Distress over Damasio

Let me start by saying that these chapters were extremely interesting.  So Damasio has laid out some systems that, when damaged, severely affect a person’s ability to plan and decide in social and personal situations. The systems play an important role in the processing of emotions.  Somehow processing and understanding emotion is integral to our ability to make real life decisions.  Having said that, I found this information to be disturbing as well.  The evidence Damasio has presented is detrimental to our conception of personhood.  Brain damage can do more than affect certain cognitive capacities like speech or memory. It affects that subjective thing we call “personality”-- something we’ve assumed has a certain degree of permanency.  But the stories of Phineus Gage and Elliot indicate that brain damage can affect these subjective aspects more than we thought.

What bothers me is that the picture this paints of us is deterministic and reductionist.   We are a combination of our machinery and the physical stimuli that go into shaping that machinery.  If one part breaks, (like this decision making network) our entire personhood changes.  I suppose this reductionism would be ok if we could fix our machinery, and while sometimes this is possible, most of the time it is extremely difficult to fully regain lost functions.

This brings me to another point.  Neuroscientists have discovered that our brains are plastic. This means that, given the proper stimuli, brain maps can be rewired and the connections between neurons can either be strengthened or weakened.  For instance, stroke victims who have suffered damage to those areas involved with language have been known to regain many of their language skills during rehabilitation.  The victim's brain rewires itself; the speech center moves to a different area.  I wonder if that same plasticity could be achieved in patients like Phineus and Elliot. Could their brains have rewired themselves to make up for their deficits given the proper therapy?

Visual Analysis Revised

The image I will be analyzing is an anti-Obama poster currently being sold on Zazzle.com under the category of “Anti-Obama posters and prints.”  The poster reads, “We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got” and depicts a curled hand reaching towards the audience; just below, Obama’s face is etched in a star.  The target audience is conservatives who oppose Obama’s political ideology and policies.  While it includes both young and old, the ad’s emotional appeals resonate more with an audience old enough to remember the Cold War.  The artist goes by Maksim and, according to his personal website, sympathizes with the Tea Party, which is a recent conservative political movement that advocates for limited government and Constitutional principles.  Tea Party activists have a reputation of presenting extreme characterizations of Obama at rallies and protests (e.g. Obama as the Joker, Hitler).  Similarly, Maksim has painted an insidious portrait of Obama by connecting him to an ideology and form of government once greatly feared in the United States. The poster’s style and symbolism invite the audience to associate Obama with communism, with the intent of inspiring fear and motivating them to adopt more of a hard-line stance against his policies and presidency.
    The communist symbolism and imagery paint a threatening picture of Obama.  The star located at the bottom of the poster mirrors the star on the flag of the former Soviet Union.  An impression of Obama’s face appears in the middle of it, implying that Obama’s policies are centered in communist theory.  Just above, a hand reaches out, encroaching upon the viewer’s space, looking as if it wants to grab you or snatch your possessions.  While the hand is fearful in itself, it’s also a communist symbol. “The working class” or proletariat is the backbone of Marxist theory.  Farmers, factory workers, industrial laborers-- these professions were featured prominently in Soviet art, with the subjects’ hands accentuated.  Also a symbol in socialist theory-- the hand represented the five “classes” of a socialist utopia-- workers, farmers, intellectuals, soldiers, and youth.
    The poster’s style and coloring reflect that of Soviet propaganda posters.  Most of the poster is red, the primary color on the flags of both the Soviet Union and China. The bold lines-- also representative of Soviet art-- give the art an artificial quality, evoking conformity, and the loss of individuality.  The artist plays with another Soviet symbol-- the rising sun, which is depicted at the center of the Soviet crest. The rays beam upward, symbolizing hope and a new day.  Contrastingly, on the poster a black triangular band glares downward, bringing darkness instead of light. Lastly, the artist places a series of trigger words (“liberal,” “progressive,” “communist,” “statism.”) in the background to reinforce the fear seen in the visual elements.  The font of these words is very similar to that seen in soviet art such as this one; it also furthers the theme of conformity, as each letter is barely distinguishable from the next.

One of the subtlest visual elements of the poster is the depiction of Obama’s face within the star, which Maksim has drawn to resemble the famous “Obey Giant.”  In 1989 Stephen Fairey created an abstract picture of Andre the Giant with the phrase “obey” written under it as part of a viral art campaign.  Since then, the Giant has become a worldwide phenomenon, appearing as street art in cities around the world.  Despite the artist’s innocent-- even playful-- intentions, the Giant’s meaning becomes more sinister in this context.  The audience might imagine Obama commanding them to “obey,” causing them to conceptualize him as an authoritarian leader such as Joseph Stalin (in keeping with the communist theme).  Fairey also created the famous “Hope” poster for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. This piece of knowledge adds another layer of meaning to Maksim’s poster.  By using Fairey’s earlier image, the artist drives home the notion that Obama is not the hopeful inspirational leader seen in his campaign poster, but an intimidating authoritarian who wants you to “obey.”

The audience for this poster is already predisposed to have an unfavorable view of Obama.  What the artist seeks to do is elevate the audience’s pessimism to fear by associating him with communism-- more specifically, the Soviet Union-- with the hope that they will be motivated to oppose Obama more vocally or join the Tea Party cause. A viewer’s interpretation might be something like; “Obama will turn this nation into a communist one if I don’t do anything to stop him.”  Maksim’s older audience will remember the fear that infected the American public during the Cold War-- the fear of communism, of the Soviet Union, of state control. He not only revives these fears, but places their source within the U.S. Communism is here, the Soviet Union is here, state control is here--in the form of Barack Obama.

Visual Analysis

The image I will be analyzing is an anti-Obama poster currently being sold on Zazzle.com under the category of “Anti-Obama posters and prints.”  The poster reads, “We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got” and depicts a curled hand reaching towards the audience; just below the hand Obama's face is etched in the center of a star.  The target audience is conservatives who oppose Obama’s political ideology and policies, but who are old enough to remember the Cold War and the threat of communism.  The artist goes by “Maksim” and is a Tea Party sympathizer; the Tea Party is a recent conservative political movement that supports limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets.  Activists have a reputation of presenting extreme and fearful characterizations of Obama at rallies and protests (Obama as the joker, Hitler, etc.)  In the same way, the poster’s artist has painted an insidious portrait of Obama by connecting him to an ideology and form of government once greatly feared in the United States. The poster’s style and symbolism invite the audience to associate Obama with communism, with the intent of filling them dread and motivating them to take more of a hard-line stance against his policies and presidency.
    The communist symbolism and imagery paint a threatening picture of Obama.  The star located at the bottom of the poster mirrors the star on the flag of the former Soviet Union.  An impression of Obama’s face appears in the middle of the star, implying that Obama’s presidency is centered in communist theory.  A hand reaches out, just above the star, encroaching upon the viewer’s space, looking as if it wants to grab you or snatch your possessions.  While the hand is fearful in itself, it is also has communist undertones. “The worker” or proletariat is the backbone of Marxist theory.  Farmers, factory workers, industrial laborers-- these professions were featured prominently in Soviet art, with the subjects’ hands accentuated.  Furthermore, in socialist theory, the hand represents the five “classes” of the socialist utopia-- workers, farmers, intellectuals, soldiers, and youth.
    The poster’s style and coloring reflect that of many Soviet propaganda posters.  The majority of the poster is red, the primary color on the flags of both the Soviet Union and China. The bold lines of the star and the hand are also stylistically representational of Soviet art.  Beyond that, the lines give the art an artificial quality, evoking conformity, and the loss of individuality.  The artist plays with another Soviet symbol-- the rising sun, which is depicted at the center of the Soviet crest. The rays beam upward, symbolizing hope and a new day.  Contrastingly, on the poster, the  black triangular band that serves as the star’s background glares downward, bringing darkness instead of light. Lastly, the artist places a series of fearful words (“liberal,” “progressive,” “communist,” “statism.”) in the background to reinforce the poster’s visual elements.  The font of these words is very similar to that seen in soviet art such as this.

One of the most subtle visual elements of the poster is the depiction of Obama’s face within the star.  The artist has drawn Obama’s face to resemble the famous “Obey Giant.”  The Created by artist, Shepard Fairey, the “Obey giant” is an abstract picture of Andre the giant with the phrase “obey” written under it. Since its creation, the giant has become a worldwide phenomenon, appearing as street art in cities around the world.  Despite its innocent-- even playful-- origins, when applied in this context, the reference takes on a more sinister meaning.  The audience imagines Obama commanding us to “obey,” causing them to conceptualize him as an authoritarian leader such as Joseph Stalin (in keeping with the communist theme).  Fairey also created the famous “Hope” poster for Obama’s 2008 campaign. This piece of knowledge causes the poster to take on another layer of meaning.  By using Fairey’s earlier image, the artist drives home the notion that Obama is not the hopeful inspirational leader seen in his campaign poster, but an intimidating authoritarian one who wants you to “obey.”

The audience for this poster is already predisposed to have an unfavorable view of Obama.  What the artist seeks to do is elevate the audience’s pessimism to fear by associating him with communism-- more specifically, the Soviet Union-- with the hope that they will be motivated to oppose Obama more vocally or join the Tea Party cause. The interpretation that will lead to this behavior is “If we don’t do something about it, Obama will turn this nation into a communist one.”

(Conclusion)

Aristotle and his stereotypes

Reading Aristotle, there are many instances where I will think, “Yes! Aristotle, you are dead on!”  I found his characterization of young men—for instance—while not universally true, to be a fairly accurate portrait.  It’s fascinating how, even though he was writing over 2000 years ago and within a different culture, so many of his observations about people still hold a lot of truth.  Whether this speaks to the universality of human nature or to the similarities between Greek and Western culture—I’m not one to say.  It’s probably a mix of both.

However, there are instances when reading Aristotle that I have thought, “Hmm that doesn’t ring as true.”  I thought this when reading his characterization of the powerful man. He writes about the effect that power can have on men: “It does indeed make men more supercilious and more reckless; but there is one excellent quality that goes with it—piety and respect for the divine power, in which they believe because of events that are really the result of chance.”  I don’t think this is the case today.  I would guess that the powerful in America (politicians, CEOs, etc.) have more faith in their abilities and will power than divine providence.  This is probably a result of a difference in culture.  Greek mythology portrays the gods as capricious and unpredictable, tampering with humanity based on whims.  It wasn’t necessarily a given that, if you displayed good character and leadership, the gods would reward you accordingly.  Therefore, it is easy to understand how if a Greek man were to achieve a position of power, he would believe the result of divine favor and display more piety than the average joe in order to maintain that divine favor.

Aristotle provides these classifications to instruct rhetors on how to speak to their audience. Sometimes I think they are more of an exercise in psychology than rhetoric.  His descriptions provide glimpses into certain people’s character. But certainly these observations would only be so helpful when speaking to an audience that may have included many of these classifications.  Today, audiences require far more nuanced classifications.  Even if you were to say, “Okay, my audience is young,” there are a host of other factors you will need to consider before you can speak to them effectively. What socioeconomic class are they? What race? Religious belief?