Consumerist trends have become the hot topic of American discussion the past few years. The most prominent name being the Occupy movement. Unless you live free of all media consumption and seldom the public, it is unlikely you're unfamiliar with this form of protest. In order to gain recognition and raise awareness, these advocates have blockaded the inner streets of most major U.S. cities. Unfortunately, most of the attention has been drawn away from the message at hand and been directed, in large part by media coverage, to the police violence against peaceful protesters.
To continue their message off the streets, the 99% have developed a website covering an array of topics, one article in particular named “Is Consumerism Killing Creativity?” became the center of discussion for my media analysis.
The article goes on to conclude that excess stifles creative, whereas shortage can spur it. They claim that many successful entrepreneurs came from shortcomings and developed a creative nature to make a sustainable living. Basically, when you have to make do to get by, you get creative with your limited resources (Glei, 2012).
This picture carries a greater message that provides a persuasive context. The artist isn't just using contrast for visual appeal, but wants the readers to relate it back to the context of the article. Considering the article admonishes the cons of consumerism and emphasizes the pros of minimalism, what is it this picture is implying? It has a context based on website position alone. This is also where you'll identify ethos, or the ethical appeal of the author. This individual author may hold credibility with his audience because of his association with the occupy movement. Considering the large fame the movement now carries, his work has a credibility just by association to the cause and placement on their website. In some contexts, this could make his persuasion more believable from notoriety alone.
From a personal perspective, I think it says we are unconscious consumers living entirely unaware to the brainwashing of our society. I think it means we put our life into the desire and possession of material goods. Our happiness is reliant on our status, not personal experience or enjoyment with others. We define ourselves by what we own and this picture is calling us out.
From a rhetorical point, this picture is trying to persuade us away from consumerist behavior. In a way, it is suggesting you won't come alive until you change this habit. This is where logos and pathos are most easily identifiable. The website is constructed around portraying the “dangers” of mass consumerism, which plays largely on logos, or reasoning. Their intent is to educate and thereby persuade the audience to change their habits with logical reasoning. Pathos, or emotional appeal, however, is used by the removal of the heads from the bodies. This physical removal suggests that we are essentially the walking dead, zombies to the pitfalls of consumerism. Any individual should have some emotional concern if their life is associated with aimlessness and uselessness, as this photo implies.
Exigence begins by identifying a problem, something to be overcome. What is the adversary in this picture? Mass consumerism. But why, what negative impact could it have on society? Based on your ideology, this could result in an assortment of responses. While there is no golden ticker answer, there is a perspective offered from the minimalist stand-point. They stress that technological advancement has surpassed it's warrant and pervaded every aspect of human nature, past what is necessity into a deficit. Humans have become entirely removed from nature. We no longer grow or catch our own food, exert little effort to go from location to location, spend frivolously, and in the end are no happier with our new possessions than we were without them. This has resulted in obesity, shortened attention span, laziness, and depression. There is an obvious need for awakening amongst the general population so they too do not become victims of circumstance. We don't want to become a society of isolated, incompetent human beings incapable of even the most mundane tasks.
The second aspect after addressing exigency, is audience. When viewing a picture of this nature, what can an audience member do with the rhetorical message? Initially, accept or reject it. If the member decides to adopt it, how can they work out the implications? In this case, they would first have to readjust their value perspectives scale from a consumerist set to a spend thrift mindset. This would require a life adjustment, as spending less is substantially more challenging than one would think. You'd have to no longer impulse buy, but put conscience time and effort into your purchases. This isn't a call to completely cut yourself off from buying, but rather to transfer your mind over to a less is more perspective. This means buying really only what you need and truly desire, not just because it's there. This pivotal point in the message will be the make or break point for the vast majority of the audience. In other words, do they buy into it?
Also, which audience is the artist trying to address with this style of picture? Personally, I would say a young, somewhat activist crowd which tends to range from 20-35, during young adult educational and early career phases. The design is similar to what you would see by Mac products or similar modern brands. Most members participating in the Occupy movement are relatively young, though this clearly only relates to the majority, as there are a minority of all age members. Unfortunately, the design is also confined to the “special interests” section of this particular website. It is highly unlikely that those outside of the given reference frame will ever come across the picture.
This is also where constraints would come into play. A limited audience is a constraint. Limited viewers are constraints to a message. Not only are there constraints from underexposure, there are constraints of values, beliefs, and perceptions. First, anyone in protest to the Occupy movement would unlikely be on the site to begin with. If someone in opposition did happen to review the site, what do you think their perception would be of this image? If they happen to support a capitalist system and believe it is the most respectable form of economy, then they would clearly disagree with this message. Some individuals see purchasing as a virtue that keeps businesses going and people employed. Is there anything wrong with that viewpoint? They may also disagree that they are mindless consumers. They may claim to be well aware of their behaviors and see no wrong doing in it. If purchases give a person pleasure and happiness, is that wrong?
Other constraints? Age limitations could be an interference. Some viewers too young may not yet grasp the concepts within consumerism, as well as older generations might not be able to interpret the image. To children, these may just be headless people with no distinct purpose. Misinterpretation is always a possible constraint with personal interpretation.
Overall though, an educated audience on current events, especially one reading the article, could easily transfer the meaning of this image.
References
Glei, Jocelyn K.(2011). 99%: Insights on making ideas happen
. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from www.the99percent.comCarroll, Lauren B. (2010). Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis. Retrieved