Response to Rochelle's Question #1 for 09/11/2009

A distinction can be made between verbal and nonverbal characteristics of communication and, because of this distinction, we can also examine how human communication is purposeful and full of meaning. I feel that the verbal characteristics of communication are always purposeful because for the most part we have full control over what we express verbally. Woodward and Denton state “we select our verbal behaviors largely based on interactions that were successful in the past," meaning through our lived experience we come to know the appropriate ways to communicate verbally. We adjust our speech according to our context and this adjustment is completely determined by an internal selection and interpretation process. Woodward and Denton also state "both nonverbal and verbal messages are arbitrary; they are formed as a result of social interaction," meaning that the unintentionality and randomness appears as a result of different socialization. Where purposefulness can be questioned would be in nonverbal communication because sometimes we are not aware of our own nonverbal cues especially when nonverbal behaviors contradict our verbal messaging. Still, nonverbal communication can also be controlled to the point that it can be defined as brin part of a purposeful selection process.

Response to Ryan's Question #2 for 30/11/2009

Woodward and Denton state that ethical principles and standards "are rules of conduct derived from a culture's ethical values," and these ethical values are decided upon collectively within a culture and greater society. Therefore it would seem fit that what is worthy of admiration in one culture might not be worthy in another based solely on the differences that can exist between two cultures. The accepted code of conduct and morality of one culture does not readily describe that of another culture. In our class discussion on Monday 30 November we discussed the lived reality that forms our perceptions of right and wrong. In addition, these perceptions ultimately have a lot to do with our socialization into a given culture. A common example for the “what is right or wrong” debate is religion. Religion is something we are socialized into and very often it has strong ties to ones culture, and while one religion might be right for one person that does not ensure that another person will also find truth in it or find it morally admirable. Personally, I will never view anything as being both worthy of admiration and wrong because through my own discerning I have come to the conclusion that something is admirable therefore making it right in my eyes. If I’m able to discern what is right or wrong then I can decide to act upon either one, I am fully conscious of choosing to back right or wrong. In addition, my ability to discern does not necessarily mean that I will always do what is right in another's eyes. I am a strong believer in "each to their own" so using the example of the child soldiers I believe that they are socialized into believing something to be correct and simply because their ethics do not coincide with my own, it does not mean that they are wrong.

Persuasion in Consumption

I might be reading too much into Seattle’s café culture but while sitting at Caffe Vita I could not help but think about the implications of sitting at Vita over sitting at a Starbucks. Vita and other cafés like it are selling more than coffee; they’re selling an identity that counters the, arguably, corporate, average, and boring image of major coffee chains. In terms of cultural frames, the frames in which “individuals become acquainted with the meanings of objects through a society’s culture and custom,” there seems to be a tension between the “totemic” frame and the “mise-en-scène” frame. Drinking coffee and spending time at local coffee houses carries connotations of membership in a certain group living out a certain lifestyle. However, the members of this larger social group try to hold on to their self-identity and the idea that their participation in Seattle’s coffee culture does not hinder their individuality. In order to work within these frames, any advertising done at Vita needs to be subtle, there is an understanding that they are trying to sell you coffee and other products but you’re not bombarded by it. Merchandise is on display but price tags are small, understated signs remind the socially-conscious customer that Vita buys directly from farms and the recognized Fair Trade Certified symbol is stamped on some products; a large window also lets the customer look into the backroom where coffee is roasted and packaged ensuring them that they are buying local, also the baristas are not dressed in uniforms which also speaks to a commitment to individuality.

The advertising employed at Caffe Vita locations speak to the audience they are targeting because it does not appear packaged for a mass audience; it is promoted as unique and local. The Seattle café culture and its advertising carries a sense of authenticity making the consumer feel as if they belong but are not necessarily attached to the image being marketed to them. I cannot say that I completely disagree with this tactic because I am sitting here drinking coffee with my laptop open just like every other person here.

Reading Response for 10/19/2009: Low Cred Advocates & Norms

1) In the description of Low Credibility/ High Agreement Persuasion the authors explain that in this situation the audience “fundamentally agrees with the ideas being expressed but has low regard for the advocate.” The strategy of the advocate in this situation would be to identify shared values, experiences, and ideas, but what if the audience does not stick around long enough to take note of the shared values? How often have you been distracted from a message that you might have aligned with on account of your disagreement with the advocate chosen to deliver the message?

2) One of the methods used to identify audience norms is to “predict what the audience thinks based on inferences from demographics.” I do not strongly believe that this means basing audience norms on stereotypes associated with a certain demographic but I do have to question what happens to those people who do not necessarily identify with the norms of their demographical group. Woodward and Denton acknowledge that this might be a small fraction of the larger group but can it be assumed that this fraction will remain under the radar of any advocate’s message? Taking the example provided by the reading, “we could infer that union members share more norms with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party,” this means that a small fraction of union members are not being addressed. Is it possible that some audiences are simply driven to indifference because, one, they do not agree the message that is catered to their demographic and, two, the opposing view does not acknowledge them as part of their audience? In other words, can a fraction of the audience be ignored if they don’t fit into a specific group?