If Massumi is anything, he is not a fan of Ronald Regan. He spends the better part of 3 pages tearing into the man with some fairly harsh language, including "idiocy", "unqualified", "incoherent" and many other similar terms. Whether these criticisms are valid or not is difficult to say, and beyond my own skills of analysis. If you presented such an opinion to a general audience it is very likely that their reaction not depend on any evidence, observations or even the way it was presented: it would depend more on the way that they viewed Reagan and reacted to his speeches (on the condition that the audience is old enough to remember Ronald Regan's speeches).
While for those who rely on body language Reagan might have appeared "functionally illiterate" and "hilariously inept"(40), he "operationalized the virtual in modern politics"(41). This view of politics, and indeed this approach to politics in the first place, has had major impact on our modern world. The Presidential Actor has been a strong theme in the last decades. A character from a respectable, but usually not political, background, properly theatrical, with the correct opinions to cater to the crowd. Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Obama. It might be controversial to say, but the tradition possibly extends even farther back than Regan to JFK. These men may have their own individual pedigrees and qualifications, but their trait most marketed is not necessarily their political ability or ideas, but their ability to empathize with the public. Their message is secondary, what is important is their ability to be projected upon. Like TV screens or computer monitors, they display what the viewer wants to see, even if that has little to do with what they actually promise. A recent example of this would be the soaring expectations many had with Obama during his presidential run and the subsequent crash when people discovered that Obama was, in fact, not a wizard capable of making everything better overnight.
The ability for these politicians to receive these expectations and reflect them back to their audience is an art, and one practiced with varying skill by each of them with different degrees of consciousness. For Reagan, according to Massumi, it was the voice that drove home the package deal. Perhaps the same could be said for Obama's voice and, for some, his skin color. These features broadcast their affects just as strongly as any "empathy" or "emotive identification", leaving it to the audience to create their message. This is a style born of the image beamed into our homes, and while for Massumi Reagan might be the ultimate expression of this idea, I would possibly go back even farther to a more competent actor in a pivotal moment: JFK debating Nixon in the first televised Presidential debate. Nixon might have been the consummate politician, masterful at his job, but his ability to make that projection simply lacked compared to JFK. This victory is often attributed to appearance, but could it be possible that appearance has simply become a rationalizing justification to compensate for the fact that JFK was such a better actor than Reagan?
This is a very interesting take on Massumi. I think it is true that the nature of political elections in the US changed drastically with the advent of television, but, specific to affect, television didn't change it that much. A person's voice and words can produce an affect just like body language and delivery and send it out over the radio or in newsprint to the same end. It could be argued that the presidential candidate who empathized with the public more may have won more often than not, but I am in no position to argue that that was or was not the case.
ReplyDeleteWhile he does dump on Reagan, that is not the point of his discussion. He is using, in his mind, a publicly approved figure that seemed to lack traditional modes of persuasion including but not limited to suave delivery and poetic language, but one that got elected. His point as I saw it is that Reagan got elected somehow, and since he lacked many of the traditional qualities, then he had to have something else - namely affective means (40). His dislike of Reagan might even prove his point more, since he is using his story as an example of the power and existence of affect.
I think that television and technology in general have changed the playing field between the message and affect. Before television was invented, presidents would rely on radio to communicate and persuade the audience. Because the public could not physically see the president, the commander had to rely on the content and style of his message to move his audience. But with the invention of television, the American public, for the first time, was able to see the president. Now the presidents could rely on their body language to give off an affect that their audience could see and hopefully adopt. Like Professor Davis said in class, in the case of Reagan, people were affected by his body jerks not his messages. But people still considered him a wonderful speaker. Technology may be the reason why we have seen this cycle, from JFK to Obama, of affect overriding the message to the American public.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to assume you meant Nixon and not Reagan in your last sentence - otherwise, did I miss something?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, what I took from the Massumi article was very similar - it's not necessary to have a presidential pedigree so much as it is necessary to look and act like "the President." There's a reason people who have no real credentials and shoddy arguments (hi Michael Moore!) can still pull in a legion of followers who take their words like scripture, and Massumi made it clear that it's because these people are capable of conveying the image of a strong, intelligent leader through a mix of their body language, "presence," and mindset, regardless of whether or not they're actually qualified to be a leader.
I'm inclined to agree with Donah that the introduction of television has had a massive effect on American politics. I've read that in the first of Nixon and Kennedy's "Great Debates," a person's impression of who had "won" depended on the media that they used. Those who listened to the debate on the radio heard a victory for Nixon. Those who watched it on TV saw a victory for Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteNixon was pale, just out of surgery, ill-dressed, underweight, and had a five-o'clock shadow that he refused to wear tv-makeup for. Additionally, and perhaps of more relevance here, Nixon was "sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma." So perhaps Nixon responded emotionally to Kennedy's outward show of confidence, and it cost him the presidency. In this way, affect could be said to have changed the course of our nation, for better or worse.
I'm not discounting that affect can come across via solely auditory means. It can. I've heard that you can subconsciously recognize minute timbre-changes in someone's voice that are "tell-tale" signs of affective states. They're so subtle you don't realize that you hear them, you just have a gut instinct that that person is angry, happy, trying to hook up, etc. But the visual aspect multiplies the potential for affective transfers. It's as great a leap as you'd have from reading a transcript of the Gettysburg address, versus hearing Lincoln give it.
I also agree with Johnathan that this has seeped into all parts of our social/cultural/political milieu. The projection of being "in control" was what let Enron's house of cards stand as long as it did. The average American isn't as concerned with policy issues as they are with a speaker's charisma, their projection of confidence, their testimony to bring some "hope" and "change". Its just easier for the average person to choose to support a candidate because of these things, because they involve the viewers affects (whose heart doesn't sing at the prospect of some hope and change?). Whereas something like "restructuring the graduated income tax bracket system" or "putting measures in place to combat the military-industrial complex", though they would have serious effects for everyone in this country, just aren't appealing, on an emotional level, to Joe Blow. And without the emotional appeal, as we've learned, there is nothing to drive an action (giving your support, your vote).
edit: Sorry Nemo, misspelled your name.
ReplyDeleteJonathan! (you get a free pass to call me Gordy now)
sEan, I think what Massumi was trying to say is that body language can positively or negatively affect one's message. Therefore, the past few presidents won their presidency because the "theatrical" part of their delivery made their message relatable. For example, Obama was filmed in public playing basketball and dancing. This made American citizens believe that this guy is human, instead of this untouchable and unrelatable idea that some people have about government officials. When he spoke, his speech was smooth and clear. This made citizens believe that he was intelligent and prepared to handle important tasks. I don't think it's about who's the better actor as much as it's about making sure that how one presents one's self sends a clear and understandable message to their audience.
ReplyDelete