I feel like I've already made this blog post... hmmm...
It never ceases to amaze me how remarkably thoughtless politics often are, considering that if anything should be based solely on rational thought, it should probably be politics. The issue of Massumi dealing with Reagan returns here along with some parallels to Gearge Bush Jr. Much like Massumi, Edbauer is not a fan, and the arguments presented here are similar to Massumi's presentation, although Bush's defects are of a slightly different nature. Instead of the jerks of Reagan, so filled with their infinite potential, we have Bush's incoherence. As Edbauer says, Bush's ability to move his audience is “not in spite of his incoherency, but because of it(32).” It creates a gap, an opening which we bombard with our own thoughts, filling the hole he presents us with whatever material we wish. This affective opening is exploited before our mind even has its say because “the body acts beyond the full control of our cognitive knowledge(26).”
The example is carried away from the Presidential podium when Edbauer gives the example of Pauline Hanson, who allegedly won popularity not through her arguments or ideologies, but through her ability to transmit an affect and evoke the sympathy from her audience. It is a tugging at the heartstrings gone horribly, horribly wrong, but presents us with an interesting variation. Reagan had his jerk. Bush had his incoherency. Hanson has her trembling. All of these politicians functioned according to their transmission of affect, according to Edbauer, and not so much on their actual ideas.
But I do have to wonder how widespread this is... and then I remembered something that had always particularly stood out to me. President Obama is a talented speaker, few will argue with that. He is fully capable of moving a crowd, and definitely lacks the jerks of Reagan or the incoherence of Bush. He does have, however, a bad habit of saying “Umm...” in his speeches. A lot. Umm is a peculiar word in our language. It doesn't really have a meaning – it's a space filler. It exists for the time when the speaker is working to think of what to say, but needs to say SOMETHING to fill the gap. The question here is, could we consider the Umm to function on the same level as the jerks and stumblings of the earlier politicians? Umm creates a space in the same way, an interjection for thought into the speech being made. Our reactions to affect are not conscious, they happen because the body simply functions that way and it cannot be helped. We have to remember how batted Obama has been in the wake of his actual election as those who massively inflated their expectations based on what they saw of his speeches later came crashing down.
The difference of course being that Obama is the opposite of incoherent – he is very much capable of expressing his position and the thought behind it in a coherent fashion. Yet I have to wonder if this is simply a flip to the other side of the coin, still affecting the audience, only now affecting the other half that was not moved by Bush's incoherence. Now they are offered gaps of a fundamentally different nature (in addition to the type reasoning being applied, which may adhere more to their standards), while those that previously responded well to Bush are unmoved. Essentially, are the people with square pegs now being offered square holes instead of round ones, while the people who had the round pegs no longer respond due to the square holes?
I think you bring up an interesting point with the concept of the word “umm”. In a way, you could consider umm as a jolt, sort of like the ones Reagan and Bush produced. Umm may not be as intense as Bush’s jerks, but I can see how it could still produce an affect. What is funny though, is that we are taught not to say umm during job interviews. But how can we keep ourselves from doing this when much of the time we say it unconsciously. Even the president can’t stop himself. In all actuality, if umm works in the same way as the jerks of Bush, it may come as an advantage to us in a job interview. If umm jolts the interviewer, he or she may become affected. As we have seen with the power of Bush’s affects, this could produce a better chance of getting the job.
ReplyDeleteYou mention, in the very end of your post, how the same people who responded positively to Bush's incoherence are responding negatively to Obamas "umms". Your square peg/round hole idea really struck a chord for me. I think either way, their is a peak in "intensity" when a speaker abruptly pauses mid-sentence, and the most important thing to note is that we (virtually) all respond Affectively. In Edbauer's words, those who respond with positive affect are feeling a "harmonious" interaction while those who respond with negative affect (or, in our case, laughing their asses off at Bushisms) are experiencing a conflict, one that decomposes, or "takes away" from us. I'm beginning to think this harmonious/disharmonious perspective is more appropriate for bush. We can't really argue that, with bush, it "It creates a gap, an opening which we bombard with our own thoughts, filling the hole he presents us with whatever material we wish". After all, Bush didn't pause just prior to revealing some metaphysical perspective or game-changing information, he faltered with phrases like "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, fool me two" and "in my state of the union address". These aren't really phrases that permit a lot of mid-phrase variation (ex. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, sour gummmy worms").
ReplyDeleteI'm still at a loss, though, to say how people position (or find) themselves to be "round" or "square", harmonious or disharmonious, when there isn't a factual issue at hand, its just Bush Jr struggling to say simple, routine sentences. Why do some laugh (or cry), while others relate and rejoice?
Typo: The actual, expression, now that bush and I have both butchered it, is "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"
ReplyDeleteSorry!
It's all a political thing, as you've mentioned. Depending on what side of the aisle you're on, you're going to respond positively when one of "your people" does something, and then bash "them" when they do the same thing. I don't think "umm" is really as much of a jolt as Bushisms are, simply because your average American doesn't completely butcher the English language but does use "umm" on occasion, or at least "uh...". The reason people are picking on Obama's "umm"s is again simply politics - wherever there's a chance to mock the opposition, it is to be taken, no matter how unimportant it is.
ReplyDeleteIs Obama using the teleprompter less now than he was? I ask because I don't watch enough coverage of anything to know for sure, but that might account for the increase in "umm"s (presumably, the speechwriter isn't including "um" in the speech).
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that most speech quirks, when they go on long enough, become annoying. I have an aunt who only breathes in gasps, for instance, and I don't really notice it until after I've been talking to her for 30 minutes or so... but once I notice it, it begins to drive me nuts. Based on that, I would agree that one's response to a speaker's quirks are based to some extent on the previous relationship. I don't storm away from my aunt in disgust, any more than an Obama or Bush fan would turn their back on their guy.
Suzanne blogged about almost the exact same thing when you talk about Edbauer and Bush. My argument to being able to fill in the gaps for our President was that we may be able to create our own policies and wishes for what is to be said next, but it seems like the role this speaker is taking, being the President, shouldn't be using the rhetorical technique of "creating a gap that we can bombard with our thoughts."
ReplyDeleteThe reason that I'm on this side is because Bush's role as a rhetorician should be to convince us that what he says is legitimate information, not that we should be able to fill in his gaps by being imaginative.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a point that is really interesting, albeit unsurprising, about politicians and affective jolts. Jolts create an open opportunity that can be filled with the thoughts and ideas of a listener. So if you’re a politician, could affective jolts be the key to moving people to vote for you? Perhaps.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how Nemo has explained the difference between square-holed and circle-holed people. Even if politicians don’t express much content when they speak, they represent ideological positions that people will either love or hate. The ideological standing of a listener (rational consciousness) inevitably influences the way he/she is moved by affective jolts (irrational unconsciousness).