Spiral of Silence

In class we learned about the Spiral of Silence, which says that people won't share their opinions if they are in the minority. It also says that people live in fear of isolating themselves. I agree with this theory. I definitely think people either go with the majority or don't say anything when they're in the minority so they won't cause an argument or debate, or because they're afraid of being judged.

Part of the reason I agree with this is because I consciously do this all the time. I'm always worried about how people perceive me, so most of the time I don't give my opinion. I sit and listen to other people's opinions if they disagree with me and strengthen my opinion because of it. Another reason I do this is because depending on the subject, I'm not always educated enough to have a debate with someone. I feel the way I do just because, facts going one way or the other aren't going to change that.

I think an example of the spiral of silence would be the Holocaust. Hitler was rallying up Jews and other minorities he didn't care for and the rest of the Germans stood and watched, not because they condoned his actions, but because they thought everyone else did. Granted they likely didn't know that he was murdering people, but simply going along with Hitler as he blamed the Jews is an example of this.

Is Violence on TV Bad?

In class we discussed the idea of Cultivation Theory, which basically says that the more violence you watch on TV, the more cynical you are toward the rest of the world. I believe that to an extent. If you're watching the news four or five times a day and they report on murders and fires and drug deals, then yes, you're going to think the world sucks. But if you're watching a million and one cop shows, does that really effect your attitude on the world?

I would argue no. When you're watching a TV show, you know in the back of your mind that it's made up. The characters aren't real, the storyline--while it may be based off real instances--is greatly exaggerated. Was it necessary for that guy to hold everyone hostage in family court? Really? Over child support? Most likely he just shouted a few choice words and stormed out. But TV needs to be enticing so the story lines need to be embellished.

I do agree with this theory when it pertains to kids. That's why I think the violent shows should be on later at night. I remember when I was younger and I watched TGIF, I thought everything that happened in Boy Meets World was true. Granted I was only eight, but just imagine how messed up I would be if I was watching a show like 24 instead? With that being said, there is a definite distinction to what adults know is false and what kids think is real. Adults know that TV focuses on the bad parts of life for drama and a good plot, while kids haven't seen the world that much to know that distinction.

Dramatism

Kenneth Burke's view of the world as "Life is drama, everyone has their own story" is a great concept. Everyone has their own history, nobody's is the same. Take a look at how many movies or books are "Based off a true story." Say that and suddenly everybody is more interested. Look at music, songwriters have to draw inspiration for songs from somewhere, so why not look at their own life? Everyone has a story to tell. It may not be the most captivating story, but everyone has one.

In that aspect, I agree with Burke. However, when he says that we're always embarrassed for not having done better, I don't quite agree with that. I think that if people took the time to really sit down and think about their life and the different choices they've made, they might regret a few, but people are too busy to realize where they are in life versus where they could have been. Someone might say, "I wish I would've taken a better job with different hours" but when they think about they might say, "At least this one pays well enough to support my family." It's a give and take. That person might be upset that he didn't take a different job, but he's also satisfied that he can take care of his family.

I think the theory of dramatism fits well as a guideline. I don't think the five elements can be seen in every situation, but I think for the most part they be seen in most stories. Relating people's person lives to a story is what writers and authors do every day. They make an exciting book for someone's life, albeit the characters are usually fiction, but they have to have some sense of realism to make the story believable.

Online Relationships

The age of technology has grown with my generation. I very vaguely remember a time when I didn't have internet. And especially within the last couple of years, online social media such as Facebook have really blown up and become popular. But are relationships that are met and made solely online equivalent to relationships offline? It's one thing if you talk to an old friend online. You know them, your relationship was founded off of a face-to-face meeting. But talking to someone you met online is different. Talking online is the only connection you have to that person. You may not know what they look like, sound like, or even if they're who they say they are.

A family friend of ours met someone on Facebook and they started dating. I think during the whole time they dated they saw each other in person maybe three or four times, however they talked on the phone every night. They were together for six months, and then they got engaged. Shortly after getting engaged, our friend called this guy and a woman answered the phone. They compared notes and found out that he was engaged to them both and didn't tell either of them about the other one. Needless to say that relationship ended quick. Then she found someone else, also on Facebook, and after dating for several months they got married just a couple of weeks ago. Not only do her friends not have a lot of faith in this relationship because it was so fast, but also because she met him on a Facebook game called Vampire Wars or something. To me, a relationship that was founded online is usually superficial and takes a lot of work offline for it to mean anything more than that, especially a romantic relationship.

Another thing about online friends is that you tend to care less about them. Sure they're a stranger to vent to, share an interest with, or just to talk whenever you're bored, but because you don't see them face-to-face it's almost like they're imaginary and therefore insignificant. For all you know, it could be a computer-generated message that you're having an online relationship with.

Post 1

To be honest, I am a little confused in this class. All the different theories are confusing to remember. The definitions of the theories are wordy and I need to decode the definitions before I can understand the theory. However, what I did understand was the difference between rhetorical tradition and critical tradition. Maybe the reason I understood was because there were concrete examples to base each definition off of.

I agree with what we learned and I definitely think there is a difference between rhetorical tradition and critical tradition. Some people are more "numbers-numbers-numbers" others are more creative and expressive. With that, we've evolved this idea to relate to people in general. Those who go with the critical tradition are seen as "OCD" while those who go with the rhetorical tradition are more "go with the flow."

As with anything, things can be interpreted in a number of different ways, but I think that these two are the main groups and everything else would be a subgroup of these. Any theory can be applied to any text in pop culture, any person, anything, or really any culture. It's all in people's perspectives and how they see and analyze things.