Unit 2 Reflection

Charlie Zhang

Gabriele/Pronko

Unit 2 Reflection #1

28 November 2011

            When I look to the past, there are several parallels that I can draw between times past and times present. Perhaps the overarching reason for such similarity is the concept of human nature: the idea that humans have not and will not change their habits over the course of hundreds and even thousands of years. This very concept of human nature is the basis of government for many philosophers, such as Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. Examining contemporary society yields many instances of self-preservation, greed, and overall “pessimistic” human nature. Riots and strikes hold underneath their unionist ideals a rather selfish basis, and in fact much of today’s systems of government focus on “calming the masses”. Upon analysis of not only forceful content but also pointed style, I find that Machiavelli is the most compelling and viable source of successful government “contracts”, his works accurately reflecting the Occupy Wall Street movement, the ongoing Arab Spring in the Middle East, as well as presidential elections in the US. Though it may seem cynical of me to imply such low opinions of humans, my deliberations and decisions made ultimately led me to the same conclusions that Machiavelli and even Hobbes developed.

            I have always enjoyed philosophy. To logically discuss what always cannot be easily conceptualized allows me to truly take personal opinions into matters. This interest was compounded when I entered debate. For my specific event, a one-on-one duel of morals and values known as Lincoln Douglass, morals are paramount in arguments, and rather than using facts, logical conclusions are to be argued through explanation. The obvious source of such coherent reasoning is philosophy. Thus, upon tackling the assignment, I had already educated myself about the general ideas of the popular philosophers.

Armed with the proper knowledge, I began taking it upon myself to morally judge certain actions, regardless of whether they were already determined as right or wrong by society. For example, I saw that although protestors in Occupy Wall Street were justly angry and passionate, most of them were college graduates who had just finished their education and could not find a job, and heaped with large amounts of debt. The philosophical question to ask in this situation is whether or not they would be there protesting in the (now) cold streets if they were able to resolve their individual issues. If such motives are selfish, then that helps to assert the “greed” of humans and their self-preserving nature. Machiavelli forms this as essentially his major premise for The Prince.

Niccolò Machiavelli also adds in his discourse about government the need for a prince to keep power, and the need for a prince to do whatever he needs to do to keep that control. Before I read his work, I had preconceived notions about his pessimism, having already read part of it from AP European History last year. Also, in a historical context, I was aware that he was writing in a time of dissolution, when princes seemed to gain power as quickly as they lost it. Thus, it seemed to me that Machiavelli was not being pessimistic about human nature but rather realistic. This overall impression could be seen mainly through his diction and rhetorical arrangement of the piece.

Simple, pointed, and blunt, the voice of Machiavelli calmly discusses and dissects each part of his argument. There are not too many long and effusive sentences that attempt to display ethos on the side of the author; rather, Machiavelli even addresses a theoretical prince with the second person “you”, creating at once a casual and formal reading. This is even more significant in light of the fact that he is philosophizing about government. The calm tone and manner in which Machiavelli discourses adds to the theme of reality that he appeals to. There are no attempts to get around what his main points are.

A blunt and pointed tone adds to the effectiveness of Machiavelli’s straightforward arrangement. Separating the reading into sections, Machiavelli addresses each section first with a refutation or concession. For example, in “How a Prince Should Keep His Word”, Machiavelli first concedes that a prince should be considered as a trustworthy figure worthy of his royal status. Yet after the brief symbolic nod to the opposing argument, Niccolò quickly dives into how this message is quickly twisted in face of greedy and inherently primal people. For each point he provides a powerful example to illustrate the truth.

The truth of Machiavelli’s words manifests itself most powerfully in today’s international community. Governments today focus upon a delicate balance that sounds eerily similar to the beliefs of Machiavelli: the perfect balance by preserving power through (however false) appeasement of the masses. When that balance is shattered, disaster for the government follows. In the Middle East, I found that the Arab Spring is the ideal example of what happens when a government fails to keep its power through improper “appeasement” of the people. Machiavelli predicted in every situation that without the right iron grip over one’s own power, it is lost very quickly to discontent citizens. It is no longer government feared or loved, but rather one hated, a state of mind which Machiavelli says should be avoided at all costs. The government failed to control its people, and, as Machiavelli predicts, it collapses under its failure.

Even governments that are (arguably) stable, such as the US government, must adhere to Machiavelli’s “underhanded” moves to maintain power and stability within a nation. As per Machiavelli’s concepts, the President of the United States is to be a symbol of the free world, a sign of hope for most Americans to look to. However, beneath the glory and pride, the President often navigates through a politically treacherous government not only at home but also abroad. He (and hopefully one day she) manipulates those around, using tools of rhetoric to his advantage as he sways a varied population, from the leader of terrorist organizations to discontent citizens whom he hopes to gain for re-election.

I see now that Machiavelli’s realism stands in greatest light in terms of viable government. While it is classified as “philosophy” along with Hobbes and Locke, Machiavelli promotes what I believe is the most realistic form. There is no fancy discourse or attempt to logic his way into a confusing or unreasonable action; he presents things as is. And in doing so, I found that my political views had altered. I was no longer simply a student or an observer. I was one who understood the reality around me. I now comprehended justification of normally abhorred actions. I had become, as Machiavelli writes for, a proper prince.

Advertisement: Never Say No to Panda!

                One of the most popular viral advertisements is a string of short commercials from Panda, an Egyptian manufacturer of cheese and dairy products. In these commercials, called “Never Say No to Panda”, producer Hossam Fawzy portrays a dark sense of humor that suggests that refusing to eat Panda cheese results in being attacked by a life-size panda. Made in 2008, a combination of repetition and dark humor allow Fawzy to convey the purpose and ultimate goal of buying Panda Cheese.

                Several cut scenes are shown in the series of commercials; all involve individuals who refuse to eat Panda cheese and as a result are attacked by a life-size panda. An office worker gets his computer destroyed when refusing a Panda cheese sandwich. A hospital patient loses his TV and has his IV removed by the expressionless panda when he doesn’t want to eat Panda cheese for breakfast, and a pizza maker who has an order without cheese gets his materials ruined by the panda. When a father and son are in a grocery store, they eventually learn the second time to buy the cheese and walk away apprehensively as the panda follows them.

                The most powerful rhetorical devices used to “sell” a message to customers are humor and repetition. Humor also involves the repetition to create a sense of recurring ideas. For example, those who do not eat the Panda cheese are attacked by a panda suit character that materializes whenever someone refuses to eat.  This connects greatly to the repetition involved. For example, the song True Love Ways by Buddy Holly always plays in the background when the panda arrives. Also, after watching several commercials, one eagerly anticipates the destruction that the panda will cause to the individuals who unfortunately refused to eat the Panda cheese. The panda’s blank expression stands in sharp juxtaposition to the acts of destruction that he performs.

                Producer Fawzy certainly achieved his purpose of selling a convincing and interesting message about Panda cheese to prospective buyers. Through repetition and humor, Panda cheese has certainly elevated itself not only to perhaps successful business but also viral fame.

TIME Article: Below the Poverty Line

                Today’s economic situation for many stands in need of dire correction. Though some may believe that the worst is over, America still suffers a nearly 10% unemployment rate with an even higher poverty rate of 15.1%. TIME journalist Barbara Kiviat delves into the poor with her article “Below the Poverty Line”, in which she debunks myths about poverty that ultimately will help those trying to fix it. With a classification and definition arrangement, along with powerful images of families struggling on far too little, Kiviat displays the purpose of simply education about what really happens “below the poverty line.”

                Kiviat defines poverty as living under an annual income of $22,314 for a family of four. She asserts that many do not understand what it means to be poor in USA, and then proceeds to debunk five myths/misconceptions that many people have about US poverty. The first, “poverty doesn’t live in the suburbs”, describes how the seemingly middle-class and ideal US suburbs are actually the areas with the greatest poverty increases. Kiviat points to a lack of a security net and rather unchanging nature of suburbs as to lack of preparation that these suburbs have. The second myth, that “poverty is simply about not having enough income”, shows the small margin and the minor things that happen to people for them to go from doing relatively well to cycling into poverty. Myths three and four, “getting people out of poor neighborhoods is the answer” and “focusing on individuals is the key to poverty alleviation”, both make the point that to solve the problem one has to examine poverty holistically in order to fully conquer it. This brings Kiviat to the final and more optimistically debunked myth, that “poverty is inevitable.” She credits Social Security and private programs as models of how poverty can be drastically reduced, and how eventually we can really solve the situation of the forever poor.

                “Below the Poverty Line” is written in a classification arrangement, taking apart each myth and then giving either its validity or impracticality. Kiviat writes in a spatial context, writing in regards to today’s poverty situation and also that of previous hard times in the US. Statistics strengthen her argument and add to her logos and ethos. Pathos and emotion is strongly presented by the individual photos of those living in poverty, each with a small caption about the person’s often shocking conditions.

Political Cartoon- Penn State Sex Scandal

                Salt Lake Tribune cartoonist Pat Bagley places into his cartoon Penn State a perspective on the Penn State sex scandal that many have pondered, but few have openly stated. Drawn for the lucky day 11/11/11, Bagley pulls upon large amounts of communal knowledge to give this possibly controversial cartoon its powerful message.

                This cartoon is probably set in Beaver Stadium, the football field of Penn State. A priest in full attire, even with a Cross flying around his neck, appears to be playing in a game of football. This priest tosses something to a large, intimidating, but rather confused Penn State football player (as indicated by his jersey). Even the announcer shouts “and it looks like a hand off!” However, the centerpiece of this cartoon, and where the strength of its message comes from, is the unusual object being “handed off”: a young boy with the phrase “abuse scandal” on his back.

                The greatest rhetorical devices used by Bagley to achieve his purpose are extensive symbolism and even greater irony. The priest clearly represents the Catholic priests accused and found guilty of abuse; the Penn State player symbolizes the confusion and general Penn State community that has been left to deal with this scarring issue. The small boy, as indicated by the letters on his back, is the sex abuse that seems to be “handed off” between the Catholic priests and Penn State community.

There is a certain amount of communal knowledge that Bagley pulls upon, writing in actually a temporal context in that he shows his immediate reaction to the subject of this cartoon: the Penn State sex scandal. Communal knowledge requires that one know of the previous sex scandals that involved Catholic priests, and of the scandals involving the head departments in Penn State Athletics. Intended for the readers of the Salt Lake Tribune, Bagley implies his purpose through the cartoon that this concept of “abuse” is not novel, and seems to be occurring in different places, almost as if it were being “handed off”. 

IRB Blink Final Reading Section

        Although it certainly didn't take a "blink" to read, Malcolm Gladwell's Blink provided novel insights for the split second decisions made by individuals. Finishing this independent read displayed not only intuition about how these “thin-splices” work but also a level of rhetoric and stylistic skill that left the reader in complete agreement. 

        The remainder of Blink discussed further upon the skills of thin-slicing: of how sometimes they can be horribly wrong, of how this spontaneity can be “trained”, and how the proper “thin slice” needs to be seen. Gladwell dives into stories of how President Harding became one of the worst US presidents and how innocent Diallo was murdered, both from improper analysis and intuitions. Yet, in contrast to these obstacles, Gladwell points to how through split-second decisions General Van Riper defeated the entire US army (armed with total intelligence) in a simulation, and how by seeing and both hearing singer Kenna he  just “struck” with people. 

         Perhaps Gladwell’s strongest rhetorical device is that of arrangement and transition between topics. Gladwell follows an arrangement that’s a synthesis of exemplification and definition: as he proceeds to describe different parts of these split second decisions, there are general topics and examples for each. From each general topic, such as the story of the singer Kenna and how it relates to OVERALL rather than specific first impressions, Gladwell branches off and discusses smaller but interconnected examples, such as taste tests revolving around root beers and Coke vs. Pepsi. 

        Through logical transitions between all examples, Gladwell is able to bring Blink full circle by suggesting the power that we have as these gifted individuals at perception, and that through these examples readers gain control over their powers in perception and decision making: to master, as the cover suggests, “the power of thinking without thinking”. 

(Rhetorical Analysis Used: OPTIC)