Visual Argument – Way of Life

Here is the link to my presentation: Way of Life

My visual argument is essentially a juxtaposition of images of American consumerism and third-world poverty.  By framing this juxtaposition within symbols of American values (the flag, the Statue of Liberty, and the dollar bill) I create this claim: Those with excess wealth should abandon the pursuit of status symbols and instead donate their extra money to those in absolute poverty.

I create this claim by starting with an image of the Statue of Liberty standing below the American flag. Having just read the title, “Way of Life”, the viewer (hopefully) feels pride and enthusiasm when confronted with these common symbols of our values.  In the next slide, the presentation “zooms in,” revealing a hundred dollar bill. In following the previous image, the viewer then realizes that the hundred dollar bill is being connected with our more virtuous values (as represented by the flag and statue). This will somewhat dampen the sense of pride instilled by the first image, and serves as framing for the following barrage of images. Following the dollar bill, the viewer sees in succession, an iPhone, a Bugatti (one of the world’s most expensive cars), and a house in Los Angeles valued at $150 million.  These increasingly extravagant symbols of status and excess wealth should bring slight feelings of resentment and agitation (in those who don’t pursue such symbols) and guilt or pride (depending on how shameless the viewer’s pursuit of excess wealth is). The images are configured such that the viewer experiences the string of status symbols in an upward arch that twists clockwise, making clear that these images indicate a progression toward more and more extravagant and unnecessary possessions. By the last image, a level of wealth is represented that the viewer will likely never attain, strengthening feelings of aggravation and outrage.

The spatial configuration then changes, with the next image reversing the clockwise progression and breaking from the arch. This serves to punctuate the already astronomical difference between the $150 million house and the tent which a homeless South American woman is using to shelter her child.  After seeing the progression of excess wealth juxtaposed with the absolutely impoverished woman and child in the tent, this image invokes revulsion and contempt, aimed (again, hopefully) at the people who waste money on extremely superficial luxuries while others around the world are without real shelter. The next image is somewhat disturbing (and, consequently, I have it scaled down so that it doesn’t draw such an excess of disgust that the viewer feels desensitized, or shell-shocked, and rejects the argument). It depicts a child afflicted with Noma, an exacerbated, gangrenous facial ulcer.  This increases the tension from the previous image, invoking torment, revulsion, and outrage.  These emotions are punctuated again by an image of a malnourished African orphan.  This is followed by another image of a bill; now a single dollar.  This reminds the viewer of the images of status and wealth, suggesting that the kind of resources needed to better the lives of the people in the last three images is several orders of magnitude lower than the kind available to the extremely affluent.  This suggestion is explicated by the text, a quote from Australian philosopher Peter Singer, which states that “The problem is not that the world cannot produce enough to feed and shelter its people… [but] is merely one of distribution.” The mention of resource distribution and the slight value of the dollar offer hope to the viewer, indicating that they can redeem (or exclude) themselves from our unsavory selfishness when it comes to wealth. By suggesting that the problem is solvable, the final image and quote invoke compassion, eagerness and optimism.

The presentation as a whole is designed to create guilt that can only be resolved by embracing charity and the sense of hope and compassion that comes with it.  By being forced to recognize, in quick succession, both the desolation of absolute poverty and the greed of absolute affluence, the viewer is forced to either maintain their love of money and status symbols (and continue to suffer the guilt and shame) or recognize that they can make a difference (and embrace the hope and compassion).

I seek a change in attitude that should inevitably lead to a change in behavior. By suggesting that our pursuit of these material goods is shameful in reflection of the poverty that exists in our world, I hope that the viewer will adopt an attitude that material wealth and status symbols should be subordinated to the needless suffering and starvation of millions.  The behaviors that will follow from this, if it is truly achieved, should include considering a donation to charity, and abandoning pursuit of wealth for the sake of status or greed alone.

Photo Credits:

1.      American Flag:

a.       http://s2.hubimg.com/u/414041_f520.jpg

2.      One Hundred Dollar Bill:

a.       http://www.softwareprojects.com/resources/the-basics/t-7-tips-for-success-as-an-online-entrepreneur-1504.html

3.      iPhone:

a.       http://tgrblog.com/2009/05/31/wallpaper-weekend-iphone-spark/

4.      Bugatti

a.       http://www.thesupercars.org/top-cars/most-expensive-cars-in-the-world-top-10-list-2007-2008/

5.      USA’s most expensive house

a.       http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165278/Americas-expensive-house-goes-market-150million--big-knows-exact-number-rooms.html

6.      Homeless in central America

a.       http://www.thefamily.org/en/work/america-central/photos/345/

7.      Starving in Sudan:

a.       http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/pages-3/Americans-urged-to-stop-sending-junk-food-to-starving-people-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side.html

8.      Child with Noma

a.       http://salt.claretianpubs.org/shake/2008/04/ss080411a.html

9.      Dollar Bill

a.       http://www.marshu.com/articles/presidents-on-us-united-states-paper-bills-currency.php

Massumi

I couldn't agree more with Massumi's concern over our tendency to place ourselves (and others) upon a grid.  As Davis said, this grid limits us, confining the infinite spectrum of potentiality into a narrow (and limiting) "grid" of possibility.

I think our tendency to categorize and "bracket off" people, places, events, etc is a double-edged sword (forgive the violent metaphor). It is almost impossible to function as a human in a complex world without having some tools with which to simplify things and make them manageable, to group them according to their typical characteristics and deal with them summarily.  But at the same time, our tendency to categorize things to the point of oversimplification, or over-reduction, can limit our thinking to those possibilities prescribed by the categories.  We need to simplify things to make sense of them, but in doing so, we lose sight of the details, and perhaps limit our thinking.

From the latter Massumi reading, I was intrigued by his thoughts about Reagan and Clinton. Of Clinton, Massumi remarks (in part IV of Chapter 1) that when his public image faltered in the social domain (because of a health care reform bill), confidence in his competence as an economic leader fell as well (leading to a stock market decline). Massumi notes the irony: the public was much more prone to react to a non-economic factor (the President's seemingly tainted public image) than to the economic one (it would actually have been GOOD for the economy that the health care bill failed, indicating, in an economic sense, that people should have celebrated Clinton's seeming incompetence, and bought more Stock instead of sold it).

We find ourselves in situation that's intriguingly similar. Our current President is fighting, tooth-and-nail to reverse the economic recession begun in 2008, while also having sustained an almost irreparable scar on his public image because of a predominantly social measure (again, interestingly, a health care reform bill). And the effect is once again "bleeding" into the public's confidence of his economic efforts (which are at an all time low, polled as of this weekend, 60% of Americans are dissatisfied with his efforts at reviving the economy).  After reading Massumi, I'm convinced that the majority of people are going through the same thing we did in the Nineties. We're conflating economic and social performance. Massumi says that this is evidence that affect is "real"; a tangible factor which we must consider at every turn, just as we consider the weather when deciding what to wear.  He posits that it is even more than real, it is everywhere, transversal (crossing bounds, as it did with Clinton, and, I argue, Obama) as well as infrastructural (as crucial a factor in our way of life as roads, bridges, power lines).

Cultural Discernment

Brennan focuses her book on establishing the transmission of affect, in response to a world she perceives as being under the dark cloud of a “foundational fantasy” whereby we misconstrue ourselves as being discrete.  While this would seem to support a view that we should uniformly embrace and value this transmission, she offers some advice in Chapter 6 that runs counter to this assumption. 

In her section on “Cultural Discernment” (p123), Brennan describes how “religious codes and codes of courtesy” (122) serve “as means for discerning and resisting the transmission of affect and responding to another’s affective states in ways that would help dissipate negative and disabling affects….” (123). Expecting the final chapters to be a further development of the different means of entrainment (other than olfaction), I was quite surprised to see Brennan introduce a new theme.  

Whereas she spends much of the book talking about the foundational fantasy, and its ill-effects, she seems to want more than a mere recognition that we are wrong about our discreteness. She posits that we have created a world in which “humankind… works against life rather than for it (162).  She offers an explanation of how opposing forces are at work when we decide either to perpetuate the “dumping” of negative affects, or to break the chain. In her words we either “live in the unreal but three-dimensional world of the negative affects”… or “live instead in the energy of life” (163).  These opposing forces are our self-interested (though often self-sabotaging) egos versus our religious codes and codes of courtesy(or more generally, our empathy and compassion). “When the code is strong enough to override the impulse…the impulse is refused.” (123).

In my mind, this conjured up the classic image of a person with an angel on one shoulder, a demon on the other.  The angel “is open to others in a way that wishes them well and would dissipate their anxiety or sorrow if [it] could.” (123), while the demon, under the guidance of the fearful ego passes each negative affect onward in a vain attempt at self-preservation (or preservation of the identity and its supposed distinctness).

I agree with a lot of what Brennan is saying here. I think most humans are motivated essentially by fear and love. Our fear, manifested in anxiety, anger and hatred, constantly wants us to treat other people badly—to judge them, feel superior, use them as means to our ends, etc. Our love manifests in compassion, whereby we treat others well—calm them down when they’re angry, give them our attention when they need it, etc.  Fear can be a much stronger motivator than love, and thus self-interest is easy to slip into. Ironically, though, those who are most susceptible (and give in to) self-interested fear tend to end up being miserable people, while those motivated by compassion seem to be happier. Brennan tells us that we can “undo” the demons that are “familiar affective patterns”, “refuse them entry” and try and convert them “back into living energy. They only gain their power “when we see them, hear them, think them… and grant them admission” (164).

Written Pathetic Appeal - Final Version

For my written pathetic appeal, I addressed Arizona’s new immigration policy. I claim that Arizona’s policy must be opposed because it is unconstitutional, racist, and victimizes people who aren’t in a position to defend them-selves.  I begin with a brief history of immigration policy in America to demonstrate the two sides of the debate and the values that each side stands for.  I used emotionally-charged language to show the dark side of America’s immigration policy history, and that the bill is unconstitutional, racist, and strains national relations.  I also use rhetorical questions to demonstrate how America is beginning to parallel a totalitarian state. This is designed to invoke anger and astonishment in the average red-blooded American. Finally, I used enargeia to convey the harms that this policy visits on individuals.  I depict the hardships of two people, "John" and "Jane." These passages demonstrate the suffering of the oppressed, calling upon the audience to experience their fear and hopelessness.  My goal is that the reader will interpret the fear and anger as products of a malicious, unconstitutional and racist policy, and feel compelled to contribute a few moments of their time to fighting the injustice.  I hope that these emotions lead them to take action, in the form of signing an online petition which alerts state governors to opposition to the bill.  Please, read my appeal.

Brennan, ch1-2

Like Damasio, Brennan has some far-reaching claims that run counter to many of the theories in her field. And, like Damasio, she seems to make some good points to back up a new theory. I found it interesting how Brennan makes note of our (modern Western society) somewhat unique tendency to erect psychological “boundaries” which we use in an attempt to defend ourselves from the affects transmitted by others. As she puts it, we are “securing a private fortress, personal boundaries, against the unsolicited emotional intrusions of the other.” (15). 

While previous societies have typically acknowledged this “collectiveness” of our emotions, we have elected to combat it. She notes, also, that this may have much to do with the pandemic of “new maladies of the soul”—ADHD, CFS, and Fibromyalgia.  These newly-emerging disorders seem to be of psychogenic origin-they aren’t caused, necessarily, by genetic factors, but are rather a cultural product.  She also speaks at length about depression, presenting it (or at least some instances of it) as psychogenic in origin too. This is to say, some individuals may be depressed not because of an inherent imbalance in their neurochemistry, but because of the way they process affects.  She characterizes depression as “anger turned inward” (43).  Without an outlet for our anger(and Brennan notes that without the sexism and colonialism of previous ages, we have a lot less outlets), we are forced to turn it inward, in which case it doesn’t typically remain as anger, but morphs into fear/anxiety that we carry with us.  In addition to our lack of victims (other than our mommies),our tendency to erect “boundaries” fuels this trend.  We simply have no outlet. And sadly, our society has almost uniformly accepted pharmaceuticals as the ideal means to combat depression.  So we’re treating a largely psychogenic disorder (psychogenic=caused by the psyche, but with real tangible physical symptoms) with a chemical solution.  The repression of anger, and its inward-projection as anxiety, lead to the imbalance in neurotransmitters.  It’s been my experience that antidepressants are problematic and ineffective. Perhaps we need to start focusing more energy on fixing the cause of the problem, as opposed to the symptoms.

Written Pathetic Appeal Analysis (Rough Draft)

For my written pathetic appeal, I addressed Arizona’s new immigration policy. I claim that Arizona’s policy should be opposed because it is unconstitutional, racist, and victimizes people who aren’t in a position to defend them-selves.  I used emotionally-charged language to show the dark side of America’s immigration policy history, and that the bill is unconstitutional, racist, and strains national relations. Finally, I used enargeia to convey the harms that this policy visits on individuals.  The emotional appeals are designed to invoke fear, anger, and sympathy in the audience.  I hope that these emotions lead them to take action, in the form of signing an online petition which alerts state governors to opposition to the bill.  My hope is that the reader will interpret the fear and anger as products of a malicious, unconstitutional and racist policy, and feel compelled to contribute a few moments of their time to fighting the injustice.  Please, read my appeal.