Concept of Context

I found the concept of context interesting. I would like to review this concept with my own experiences as a speaker. To address the concept of context, I have had the opportunity to speak to classrooms as well as a graduation. Not only was the audience different, the occasions differed as well as the message. When I am speaking to a classroom it is a small and contained. I can speak in a normal tone and the audience is there to gather information about the topic of the workshop. At the graduation the forum was open and outside with approximately 1500 people in attendance compared to 50 in the classroom. I had to speak through a microphone which meant I had to control my vocal tone and I knew it was being videotaped. Those in attendance at the graduation were there for a celebration so the message was that of pride, encouragement, and success.

Well Known Speaker - Dr. Martin Luther Jr.

The well-known speaker that I would like to consider is Dr. Martin Luther King. In my opinion Dr. King’s strongest characteristic as a speaker was the influence he had on public opinion. He also had credibility not only with his parishioners but the public in his plight for equality. As for attractiveness, yes he was an attractive man, which made it easier for people to acknowledge and pay attention to his message which attributes to his effectiveness as a speaker. In my opinion Dr. King demonstrated a power of not giving up and a determination that he recognized may not happen in his lifetime but would one day become reality of equality for all not based on race or gender. Of the three characteristics, credibility, attractiveness, and power; I believe that the strongest characteristic, if I had to choose one, would be credibility. I believe this because of the values that he demonstrated not only in his speeches but in his actions with the public. In my opinion Dr. King did not need to build ethos with regards to credibility, attractiveness, or power. This is probably why he is known as one of the greatest civil rights speakers.

The Good and The Bad Speakers

I really haven’t witnessed a famous person speaking in person. I have however, watched several speeches on television. The most recent is the President of the United States, Barack Obama. I want to describe the surroundings in which I viewed his inaugural speech. It was a big auditorium; all of the audience members were excited about this event. So the mood of the audience I was in was something I hadn’t experienced. There was something in the air that day that I just can’t describe. It was somewhat of a combination of excitement, hope, relief, and openness of what was to come. The theme of Obama’s campaign was “Change” and we were already for change and this allowed him to build community with his audience. Listening to him speak, I realized that he is a peoples president. He speaks in terms that all of his audience can comprehend which fit the occasion. I am not sure if was the atmosphere, the occasion, or actually witnessing this part of history and the words spoke from this man who is the first minority president to lead our country. I believe they are all factors because I believe I will remember this for the rest of my life.

I viewed a televised sermon from Evangelist preacher Rick Warren. I believe that it is important to mention the sermons are meant to be viewed for television. For those of you who have never heard of him let me give you a little insight. His theology is very anti-gay and last year it came out that he had engaged in asking for sexual favors from a male parishioner as well as purchasing crack cocaine. I knew this before I viewed one of his sermons. My own personal judgment had been made before I even heard him speak, my attitude, beliefs, and values that I had were a major factor of my impression of his sermon. The audience-speaker relationship had already been compromised. I also have to factor in that his sermon was filmed before all of this came out in the media. His sermon was one of the most longest and hard to endure that I have ever watched. Nothing he said made me change my views but it did make me question religion. I kept thinking what a hypocrite as I watched and listened.

Social Constructionist again

I really feel like I have to comment again on the social constructionist. I really had a hard time grasping this concept but after reading all of the posts I really feel that I have a better understanding of the concept. I have to say I am intrigued by this model. I had to remember that this is a model. In, “The Drawbacks of Models” it mentions that these models are incomplete because communication is such a complex process. The other posts helped me understand how different cultures can shape how we interpret the communication. Our beliefs and values are shaped by the communication process, if you think about it begins at a very young age.

Pragmatic perspective

The pragmatic perspective makes sense to think of communication as patterned interaction. If I am focusing only on the interaction and each step as a move that will eventually become a pattern it makes me think of how my husband greats me when he gets home from work. The first move is walking in the door and a saying, “I’m home”. I in return say, “Hi, honey how was your day”. I know it sounds corny but this is what we do and it has become a pattern.

I think Trenholm (2008) gave a great example of communication as a game with this example, “One of the factors that makes the game analogy appropriate is the interdependence of game players. Each player is affected by what another player does.” This makes sense to me because my interaction can be based on how those react to my interaction or what we can call a move in the game.

To think of communication different from a game is when we involve all the other aspects of human interaction such as personality and culture. This makes communication more intricate and personalized. The process is not as simple as I make a move you make a move.

Social Constructionist Perspective

After reading the social constructionist perspective its premise is that are world is not built through experiences but through communication. This was really hard for me to grasp because we have our own individual characteristics that make us unique. It reminds me of a saying my professor just used, “You can never walk a mile in another mans shoes”, in other words you can never experience the same thing as anyone else. According to the social constructionist perspective this is not the case.

Trenholm (2008), “According to this perspective, we construct the world through communication”. My interpretation of this statement is that we inherit who we are through past communications that have occurred through generations and we incorporate them into our culture. There is one thing that I can think of that is cultural although I am not sure which side of the family it comes from but when someone comes to visit our home they are always offered food. I didn’t realize that I do this until my husband pointed it out after we went to visit elderly relatives and they had an entire table full of food.

When I think of ideas that we talk about in our culture (American) is freedom. The irony in this statement is that so many of us take it for granted and don’t even realize that our communication would be so different if we were immersed into another culture outside of our country. I believe freedom contributes to both our happiness and success and can also contribute to our failures and sadness.

Interesting Concept from Chapter One

After reading chapter one the concept from the modern period is from the elocutionists. There study focused on the canon of delivery (Trenholm, p. 11). The vocal characteristics and gestures that appear during emotion states were exaggerated. If you didn't check out the figure on pg. 12 titled An Elocutionary Approach to the Use of "Gestures, you should. You can see the dramatization of gestures that are suppose to show an emotion in a natural state which it does not. These nonverbal behaviors were so unrealistic that it gave oral communications a bad name (Trenholm, p. 11). I can see how these writings and diagrams were disregarded, I found myself laughing as I was reading them. The elocutionists approach was suppose to (Trenholm, p. 10) "design elaborate systems of instruction to improve speakers' verbal and nonverbal presentations" but they went a little to far.

Orator - Morally Good?

I really don't agree that in order to be an orator, an individual has to morally good. An orator is considered an exceptional speaker. In this case, history has heard many great speeches that have come from many individuals that were not morally good. One that I can think of is Adolf Hitler. One of the reasons so many people followed and believed in what he was saying was because of his speeches. His intentions were morally wrong and genocide occurred. So I cannot agree with the Greeks.

The one connection that I make with the connection of goodness, truth, and public communications comes from Aristotle. Ethos which refers to personal character. An individuals personal character can be destroyed because of evil and lies. In order for an individual to continually maintain personal character they need to demonstrate goodness and truth.

Ethos, Logos, & Pathos

As I read some of the blogs Obama it is evident that he is the man of the hour. I was also going to comment on Obama but I remembered something I learned in grade school. That was the history of one of our former Presidents of the United States, John F. Kennedy. I listened to his inaugural speech from 1961; by the way I wasn’t born yet. Here is a link of the written speech - http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html and here is a link from utube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE0iPY7XGBo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s6U8GActdQ, there are two parts to the speech.

When I listened to the speech I kept in mind the definitions of ethos, logos, and pathos. Aristotle believed that these three ways could sway an audience (Trenholm, 2008). When I apply these to JFK’s inaugural speech I believe that of the three; logos is the most pertinent. This is my opinion because of a statement that has been continually referred to over time and that is, “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country” (Bartleby.com). This single statement from JFK’s inaugural speech meant more than just words.

I also believe that ethos and pathos were major factors as well. It is my understanding that the Kennedy name itself exemplified a strong and trustworthy personal character. I have heard JFK was a people’s President and from this pathos is applied. His inaugural speech stimulated the emotion in the crowd. Aristotle’s classification scheme did work for JFK.
The personal quality that I have that makes me persuasive regarding Aristotle’s classification scheme is pathos. I have the ability to get the audience emotionally intrigued. Although I have been told that some of the sayings that I use stay with my audience and are reiterated in their own persuasive interactions, which in turn would be the usage of logos.