Name Calling And Glittering Generality example essay topic
This year's presidential candidates were all millionaires, but they have gone to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. Bill Clinton eats at Mc Donald's and read a variety of spy novels. Bob Dole presents himself as the 'all American boy' from the Heartland. In this two examples the plain folk device is at work.
When either presidential candidates agitates the public's fear of immigration, taxes, or crime and voting for him will reduce the threat he is using the Fear Appeal. By playing on the public's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hopes to redirect the merits of a proposal and towards steps that can be taken to reduce the fear. Propaganda has had a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own development. It has stirred both men and women to unprecedented feats and ruined reputations. What comes to mind when you think of a racist person? I imagine an angry white male with a Ku Ku Klan costume.
I rarely think of the other racists, the African-Americans, the Latino-Americans, the Asian-Americans and the rest of whom believe they are the superior race. Why do people as myself picture this image when we think of a racist person? I'll tell you so, it's because we have been 'trained' to make the presumption racist equals white male in costume. That's the Name Calling device at work! It links a person to a negative idea or symbol. Glittering Generality is in short Name Calling in reverse, while the Name Calling device ties a person to a negative idea, the Glittering Generality technique makes us approve and except something without careful examination.
Since war is especially distasteful, the military is of course full of euphemisms. In the 1940's the US changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense. During the Reason Administration, the MX-Missile, a nuclear weapon, was re-named 'The Peacekeeper'. In conclusion, as Alfred Lee once said, ' Propaganda is opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups... Propaganda thus differs fundamentally from scientific analysis.
The propagandist tries to 'put something across,' good or bad. The scientist does not try to put anything across; he devotes his life to the discovery of new facts and principles. The propagandist seldom wants careful scrutiny and criticism; his object is to bring about a specific action. The scientist, on the other hand, is always prepared for and wants the most careful scrutiny and criticism of his facts and ideas. Science flourishes on criticism. Dangerous propaganda crumbles before it.
' THE END.