It seems like almost everybody today is advocating for or against something. And why not? We are arguably more aware citizens, and we have more access to information. We can see the social and economic and environmental injustices and we can start campaigns and social movements to try and advocate for policy change, raising awareness, a change in practice or a course of action, etc. I was reading some more of my friend Robert Cox's book Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere and in his chapter "Advocacy campaigns and message constructions" he talks about the importance of a campaign's message- the critical construction and diction. Cox states “A message is a phrase or sentence that concisely expresses a campaign’s objectives and the values at stake in the decision ...Short, compelling, and memorable; it accompanies all of a campaign’s communication materials (241). He goes on to say that in an advocacy campaign, messages "provide a frame for audiences’ understanding and reception of the details of its other informational materials. In developing such messages, campaigns often attempt to identify values and language that resonate with their base and persuadables- those sympathetic to their objectives but undecided” (241).
Similar to a PR slogan for a political campaign, some environmental advocacy campaigns will have a more rhetorical messages than others. The message is constructed to not be the complete communication of the campaign, but serves a variety of other purposes. The message allows for the campaigns exposure and recognition of the issues the campaign is dealing with. A really well constructed and worded message might seek to strike an emotional chord with the viewing public while asking for a direct and specific action to be taken. This involves incorporating persuasion techniques and carefully selection diction, such as value loaded words and phrases.
For some reason the best exemplifying advocacy campaign message that I can think of when reading Cox's description of a message, is "Vote or Die" which is the campaign message of P. Diddy's Citizen Change. The Citizen Change campaign wanted to encourage young people to vote. The message, "Vote or Die" is simple, it calls to attention the campaign's values, it is compelling, memorable, and dramatic. It also creates a division of choice of stakes, one can either "vote" or one can "die". The slogan demands action and raises awareness at the same time.
A core part of analysis is supporting your statements with proofs that can win over people who might not agree with you, or at least give them food for thought. I do not fully understand the Citizen Change example. Why do you find it compelling? What values are communicated by the "die" framing? What does it raise awareness about? It seems that the "die" framing could be linked to apocalyptic narratives that many of your peers believe disengage rather than engage potential participants. How is this example different?
ReplyDeleteThe main thing I find compelling about the "Vote or Die" slogan is how memorable and how popular it became, being talked about everywhere from on the news, to late night talk shows,to print, and even being mocked by South Park. I think a large part of its success is due to the celebrity surrounding it attained. "Vote or Die" is a ridiculous slogan, and there is a semi-apocalyptic narrative within it. I believe that the idea behind it was more the Darwinian concept of evolution. Citizen Change, the name seeks to have people change their behavior, to adapt to the present. I think then "Vote or Die" seeks to be like "sink or swim". I think it was more effective than most campaigns due to its media presence, how hard it was pushed, and it's celebrity culture. Tt was seen as cool at the time and thus became widespread within our culture.
ReplyDelete