Design of my workspace:
(LonnyMag.com)I'm gonna lose some weight:
(Shape Magazine)My iPhone 3g that had failed me in so many important situations - I dumped you. Consumer Reports confirmed my suspicions. Hello Blackberry Bold!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
I have never...
Felt so much like I needed to shake things up.
Design of my workspace:
(LonnyMag.com)
I'm gonna lose some weight:
(Shape Magazine)
My iPhone 3g that had failed me in so many important situations - I dumped you. Consumer Reports confirmed my suspicions. Hello Blackberry Bold!
Design of my workspace:
(LonnyMag.com)I'm gonna lose some weight:
(Shape Magazine)My iPhone 3g that had failed me in so many important situations - I dumped you. Consumer Reports confirmed my suspicions. Hello Blackberry Bold!
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Essay #2-Memorable and Interesting Speeches
Reflecting on some of today’s more memorable speeches and communicators, it is both amusing and interesting to note the differences between those events, and what made them memorable. This is especially interesting when examined in light of Ong’s text of orality psychodynamic characterizations, some of which we will examine are: additive rather than subordinative, aggregative rather than analytic, redundant or ‘copius’, conservative or traditionalist, close to the human lifeworld, agonistically toned, empathetic and participatory, and homeostatic. (Ong, pg. 37-48)
To illustrate the first two characteristics of subordinative and aggregative, Nikita Krushchev’s speech to the 20th Communist Party Congress of the USSR in 1956 is a good example. In his speech, he frequently refers to “enemies” of the party, revolution, or socialism. This speech also goes into great detail about abolishing the “cult of the individual” once and for all, referring to Stalin’s previous involvement and power over the USSR (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010).
During the 2008 vice presidential debates, John McCain’s full name was used 33 times by Governor Palin, not a mixture of John McCain, John, or Senator McCain. Then-Senator Biden spoke his full name 51 times, while the moderator used his name and his title of Senator. (New York Times 2009) Both main speakers wanted the emphasis to be on the perceived negative and positive aspects of his name. The effect was, in all likelihood, negative on both Biden and Palin; much of the debate centered around the repetition and the inability to seem aware of the impact of their words. There are some times when redundancy is a positive reinforcement in public addresses – such as the readings and public writings of Winston Churchill or Maculay. (Ong, pg. 41).
Traditionalists as orators can come in many forms; according to Ong, “narrative originality lodges not in making up new stories but in managing a particular interaction with an audience at this time – at every telling the story has to be introduced into a unique situation.” (pg. 42) During the women’s suffrage movement, social reformers and women’s voting rights activists had to counter traditional oration in its most basic sense – women had simply never had the right to vote before 1920. Countering the traditional belief that women must be seen and not heard and still expressing their beliefs, while not being offensive to traditionalists, these suffragists had to walk the line.
An oral culture that is close to the human lifeworld, and expressed in modern speeches or events, can be found in French General Charles de Gaulle’s wartime radio addresses, broadcast by the BBC from London in 1940. He says, “I call upon all French servicemen of the land, sea, and air forces; I call upon French engineers and skilled armaments workers who are on British soil, or have the means of getting here, to come and join me…I call upon the leaders, together with all soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the French land, sea, and air forces, wherever they may now be, to get in touch with me…I call upon all Frenchmen who want to remain free to listen to my voice and follow me.” According to Ong, this is laying out specific commands and actions; de Gaulle told the people of France to rise up against the German force and contact the resistance movement.
Nelson Mandela’s 1964 speech before the opening of his sabotage trial is a classic example of an oral narrative of enthusiastic descriptors of sacrifice, violence in South Africa, and praise. “It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010).
Empathetic speeches, in a somewhat generic form, can be found in funeral homes and churches around the world. Friends and family generally want to sympathize with the family that is hurting, and offer words of condolences for those who might need it.
Oral people groups are homeostatic, according to Ong. Looking at speeches from Aneurin Bevan (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010) speaking about the Suez Canal incident —and the vastly different verbiage that he uses of half a century ago — while comparing it to President Obama’s memorial speech at the CIA Headquarters (“Whitehouse.gov” 2010) with simple phrases while carrying the same meaning, we can see the generational shift of terminology and phrasing.
Our society has many more existing examples and cases of these features of oral cultures; it will be interesting to see what future examples our public and private figures have in store for us.
The Guardian. (2010). Great speeches of the 20th century. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/series/greatspeeches/
The New York Times. (2009). Transcript: The Vice-Presidential Debate. Retrieved from http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html.
Ong, W.J. (1982). Some Psychodynamics of Orality. In T. Hawkes (Ed.), Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. (pgs. 30-77). Metheun & Co.
Shaw, A.H. (2010/1915). The Fundamental Principle of a Republic. Retrieved from http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html/
The White House-Office of the Press Secretary. (2010). Remarks by The President at Memorial for CIA Officers. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-and-cia-director-panetta-speak-cia-memorial-service/
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
To illustrate the first two characteristics of subordinative and aggregative, Nikita Krushchev’s speech to the 20th Communist Party Congress of the USSR in 1956 is a good example. In his speech, he frequently refers to “enemies” of the party, revolution, or socialism. This speech also goes into great detail about abolishing the “cult of the individual” once and for all, referring to Stalin’s previous involvement and power over the USSR (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010).
During the 2008 vice presidential debates, John McCain’s full name was used 33 times by Governor Palin, not a mixture of John McCain, John, or Senator McCain. Then-Senator Biden spoke his full name 51 times, while the moderator used his name and his title of Senator. (New York Times 2009) Both main speakers wanted the emphasis to be on the perceived negative and positive aspects of his name. The effect was, in all likelihood, negative on both Biden and Palin; much of the debate centered around the repetition and the inability to seem aware of the impact of their words. There are some times when redundancy is a positive reinforcement in public addresses – such as the readings and public writings of Winston Churchill or Maculay. (Ong, pg. 41).
Traditionalists as orators can come in many forms; according to Ong, “narrative originality lodges not in making up new stories but in managing a particular interaction with an audience at this time – at every telling the story has to be introduced into a unique situation.” (pg. 42) During the women’s suffrage movement, social reformers and women’s voting rights activists had to counter traditional oration in its most basic sense – women had simply never had the right to vote before 1920. Countering the traditional belief that women must be seen and not heard and still expressing their beliefs, while not being offensive to traditionalists, these suffragists had to walk the line.
An oral culture that is close to the human lifeworld, and expressed in modern speeches or events, can be found in French General Charles de Gaulle’s wartime radio addresses, broadcast by the BBC from London in 1940. He says, “I call upon all French servicemen of the land, sea, and air forces; I call upon French engineers and skilled armaments workers who are on British soil, or have the means of getting here, to come and join me…I call upon the leaders, together with all soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the French land, sea, and air forces, wherever they may now be, to get in touch with me…I call upon all Frenchmen who want to remain free to listen to my voice and follow me.” According to Ong, this is laying out specific commands and actions; de Gaulle told the people of France to rise up against the German force and contact the resistance movement.
Nelson Mandela’s 1964 speech before the opening of his sabotage trial is a classic example of an oral narrative of enthusiastic descriptors of sacrifice, violence in South Africa, and praise. “It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010).
Empathetic speeches, in a somewhat generic form, can be found in funeral homes and churches around the world. Friends and family generally want to sympathize with the family that is hurting, and offer words of condolences for those who might need it.
Oral people groups are homeostatic, according to Ong. Looking at speeches from Aneurin Bevan (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010) speaking about the Suez Canal incident —and the vastly different verbiage that he uses of half a century ago — while comparing it to President Obama’s memorial speech at the CIA Headquarters (“Whitehouse.gov” 2010) with simple phrases while carrying the same meaning, we can see the generational shift of terminology and phrasing.
Our society has many more existing examples and cases of these features of oral cultures; it will be interesting to see what future examples our public and private figures have in store for us.
The Guardian. (2010). Great speeches of the 20th century. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/series/greatspeeches/
The New York Times. (2009). Transcript: The Vice-Presidential Debate. Retrieved from http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html.
Ong, W.J. (1982). Some Psychodynamics of Orality. In T. Hawkes (Ed.), Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. (pgs. 30-77). Metheun & Co.
Shaw, A.H. (2010/1915). The Fundamental Principle of a Republic. Retrieved from http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html/
The White House-Office of the Press Secretary. (2010). Remarks by The President at Memorial for CIA Officers. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-and-cia-director-panetta-speak-cia-memorial-service/
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Monday, January 25, 2010
Online Identity – Changing Like A Chameleon?
Changing yourself to fit a more desirable profile has become the norm in some online communication of today. Looking at what we project as the actual representation of ourselves, it is sometimes unclear if this is our true “identity,” or one that we want others to interpret or see in place of our own self.
When developing an online profile for any type of online identity, whether it is Match.com, Facebook, or creating your own avatar, there is always the potential to create a profile that is more desirable — to yourself — for the outside, online world to read and see. In dating sites, men will say that they are taller than they truly are and women will post pictures that are conveniently absent of the wrinkles and pounds that they have put on in recent years. Facebook profiles will tag and untag pictures where the individual might look slightly inebriated, and therefore not want their boss to see what is going on during the weekends. Second Life is an online community where users can live lives purely online that are completely different from reality; they have jobs, exchange virtual money, and have online relationships. The users create avatars, or a virtual person, and then live their lives in that virtual world. The difference in these “second life” worlds from Facebook and Match.com is that your real identity can almost certainly be kept a secret. On dating sites, the truth will come out eventually on the coffee date, someone will tag a picture of you on Facebook, and your true self will somehow be known. These are all truly technologies of self, as stated in Thurlow et al. (2004, pg. 98) In second life/avatar-type online environments or other more anonymous newsgroups, users can truly pretend to either be someone else, or in theory only let the details be known that you want to be – sexual orientation, skin color, or disabilities.
There are assumptions made about race and bigotry spreading online — according to Nakamura, some scholars have asserted that this spread could have been halted because of the freedom that the internet brings (2002, pg. 107). This theory is flawed, however. Scholars and editorial writers have assumed that since the physical bodies are not visible, then racial prejudice and bigotry cannot be present. There have been more in-depth discussions on race and social injustice online — one example is the Chicago Tribune’s blog, “Exploring Race.” The drawback and unfortunate reality is that stereotypes and prejudices have transferred over to the internet and online world.
Assumptions can also be made about a person’s online identity, but many times, it can be wrong. Within dating sites, there could be assumptions made before meeting men for coffee dates, with conclusions drawn through email conversations, text messaging, and their online profile. Sometimes these assumptions could incorrectly be drawn that the date result in more in-depth conversations about the man’s belief in God, family relationships, and social skills. This, of course, is never totally the case. However, there are some times when that online identity can be reconciled with what is truly the real person; many people have met and married off of online dating sites. They adapted to each other during the dating time, deleted their online profiles, and were generally very questioning of each other because of the “newness” and the uncertainty of what details might be exaggerated on both sides because of the online curtain that had previously been drawn between them.
Examining the racial and social impacts of an online identity is quite important; it is a lasting electronic imprint that cannot be undone. Even though a user might not truly believe it, they want to put an idea out that they think will make them look a certain way to the public or to a certain viewer. Other users will be open and honest about who they truly are; however, the truth can usually only be found in face to face communication.
References:
Nakamura, L. (2002). Chapter 5: Menu-driven identities: making race happen online. In Cybertypes: race, ethnicity and identity on the internet (pp. 101-35). New York: Routledge.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Turner Trice, D. (2010, January 18). Poll: Americans less hopeful about Obama’s impact on race relations. Blog entry posted to http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)