeed Lopez, for me, gave voice for the poor whales that were mistreated in many ways either for profit, source of energy, sport, or scientific research. That's what I gained from my reading of his story A Presentation of Whales. This tale that Lopez wrote is described as a "finely observed essay about a band of stranded sperm whales on the coast of his adopted home state makes clear how much American attitudes toward nature have changed over the last century"(696). I would have to agree with the part about American feelings about whales being different in the 21st century than in the 20th century, because some American whalers saw sperm whales as giant animals that existed for the purpose of providing oil to people who needed heat for whatever reason. Now the matter of the whales existence has fundamentally changed, with the protest by animal rights activists organizations such as PETA, that stand against killing the mammals for energy sources. I would have to agree with the protection of those kind of whales, or any whales, because they are a species who don't deserve to be extinct.
     In Lopez's writing, he gives a personal description of whales in American Earth when he writes the story saying, "There were, in fact, forty-one whales-twenty-eight females and thirteen males, at least one of them dying or already dead"(697). His writing of those whales in the story were completely touching to me. That impacted me to start seeing them as any person who was hurt on the tides of an ocean shore who needed serious medical assistance. Lopez even goes deeper in his writing by specifically writing about the whales suffering when he says, " the animals were hemorrhaging under the crushing weight of their own flesh and were beginning to suffer irreversible damage from heat exhaustion"(698). I got a sense of unbelievable pain from this description of the whales physical discomforts that I wanted them to get help so badly, and at the same time I was thankful that I didn't experience the kind of pain and frustration as they were dealing with. The writer himself expresses his appreciation for the whales in the story A Presentation of Whales. Within the text Lopez writes, " The sperm whale, for many, is the most awesome creature of the open seas. Imagine a forty-five year-old male fifty feet long, a slim, shiny black animal with a white jaw and marbled belly cutting the surface of green ocean water at twenty knots"(699). Now I'm not a complete expert on sperm whales other than what I've read from Melville's Moby Dick, but I don't think I read a better description of a whale. The capabilities mentioned by Lopez paints a picture of the sea mammal as a genuine leviathan.
     At the end of the story in American Earth, Lopez writes a sentence about the whales that touch my heart so much that I'm environmentally and personally obligated to view the whales as creatures that need to be protected, so they could swim free in the ocean as nature, not man, intended. Lopez writes, "The whale made a sound, someone had said, like the sound a big fir makes breaking off the stump just as the saw is pulled away. A thin screech"(715). I tried to stay as composed together while reading this emotional piece of the whales painful sounds. Like I mentioned before, I see the whales as human today, along with other large or not so large animals that used to be taken for granted in the past. I believe their existence is important even if we do or don't always benefit from it.

Cesar Chavez: The rhetoric contributions of the working farmer.

     Two of the readings that I was required to look through for my Rhetoric of Literature class was were in the texts Rhetoric and Human Consciousness, and American Earth. The particular sections of the books I read  in Rhetoric were Chapter 10 "Identification, Dialectic, and Dramatism," and in American Earth was Cesar Chavez's Wrath of Grapes Boycott Speech. In American Earth, I read on pages 690-695 of the text that described Chavez as "the greatest Latino social activist in American history." After reading his speech on the struggles of the migrant farm workers in the California regions that he fought and protested rights for, I can definitely understand why he is an embodiment of democratic right and social activism for a justifying cause. I also realized that many of his ideas apply to what I read in chapter ten of Rhetoric about Marx's politics on socialism, and the other philosophers that focused on dialect.
     Cesar Chavez's speech for the American farm workers rights during the Wrath of Grape Boycott gives an example of the social activist and farmer's passion and determination to make the lives of his fellow workers better than they were at the time. In his speech in American Earth Chavez says, "We farm workers are closest to food production. We were the first to reorganize the serious health hazards of agriculture pesticides to both consumers and ourselves"(690). So he was not only one of the first people to organize boycotts for low paid farm workers, but he also was so deeply concerned for the health of his workers and customers that he took the liberty on battling the use of harmful pesticides that were on the verge of ruining the farm practice and causing unnecessary sickness/death to those it affected. I personally admire that about Chavez, along with Rachel Carson who was also determined to let the world know about the toxic consequences of pesticide use. In the text, there's also mentioning of Chavez's actions that were a stepping stone for others to act upon regarding outlawing pesticides. Chavez says, "we also won a critical battle for all Americans. Our first contracts banned the use of DDT, DDE, Dieldrin on crops, years before the federal government acted"(691). The migrant farmer's action convinced and pushed the government of the United States to take serious action on making laws to protect their citizen from the poisons that may have been found in their fruits or vegetables. Again, Chavez made an important impact for beyond simple farming. The main crop that he focused on speaking about and protecting from poisonous pesticides was the grapes. As it says in American Earth, "of the twenty-seven legally restricted toxic poisons currently used on grapes, at least five are potentially as dangerous or more hazardous to consumers and grape workers than deadly Aldicarb and Orthene"(692). Cesar Chavez was knowledgeable about pesticides, their affect on the crops, land, and used his information to gather as much supporters as he could to bring rights to workers and protect the health of all who purchased the food that was grown by them. Chavez's method is similar to the type of "conventional forms" of speech organizing that I noticed on Rhetoric and Human Consciousness that I think deals with the problem and solution, and a call to action. This was an important tool of rhetoric for Chavez to use for his cause. I also think that Chavez also was inspired by Karl Marx's socialist beliefs in organizing support and actions for workers. Cesar Chavez also preached a sense of unity and family when organizing his protest for getting rights for farm workers. In the American Earth text speech he says to his fellow farmers, "I am reaching out to you for help because consumers and farm workers must stand together as one family if we are to be heard"(694). This powerful quote in his speech about standing together as one to help each other for what is right for them and all workers in general is something I admire about Chavez because I agree with him, and represents rhetoric being used to not only to increase numbers but strive for change in the farming business. Cesar Chavez was a true speaker, and an important advocate for improving healthy farm food along with rights to American farm workers.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Karl Marx's Rhetorical Approach involving the idea of Communism.

       In my Rhetoric if Literature class this week, I learned about a very important individual who made an important contribution to philosophy, politics, and ways of presenting important topics. That individual was the German philosopher Karl Marx. I along with my classmates learned quite a bit about Marx and his lessons in the text "Rhetoric and Human Consciousness."There in the text book, I read parts of the chapter titled "Identification, Dialectic, and Dramatism," which not only described Marx's philosophy, but also made a brief comparison between him and psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud. The chapter analyzes the two men's approach to human conscious, but mostly Karl Marx and his in depth theory on his approach to economics and social order with communism.
      The chapter dealing with Marx brings many fascinating and significant information on his ideas. For example, to compare him with Freud the chapter states, " Marx provides a remarkable balance to Freud. If Freud is the therapist for the individual psyche, then Marx seeks to be the therapist for the world's political psyche" ( Smith, 268). So from what I am able to read here, I'm going to take the approach by stating that Marx acted as a person studying the mind of the world's social position, hierarchy, and economics. He tried to evaluate it as best as he could and provide solutions to whatever problems the world's  consciousness was facing. Marx used his study and knowledge of economics to make a stunning conclusion to the problems that the world was facing. In the text, there is a mentioning of Marx's idea about economic effects on the world when it reads, " Marx argued that material forces-capitol, labor, production, land-are responsible for the twists and turns of history"( Smith, 268). He was a sympathetic supporter of the common worker of society. I can also agree that every great nation around the world has emerged from the masons, brick layers, construction workers, and ditch diggers who helped build the great buildings and provide enough wealth for all of the upper class or royalty that profited the most from their hard labor. during Karl Marx's time.
     One of the most  historically important pieces of writing that Karl Marx wrote was Manifesto of the Communist Party. It was a book that Marx wrote along side factory worker Friedrich Engels. This book described the basic ideas for what Marx envisioned the Communist party to be before Russian revolutionaries such as Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin adopted his ideas for popular support and their own need for power. In the text it says, "The "Manifesto" claimed that "the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains." They have the world to win. "Workers of all lands unite!"'(Smith, 269). The German thinker and philosopher certainly knew how to appeal to the working class. Offering ideas of opportunity and equal share of social power. However, Marx was not too happy with a certain class system that I'm too well familiar with. In the text it mentions. " he denounced the middle class for deserting an alliance with the working class" (Smith, 269). My whole life, I've known the middle class and the working class to be equally the same or in close contact with one another. To there is no real difference between the two so called classes. The truth is I don't like the idea of labelled classes. I would like to think that there are people with more connections and opportunities than others. But I also know that in America, people work hard and fight for whatever  they desire in life. At least that's what I believe.
     Back on point, In the Rhetoric and Human Consciousness text the points of Communism are brought up in ways that deal with rhetoric. There they bring up questions such as "Who has the power to speak? Who can afford to speak and who controls the means to get messages to the society? What is being said? What lies behind the promises being made?," or "What communalizing strategies are in place?" ( Smith, 270-272) These questions being asked are being brought up from Marx communist understanding and changes the way we  plan a speech, present a speech, and listen to a speech. People are considering rhetoric approaches like they haven't ever before. Each of the questions asked above are connected with examples of rhetoric in today's society. Whether they are  used for advertising or politics, Karl Marx's socialist way of approaching rhetoric have changed speech and politics in history.

     

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The "7 Billion" Question

     Overpopulation on our planet has become a serious matter of concern for all of us in this time. The population is changing in some way. Now even though we wake up and go outside we don't seem to feel the invisible effects of population rising. Well, just because we haven't noticed the population changing doesn't mean that it's not changing. At many points around the world, the population of cities are expected to grow rapidly despite the measures taken to avert over population on an unthinkable scale. Besides the United States, countries all over are experiencing moments where population is rising and an unknown fate hangs for the human population.

     Today an article for the Associated Press was written today. The article is titled "7 billion people fuel concern over world resources; and it is written by Jon Gambrell. In the article, Gambrell starts off the story by speaking briefly about a young Nigerian mother who gave birth to a newborn baby that she named "Enough". The mother's naming of her child in response to a nurse at a hospital in Lagos is ironic and at the same time appropriate for the situation that the city of Lagos is facing right now. Hospital in Lagos have a limited amount of electricity and that means require power being shared for the newborn babies to receive sufficient amount of oxygen from the hospitals power sources. It is hard to bring life in the world these days while worrying if each time a child is born without upsetting the delicate population balance. Don't get me wrong, children are a wonderful blessing to have in this world. I just wish there was enough room, or still much, much space on this planet to provide for the new lives that walk this Earth. In the article it states, "Where there is life, there is hope," their mother said. But ass the world's population surpasses 7 billion, fear were stirred anew about how the planet will cope with the needs of so many humans"( Gambrell, 1)
     Alot of people are born every single day. So I'm thinking that even though it might be at least seven billion people today, the numbers could change because more people are being born. But there are people who are dying each day too. I feel very upset when comparing the growing population with the numbers of people to dying to serve a mathematical purpose. It makes me appear as inhuman and cold. I would never want anyone to die. But I know that there is a balance in this world that exists for a reason. I'm just not sure if the growing population in certain areas around the world is a sign of the going out of balance, or going through a slight transition.
         In the article, Gambrell also comments on the population when he refers to news made by the United Nations on the issue of over population throughout the world. He states, " The United Nations estimates the world population will reach 8 billion by 2025 and 10 billion by 2083. But the numbers could vary widely, depending on life expectancy, access to birth control, infant mortality rates and other factors"( Gambrell,2). I will admit that I sure hope that the planet does not reach those population number. Or else the whole planet will be a giant big city that is crowded, filthy, and unsafe. Yet I always try to remain optimistic about situations like this. This world has means of population control that do not involve anything destructive. There is birth control and contraception in the 21st century. Limiting birth for anyone who is sexually active around the world is not an impossible mission. However, for parts of the world where contraception is not used frequently, populations tend to over develop in a way that causes crowding areas, poor health, and surprisingly toxic environments. There is a strong link between polluting of the earth and over population. If over population continues around some parts of the world with no option of birth control, then the Earth is not going to be beautiful place. So after reading this article on population, I am convinced that everyone around the world should keep thinking about the population of our planet changing. I would also mention that I do not stand against anyone having children. I love children. All I am saying is that people need to understand there is a delicate balance that we are all apart of. That includes the population of our planet. If we upset that balance and not do something responsible to become at peace with the flow of the world, then there won't be a beautiful planet or planet for the new generation to call a home.