Restaurants

     This week in class we discussed the rhetoric of restaurants. I had never really thought about this much before, but once we discussed it I started noticing in more and more. I had always noticed that nicer restaurants have lower lighting and that they go out of their way to help you. I hadn’t really paid much attention to the rhetoric of other restaurants though. I have started noticing the rhetoric in smaller fast food places. I have noticed that in fast food restaurants there is less seating and bright lights. They are not encouraging you to stay and eat there, but would rather you take your food and leave. Their goal is to get as many people in and out with their food as possible. If people don’t stay and linger they have more room for more people and can sell more food. Food is not an “experience” at fast food places, but rather what you are picking up on your way to something else. Also, I have noticed that you are often being rushed at fast food places. You are expected to know exactly what you want when you get up to the counter to order. When thinking about the rhetoric of restaurants I thought of the restaurants at the Union. Whenever I have gotten anything from the Chick-fil-a or Wendy’s in the Union, I am rushed through so quickly that I am not sure if I have all the food that I am suppose to plus my correct change back at the end. These places must rush to be able to effectively feed everyone in line, but their goal is definitely quantity. You definitely do not have time to stand at the counter and look at the signs to decide what you want. The rhetoric of the restaurants in the Union is sending the message that its purpose is to sell food, and that is all.

Presenting Arguments and Weight Watchers

     For this week’s reading in Everything’s An Argument we read about presenting arguments. It talked about different colors, fonts, text size, and other visual arguments used. This made me think about how these different strategies are used in the food industry. I see them used especially on packaged food. The Weight Watchers food is a good example. When you are strolling down the frozen food aisle in the grocery store and see the section of bright red boxes, you know that that is the Smart Ones section. I was wondering though, how many people associate Smart Ones with Weight Watchers, if they are not in or have previously been in the program. When you look at the box the words Weight Watchers are printed in very small type at the top of the box. The points are printed rather large, but the majority of what the costumer sees is the food and the words Smart Ones. The way that their argument is presented tries to get away from any stigma that “diet” foods are gross or different. They use the bright red color to jump out at the consumer and make them want to look at the Smart Ones over the other frozen dinners. The pictures of the food on the front are always in vivid colors that make them look delicious. Even the diction used makes the food sound gourmet by using names for the food that sound like they have come from a five star restaurant. The Smart Ones boxes are smaller than the other frozen dinner boxes, but the consumer doesn’t notice because the pictures of the food on the box make it look like you are getting a large portion. All of the different tools that Weight Watchers use contribute to the consumer choosing Smart Ones over any other frozen dinner on the same aisle. 

Visual Rhetoric in The Biggest Loser

     This week in Everything’s an Argument we read about visual arguments. In trying to connect this with the obesity epidemic, I thought of the t.v. show The Biggest Loser. In the show they do weigh-ins every week to see how much they have lost, and on the finale they show before and after pictures from their time on the show. I have noticed that visual rhetoric plays an important role in this show. In the first weigh in the women contestants wear sports bras and big, baggy shorts. The unflattering clothes they are asked to wear accentuate the fact that they are not skinny. In the final weigh in the women wear longer spandex-like shirts, and tight short that go to their knees that hide any flaws that might still remain. The clothes they wear at the end help them to show off their new bodies while helping cover up anything else that they may not want everyone watching the show to see. This visual rhetoric plays many roles in The Biggest Loser. One role it plays is that the producers want the before and after to be as much of an extreme difference as possible. The more of a change there is the better it makes the show look. Another role that it plays is that it makes the contestants feel great about how much weight they have lost by showing them in clothes that make them look good. In The Biggest Loser the contestants work very hard and deserve to look great in the finale, because they have lost a lot of weight. The clothes that they are dressed in do play a big role in how great they look though. The visual rhetoric in the show accentuates the bad (at the beginning) and the good (at the end.) 

Humor in Arguments

This week our reading in Everything’s an Argument was about humor in arguments, and in class we have been discussing the obesity epidemic. These two seem like they are hard to connect, since there isn’t a whole lot that is humorous about the obesity epidemic. I quickly thought of commercials for weight loss products though. I know that humor is often times used in commercials. I thought of one commercial in particular that is an advertising Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain bars. It shows people eating cinnamon rolls and donuts, and then shows the food sticking to their body, like fat. It is saying that if you eat the bad foods you will gain weight, but if you eat a Nutri-Grain bar you will not. On page 396 of Everything’s An Argument it say, “Humor can simply make people pay attention or feel good – or make them want to buy stuff or do what others ask.” In this commercial the humor makes the audience pay attention, and tries to make the audience want to buy their product. For the beginning of the commercial, the audience is confused about the point of the commercial, but then the first girl walks way and has cinnamon rolls stuck behind her. This definitely makes the audience pay attention to the commercial and wonder what it is going to be for. Then they show the Nutri-Grain bars, which encourages the audience to want to eat those instead of the donut that will get stuck around their waist. The Kellogg’s company used humor in their commercial to grab the audience’s attention and to make them interested enough in the ad to find out what it is for. It convinces them that the only way that they won’t have breakfast pastries stuck to them is to eat Nutri-Grain bars.Here is a link to a video of the commercial:     http://www.clipland.com/Live/video/4932

Obesity “Epidemic”

This week we talked about the obesity “epidemic” and the stereotypes that come with calling it an epidemic. I think that this links with my last post about definitions. What exactly is the definition of epidemic? According to dictionary.com an epidemic is something  “affecting many persons at one time, and spreading from person to person…” is this what obesity epidemic means? It makes it sound like something that you can catch from someone else. It further shows that what the perceived definition is makes all the difference in the message that something communicates. There are other definitions of epidemic, but I think that this one is the one that people think about when they hear the word. The rhetoric of obesity epidemic is so negative that it makes it almost seem unobtainable to think that it can be changed. I think that there would be many more people who would try to make a change in health issues linked with obesity if it didn’t seem so overwhelming and impossible to change. In chapter 10 of Everything’s An Argument it discusses definitions in casual arguments. It discusses how arguments focus on a very specific form of a definition to convey their message. This is true for “epidemic” because they want you to think of the worst possible connotation.

            MeMe Roth uses very abrasive language to voice her opinion about obesity in America. She attacks people who are overweight, and their choices. In an article that she wrote titled “Lies women tell about their weight,” Roth lays out reasons women say they are overweight, and then writes how they are wrong. Roth uses harsh language in her interviews. This makes the audience feel uncomfortable and mad at her. If she would use kinder language, she might me more likely to empower people to change, instead of just have people mad and questioning her. People would be more likely to see her points and agree with her if she used a less harsh approach. In chapter 10, they also say how when forming an argument people use probable rather than absolute conclusions. MeMe Roth does this by leading you to follow what she is saying and looking at only her side of the argument.

             The way something is presented makes all the difference in how it is perceived. Currently the way the “obesity epidemic” is being presented it makes it seem like it cannot be fixed. I think that it is very important to call attention to the situation, but I think that solutions need to be presented with the problems. They should say this is the problem, and here is how we want to fix it. It seems like the “obesity epidemic” is being talked about everywhere, but where are the solutions?

 

Definitions in the Food World

Chapter 8 discusses definitions and how different each definition can be. This made me begin thinking about eating “titles,” like vegetarian, and what those titles really mean. Especially since we are reading Animal, Vegetable, Miracle and they grow much of their own food, it made me begin to wonder about when people give themselves titles and if they truly act how they say they do. In Animal, Vegetable, Miracle the family does follow the rules that they have laid out, but many people who claim to eat only organically, or only to eat only certain things may not always follow the “titles” they give themselves. This is because everyone sets his or her own definitions. If someone says that they “don’t eat meat,” you usually need them to go into more detail. Do the not eat any meat at all ever, do they not eat meat most of the time, do they not eat red meat, there could be many definitions to this. Many “titles” of eating do not have a formal definition that applies to everyone. I think the best way to define what you eat or don’t eat is by using definitions by example. That way you can say, “I eat this and this.” or “I do not eat this and this.”

The food world is ruled by its definitions. Organic, fresh, homegrown, do any of these have actual formal definitions? If I buy two separate organic tomatoes, were they grown using the same guidelines? Also, if the vegetables I buy say “fresh” above them at the grocery store, does that mean they were put out this morning, or three days ago? I think that the food world is lacking in a set of definitions that clearly defines to the consumer what it means. 

Visual Arguments and King Corn

            In Chapter 14 of Everything’s an Argument it discusses the power of visual arguments. In King Corn they use visual imagery to make their argument about corn.  Everything’s and Argument writes, “Images make arguments of their own. A photograph, for example, isn’t a faithful representation of reality; it’s reality shaped by the photographer’s point of view.” I thought that this was very interesting, because you could take the images from King Corn and add a different narration to it and it could be a video about how the corn industry is thriving and the best it has ever been. Just by changing the point of view of the narrator, the meaning of the image changes instantly.

            One image that especially stands out to me is the image of the man with his hand inside of the cow’s stomach. I never knew about grass fed or corn fed cows, and that image really showed what was going on with corn fed cows. It was a very uncomfortable part of the movie, but I think that that is what it was meant to be. They must have accomplished what they wanted to because I did remember that part of the movie, and what it was meant to convey.

            Another image of the movie that I remember was the image of them tasting their corn and then spitting it out. They had just picked the corn from the stalk, which should mean that it is ready to be eaten, but instead they tasted it and spit it out because it was so bad. This image really stuck with me because I didn’t know that corn is being made now that has to be processed before it can be eaten.

            Powerful images were a huge part of King Corn, by showing their audience the images behind the facts.

Chapter 6 Toulmin Argument

Claim: Corn is going into everything, which is causing an obesity epidemic in America. Because calories are becoming cheaper, we are consuming more.

 Grounds: 3 of every 5 Americans is overweight, 1 out of every 5 is obese, since 1977, Americans daily intake of calories has jumped by more than 10%, UN reported that in 2000 people suffering from over nutrition (1 billion) outnumbered the people suffering from under nutrition (800 million)

 Warrant: Now that calories are much cheaper it encourages people to “supersize” and buy the cheap unhealthy food over the healthy expensive food.

 Backing: One dollar can buy 1,200 calories of chips and cookies, but only 250 calories of carrots. People would rather feel like they are getting a good deal, rather than feeling like they have spent too much money.

 Qualifier: People don’t want to spend a lot of money to get a little food, so people are going to continue buying junk food unless the price of healthier food decreases.

 Rebuttal: McDonald’s sells more French fries by having the Supersize option, because people would rather buy one giant serving of fries instead of 3 small servings. This is good for McDonald’s, but is it good for anyone else?

Whole Foods

  The key word that comes to mind when I walked into Whole Foods is fresh. They pride themselves on having fresh ingredients and fresh products. In Whole Foods, you don’t buy jars of dried herbs, you buy only the amount you need for what you are cooking and you get it fresh, not in a jar that has been sitting around for a while. Everywhere you turn inside you will see fresh items, from the huge produce area, to the freshly baked breads, and wonderful desserts.  Also, inside Whole Foods, everything seems to be on a grand scale. The bread, cheese, wine, dessert, and produce sections are all much larger than you would find at a normal grocery store. This means there are more choices so that you can choose exactly what you want to eat.   The prices are also “grander” in Whole Foods. Having all the specialty items and choices means that you will pay more for the special, and unique items they carry. This means that there is a certain type of costumer that is able to shop there. I saw several different ages shopping. Parents with young families are very concerned with feeding their children healthy products that don’t have extra preservatives or chemicals in them. I saw many parents shopping with their kids.        I think that the argument that Whole Foods is trying to make throughout their store is that their products are worth it. They want you to feel that going out of your way to go to a Whole Foods and paying higher prices is worth it to get “healthier” or “organic” products.  I think that I was most impressed with all of the choices and colors. When you walk in the door you immediately see all of the colors of food and produce and all of the choices that you have to shop from.  Here is a video that a man in Dallas took of the Whole Foods market there. It is not in Austin, but it gives you the same feel of how big it is, and the colors you seen in a Whole Foods Market.  

Chapter 1 and Hot Pockets

In Chapter 1 of Everything’s an Argument it says “reports typically aim to persuade readers rather than to win out over opponents.” An example of this is Jim Gaffigan’s routine about Hot Pockets. He is not trying to persuade us to buy a different product, but he is telling us how disgusting Hot Pockets are. He uses sarcasm, comedy, and an appeal to the average person to argue his point. When he talks about Hot Pockets being either ice cold, or boiling hot in middle, the audience laughs because everyone has had that happen to them before, this helps him to get the audience to agree with his point.   

                    

  Other foods make arguments, just like Hot Pockets do. On the macaroni  and cheese box they now have a microwave option. They are arguing that if the stove take too long for you, then you now have the option to microwave your mac and cheese. This is an example of pathos. Pathos is the appeal to emotion. Many products use pathos to appeal to their consumer. On the macaroni box, they appeal to people who are short on time, but on the 1oo calorie pack snacks they appeal to people want to watch what they eat. Many times products will print a story on the box, like someone who had trouble with dieting, and then started eating that product, and are now losing weight. This is pathos, they are showing you the story to play on your emotions and to make you think that you can do the same thing. They are making the connection between their product and your personal life.

Pathos can also be used through photographs. In chapter 2, the book talks about how photographs can add a lot of power to an argument.  On packaging for weight loss products, they always show a person holding up their old jeans showing how much weight they have lost by using that product. This gets to they consumer’s emotion much more quickly than if the packaging had just written about the person. The photographs are very effective pathos because it is very fast, and you understand with just a glance.