Cultural Studies

The cultural studies perspective really caught my attention as something to discuss. The part that intersests me is the viewing of various forms of media within a given culture that communicate power. In a way this perspective is similar to the social constructive model in that it focuses on cultures as wholes. However the social constructive model does not put the emphasis on power structure. You can look at various examples in the media here in America.
In order to have this perspective be effective the media forms have to be persuasive. Most of the time with television here in America there are some very suggestive media forms especially on television. Women are depicted on American telivision and other media forms as having a certain look. Through the writing and persuasive aspects of these media forms, women now feel pressure to look a certain way. While this is not a huge form of oppression, it tells you just how powerful certain media forms can be in looking at them through the cultural studies perspective.

The Pragmatic Perspective

I think the pragmatic perspective is a good way to look at the process of communication as a whole. Communication does happen in patterns depending on who you deal with. It also follows patterns based on venues and conditions. Unlike the social construct model, the pragmatic model focuses on the individual and the patterns or games one individual goes through to acheive successful communication. I find this to be very true in certian situations in my life.
There is a difference in the way you act from person to person or place to place given certain situations. I find that when I hang out with certain friends I tend to mimic their laugh or use phrases that they use outside of phrases I would use with others. I also communicate differently in the classroom than I would at work or hanging out with my friends. This is how the process turns into a game. As the players you interact with change, so does the type of communication that goes on. You just have to be aware of this when you are communicating and changing settings.

The Social Constructionist Perspective

Within a community or culture people are exposed to people that deal with the same surroundings and conditions. These surroundings and conditions vary from culture to culture and create foundations that these cultures live by. These foundations are made up of the four elements of the social constructionist perspective: symbolic codes, cognitive customs, cultural traditions, and sets of roles and rules. In a general American social construction there are ways to explain these elements that may not exist in other cultures.
In America there is very much an emphasis on wealth as a way to communicate how successful an individual is. Americans are exposed to this in all elements of the social constructionist perspective. In other cultures the idea of success as communicated through the elements of social constructionism are very much different. In many cultures a person's success in life may be communicated through their spirituality. Many Muslim cultures take religion as first priority and the citizens of these cultures are very much exposed to this through the four elements of social constructionism.
These are just very general ways to look at very large cultures that may have many contradicting sub cultures. It can be argued that lack of either of these elements in their assigned culture may communicate a general message of unsuccessfulness.

Being an Orator and Morality

Some questions come to mind when associating an orator as a individual with good morals. This brings me directly to the textbook and the reference to the "plain" style. Trenholm (2008) describes the plain style as "built ethos by convincing the audience of the speaker's good character, good sense, and trustworthiness". This description of speaking backs the claim that an orator is morally good, but questions come to mind when discussing the "middle" style.
"The middle style emphasized logos by impressing the audience with the soundness of the speaker's position; it consisted of intricate argumentation and careful philosophical distictions. (Trenholm, 2008)" This is where the questioning starts to come. If an individual with bad morals wants to convey their point all they have to do is back their arguments with good points and use a strategy that can disguise the negative parts of their attempt to persuade. The vigorous style can do an even better job of this.
The vigorous style involves the middle position and adds emotion to that formula. Once you do this it is even easier to sway a crowd to your favor. The point is that the better a orator that one individual is, the more they can be influental whether their morals are good or bad.

Chapter 1

A speaker I admire is the one who got me into communication and made me decide to major in the field. He was my professor when i went to West Valley college and his name was Paul Sanders. It is not that he spoke all of the time in our class, that was the students' job. His examples for the class showed his ability to use ethos and pathos. Not only was his personal character very easy to watch, he made the class laugh and provoked emotion. This helped me to find my own qualities when speaking.
I think my speaking style relies on logos and ethos. I rely heavily on my sources and try to create credibility. I am also able to back my arguments by the way I strategize and structure my arguments. I think a mixture of Aristotle's ideas can work to describe anyone's speaking style including my own. I believe a mixture of all styles would be the most effective way to communicate and be convincing.