Ginnifer Mastarone-Health Communication, etc. Lecture

            Ginnifer Mastarone’s lecture on Health Communication, survey research, and Social Network Science gave a glimpse into the information economy. She began by introducing how through communication, people create and share information online (Comm. 101, Mastarone). She then went on to discuss her research in Health Communication, specifically her research involving people who have suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury, (TBI), and how this injury can affect how they interact with others. Further, she discussed the Social Capital theory, which is defined as the “sum of resources, either virtual or physical that are created through social interactions” (Comm. 101, Mastarone).

            As I was reviewing my notes, I began to think about people who suffer from TBI. Ginnifer mentioned that there are many people who can suffer from this injury, but I had only heard about TBI when listening to news reports about the Iraq war years ago. So when I heard it in class I started thinking about soldiers. In any case, while reviewing my notes I began to think of soldiers again specifically, which led me to think about the ethical principle of justice and the veil of ignorance. In my mind, because this principle is based on “what is moral is what is fair for all,” this principle can be applied to Ginnifer’s lecture, and research (Tubbs 204).

            When a soldier is diagnosed with a TBI, this can alter how she, or he functions in their family, and in society. Moreover, it can negatively impact how they assimilate into the civilian working world. In other words, a TBI can weaken a previously productive member of society. This directly relates to the Social Capital theory, and when the principle of the veil of ignorance is applied, we would have a moral duty to take care of those soldiers diagnosed with this injury. Also, I think our society has a duty to support the families of the injured. In short, Mastarone’s research focuses on a special population, but also addresses the politics of how people can be left behind or excluded, especially with advances in technology. 

            Mastarone’s research is valuable. I am going into information science, so it was important for me to see that it is a field with an endless amount of substance, and opportunity. Also, it was important to have Ginnifer reinforce the importance of quantitative data. I am an English major/Communication minor, but I don’t have an aversion to numbers—it’s more about being lazy. That being said, I realize that the numbers are going to give any research that I do more weight.

Kellee E. Warren

Prof Andrew Rojecki-The Tea Party and the Politics of Insecurity

           Professor Andrew Rojecki’s lecture relates to our discussions on selective perception and framing. In his argument, Rojecki makes specific reference to the role of selective perception in how Tea Party members consume media. Of course, selective perception is not exclusive to members of the Tea Party, but that is the subject of his lecture. In any case, he brings up the important point that, currently, our political discourse is dysfunctional (Comm. 101, Rojecki). Basically, because Americans are experiencing so much uncertainty, it is causing a breakdown in our political communication. Further, media is exacerbating the problem by catering to hyper-partisan audiences (Comm. 101, Rojecki).

            Because we are bombarded with an abundance of stimuli—external and internal—it makes sense that we selectively perceive. In selective perception “each person actively chooses what to attend to depending on personal interests, motivations, desires and expectations” (Tubbs 39). In other words, we pay attention to the information that is most meaningful to us, and ignore the rest.

            Framing is an important concept in the discussion on political communication and the Tea Party. Rojecki’s argument proves that framing can be used to manipulate, and can be a barrier to informed discourse in our society. Among other things, his argument reasons that because of the Great Recession, and changes in political economy, members of the Tea Party are in a panic (Comm. 101, Rojecki). In other words, when one is emotional, one can’t think rationally. For example, Rojecki points out that one of the main demands of the Tea Party is for others to be less reliant on government. However, he notes that the Tea Party doesn’t want to sacrifice the government programs that they rely on. As a result of the Tea Party panic, there seems to be a cognitive break —their argument is weak under scrutiny. The media frames the Tea Party message as being about the government taxing too much. But I agree with Rojecki that at the basis of the claim is racism and resources—frames seem to target the path of least resistance. Further, it suggests that members of Tea Party think that they are the only people paying taxes in the country.

            The in-class exercise on the rat/baby article was an effective lesson on how stories are framed: a story is processed depending upon the information a reader is given in combination with personal beliefs. That is why it is very important to learn critical reading skills, which I am still learning.

 Kellee E. Warren

Prof Diem-My Bui-Vietnamese Women in Film

Professor Bui’s lecture applies directly to our class lectures and reading on beauty and schemas/stereotypes, specifically, “The influence of a culture on the person perception of its members” (Tubbs 59). Bui explores representations of ethnicity and gender in film, and how western interpretations of Vietnamese women have affected her experience as a Vietnamese-American. Her main concern was that of the expression of the Vietnamese woman through her sexuality in film. Also, she explores Vietnamese women being the personification of Vietnam. The films shape the female characters as passive and willing to use their bodies as a commodity. Further, she comments on how these images are presented concomitantly with the romanticized past.

            We discussed that it is  “efficient and effective” to have stereotypes in advertising, but we didn’t discuss the use of them in all other media platforms (Notes Steele-Knight). In the “socialization of others,” the dominant culture—white America—has the control to shape and present images of all other cultures through film, television, and news. These images, or stereotypes can be positive or negative. Bui mentions the stereotype of the model minority, but does not explicitly define what the term means. It can be inferred that the female characters in the films are representations of the model female minority; they are “quiet beauties” (Comm. 101, Bui). The first time I heard the term model minority was in a creative non-fiction class. In a personal essay, a young Filipino woman said that this stereotype often works to her benefit; professors, and even law enforcement see her and her friends as “smart Asians,” so they rarely, if ever, get into trouble.

By contrast, Bui’s personal experience exposes how stereotypes can be negative. The Tubbs text states that there is a small amount of truth to stereotypes, so it was interesting to hear that when Bui was in Vietnam, she ended up having the prostitute stereotype imposed upon her (26).  Bui casually points out that the directors of the films analyzed are all men, which implies gender bias and ethnic bias—perhaps not in Tony Bui’s case. Further, the tyranny of the male gaze is implied. In short, the films portray the Vietnamese female characters as quiet, non-threatening and sexually available—the perfect woman.

I have a good friend who is half Vietnamese and half white—biracial. She was raised in Alaska and South Dakota. Although we are ethnically different, we have many things in common, and that is one of the many things that I enjoy about our friendship. She told me an awful story about her Vietnam War experience.  Her father, a white American, worked for the military during the war—he wasn’t a soldier. The war was coming to an end, and the U.S. government was pulling every worker and soldier out of Vietnam as fast as they could. They told my friend’s father that it was time for him to leave, so he packed the family up and headed to the airport. When they got to the airport, representatives from the military told her father to leave them. Needless to say, he refused! This story made really angry. Also, she shared a story with me about being followed by security in a mall in South Dakota, and I could completely relate to that. We all reference schemas/stereotypes to some degree, but when it begins to create barriers and negativity toward others, we need to reexamine our beliefs.

Kellee E. Warren

The Rhetoric of Economics- Prof D. McCloskey

Professor McClosky’s lecture on the rhetoric of science explores some history of rhetoric, and how rhetoric exists for all subjects. Further, she discusses how communication, persuasion in particular, is an integral part of economics. McCloskey challenges the current model of communication. In class, we learned that communication is split into two disciplines: humanities and social science. The humanities take an historical/critical approach to communication studies, and social science takes a qualitative/quantitative approach (Notes, Steele-Knight). McCloskey uses a similar model, but says that it is “nonsense”(Comm. 101, McCloskey). Basically, economic studies, therefore, communication doesn’t work in such a “black and white” way; even with the results of scientific data, a scientist must persuade her audience of the significance of that data, which would probably involve some storytelling.

            Functional communication could be defined in the same way that McCloskey defines rhetoric. Persuasion is an important part of rhetoric, and it is what she calls “sweet talk” (Comm. 101, McCloskey). So we use functional communication, or rhetoric to get things accomplished. And with both terms some persuasion is required. Three of the five outcomes of effective communication presented in the textbook that come to mind are pleasure, attitude influence and action. McCloskey mentions that persuasion, or “sweet talk,” can be thought of using the economic notion of exchange; that both parties benefit from the communication (Comm. 101, McCloskey). Also, attitude influence is a form of “gentle persuasion” (Tubbs 28). Attitude influence would involve use of rhetoric. Lastly, political rhetoric can make people feel good, but its main purpose it to drive people to action—to vote for a particular candidate.

In previous courses, I learned that rhetoric can be applied to any subject, but the material was presented in a more complicated manner. McCloskey succinctly defines rhetoric as “sweet talk,” and that gave me a clearer idea of what it means; that it is a basic part of communication that is used with others and on ourselves. I had never thought about how many times I’ve had to convince myself to do something, and that I use rhetoric on myself, or would that be coercion? At the same time, I see that rhetoric is used to create worlds, which makes me think of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Using this hypothesis, both linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism could be a factors. In other words, both components of the hypothesis could exist across cultures; some could allow language to determine how they think, and others could allow it to influence how they think. If people can use language to construct a worldview, can I invalidate that construct? Or is it a question of perception? It brings up many questions, and ultimately the study of communication, for me, is about the many ways that we attempt to get what we want, and that rhetoric is a primary component of that.

Kellee E. Warren

Comm 101

C. Steele