Visit my E-Portfolio

"An idea can turn to dust or magic, depending on the talent that rubs against it."
-William Bernbach

Everything has a purpose. In the world of rhetoric, writers and presenters are magicians who meticulously craft their work to be a masterpiece in disguise. They are illusionists who transform a simple message or request that could be delivered a thousand ways into an experience, an interaction between reader and writer, which is meant to leave a mark. Each word is a magic fiber; each sentence is an enchanted thread. The needle that is a writer’s pen sews them together to become patches of paragraphs and ultimately the robe that the magician wears to deliver his message and cast his spell. However, one pulled thread or one weak fiber could unravel a magician’s robe, and the spell he wishes to cast could be lost. The enchantment will not exist, and the magician must go back to practicing his spellbinding skills.

In the rhetorical world, there are no accidents or ignored circumstances. There is no audience member forgotten or purpose undefined. A magician has his target and keeps his eye fixed on it as he chooses exactly the way to captivate it. Words, designs, and deliveries are the potions a magician mixes into a concoction to fit his purpose, situation, and audience. The subtlest nuances and details are some of the most powerful spices that potentially have the biggest effects. The way a letter curls, the note a voice hits, or the tone a word rings can infiltrate emotions, logic, or willingness to believe.

We live in a world whose colors are shades of rhetoric. Rhetoric is in everything we read, see, hear, write, touch, smell, and taste. Things are the way they are for a reason. They send us messages we receive many times without even noticing. Everything has a purpose, and it is accomplished by rhetoric, a magic that can enchant us in an instant, but takes a lifetime to master.

To visit my E-Portfolio, please click here.

Summertime, But Is the Livin' Easy?

Since the semester is coming to an end, I’d like to discuss the rhetoric behind the time we all look forward to: summer break. I think for a lot of people, the school year has four phases: 1. Happy to be back with friends and activities/work to do instead of boredom; 2. Contentment, after the initial “honeymoon phase” with school; 3. Misery where the work is just not fun anymore, some friend drama could creep in, or things are overwhelming; 4. Anticipation of summer.

Then I started thinking, how great is summer? After all, look at phase one where people actually WANT to come back to school because of the friends, entertainment, occupation, and challenges. I have a feeling “summer break” is just a time we have been taught to idolize. TV shows, other kids, parents, and even magazines have tried to show us that summer is good because there is no school. TV shows often show kids wanting to get out of school and having more fun in the summer. Other kids talk about how much free time they will have in the summer. Parents say they can’t wait for summer because it means they do not have to wake up early for their kids. Magazines show us summer clothes and accessories, models playing beach volleyball, and gorgeous weather. I’m not saying that these are bad things, but I don’t think they are totally true.

Sure, some people have natural preferences for summer, but there are parts of summer that can annoy us just as much as homework stresses us out. One major aspect I can think of is humidity. Once we experience that, we wish for winter or fall again.

I think the glorification of summer comes from the fact that we associate it with stress-free time. However, does summer even exist in that sense after a certain time, or ever? For adults who work full-time, the work does not end, and their “vacation” is dictated by their vacation days. For kids, life can certainly get easier, but many have assignments they need to complete for the beginning of school in the fall. Others go to camps where they need to wake up early anyway, and those can be similar to school depending on their structure.

So, what makes it so great? What we associate it with through learned habits and past associations. If I am right about that, or am on-track with another idea that might not have hit me yet, I would say it is time to change how we perceive work and school!

Who's Going?

What is the best way to spread the word about an event? Trying to recruit new people to try new things is something that I find difficult because I have to convince a total stranger that he/she wants to do something that might seem completely random. Maybe he/she has done it before; maybe he/she never wants to do it; who knows? However, the way I went about inviting people to try something new to some and familiar to others is through a Facebook event invitation.

Success? Not so much, at least not yet. Let’s talk about the rhetorical situation of Facebook events, especially for events that need mass invites. First, if I want people to accept the invitation to try something new, and I don’t know them well, I think it is difficult to give them just facts without a personality behind the message and hope that they come. People know not only nothing about the event, but they also don’t know anything about the person inviting them. Also, not needing to physically say, “no” or decline the invitation makes it easy just to deny the opportunity with the click of a mouse.

This way, there is almost a snowball effect. People can be persuaded to choose to go or not depending on how many people they see as “attending,” even though many times those people do not even go. When they see many people under the “declined” category and only a few under “attending” and “maybe,” they assume the event is not worth their time and click “decline invite” too.

This results in only the people who were initially interested going, and other people not thinking again about the event. Another part of the problem is how much value new people can perceive in the event. If they think it will not teach them anything new, that they will not have fun, that they will feel awkward, or that they think it is purely a waste of time, they see no value, don’t spread the event through word of mouth, and attendance flat-lines. So, in this case, Facebook turns out to be the impersonal place where people act on impulse with the click of a mouse in many cases. Hopefully the two seconds the thought crosses people’s minds to try something new plants a seed that will grow into a burst of ambition in the future.

We all see it, but how?

This week I would like to talk about the rhetoric of underage drinking. In college, it is no secret that it happens, probably more frequently than not, and being around it enough has given me a lot of time to see it. As someone who does not drink, I can say that my perspective and that of my friends is different. I’m not saying that I condemn people who do it or think any less of them. They can choose to do something, and I can choose not to, no bitterness involved. People often ask me why I don’t drink, and I would attribute that to the fact that I see it differently than a lot of people who do. I see it as illegal, unsafe, and a way to make oneself do stupid things when not kept under control. The fact that it is illegal for people under 21 is the main reason I don’t do it, even though people always say, “well, you won’t get caught unless you’re really bad. Everyone does it, so cops could practically arrest anyone on the streets and they won’t choose you.”

Though they do have a point about there probably being a large selection of people to stop for drinking, and the police do know that it is going on, I would not want to take the chance. I already feel like I am judged merely for being outside on a Friday night. At parties, a few guys have thought they could get away with being inappropriate and seemed mortified when I said, “I’m not drunk—at all.” Aside from its illegality, I see not drinking as a way to be safe, while my friends do not see that big of a risk because the masses engage in it, and State College is a pretty safe area.

However, there is a huge difference in how we both “see it for what it is.” The kairos of the judgment about drinking has a huge influence on how I see it versus my friends. They judge it during their experience, and I judge it during mine. Their timing happens to be when they are under its influence and mine happens to be when I am completely level-headed and around others who might be a little off balance. They think about how fun and carefree it is when they are in a midst of giggles, surrounded by all of their friends, making new friends, having guys compliment them, wearing outfits they thought about for a few days, out socializing, etc. I am thinking about it when they are giggling about things that are not even funny and have guys “complimenting” them only to try to take advantage of them half of the time because they too are not in the right state of mind. I also think about it when I am helping them walk home, get a phone call at 4 a.m. to help clean up someone’s mess, listen to obnoxious conversations when I am doing homework, and hear extremely dramatic stories about how little they remember. Again, I am not saying that I look down on people who drink. They have a good time that way, and I have a good time just dancing and not having to worry about being stopped.

Several people have told me they only started drinking in college, which I think is another instance that relates to kairos. The connotations that drinking takes on in college are different than those from before, and probably after, as demonstrated by parents who discourage it. How I see it is that the time and place where these thoughts occur has an impact on how people regard drinking. What do you think?

Hidden Message

I recently saw a link on a friend’s Facebook wall that led to a T-shirt company’s website. While looking at the different designs and shirts they have for sale, I thought they were pretty catchy and appealing. Then, I noticed that the initials of their company, which they used as designs or logos on some of the shirts, spelled a word in another language that you would not want written on your clothes. For native English speakers, it would not be something that would strike people right away as bothersome because we would read it as the initials rather than a word. I don’t think it was an intentional choice on the part of the designers, and my guess is that they don’t know that what they wrote has meaning in another language. Then I got to thinking if this would hurt their business at all.

Does the rhetoric behind such an unintentional choice end up having an effect on profits?

A shirt is something producers need to persuade consumers to buy mostly based on looks. Of course, there is a comfort element and the fact that people want the shirt to actually look good on them, but the initial attraction to the shirt comes at a glance. The first impression counts a lot. When designing clothes in general, there must be some rhetoric. Different design elements send different messages. Some of these are textual, like the one in this case, and others can be the result of a certain cut, fit, neckline, etc.

With the shirts I am talking about, the visual element says hip, young, energetic, artsy, clean, fresh, etc. The shirts feature bright colors, clean text that is arranged and bold with block letters, and no pictures. Some of the shirts have symbols, but for the most part, they use simplicity to draw the eye.
They have a message to them, which also helps to add some appeal. The idea to support self-expression and art is a common theme among the shirts and within the company. The positive message is one that makes the target audience support a feeling, and that could appeal to pathos in addition to just the look of the shirt.

However, the text is what could take away from this. People who understand the word in another language as opposed to just seeing the company name/logo could be turned-off to what they would have otherwise considered a good-looking shirt.

Hmmm. I don't think she wrote that...

Today I saw a very interesting Facebook status on my friend’s wall. It was totally egotistic, and said that she was the best, could do anything she wanted whenever she wanted, and nobody should even bother trying to stop her because she rocks and everyone else sucks. The first thing I thought was, “Okay, obviously she did not write this.” I was right. She had gotten “hacked” by another one of her friends.

I am sure almost everyone who has a Facebook has seen a status posted on someone’s wall that he/she did not write. The ones I have seen are usually exaggerated statements that the person himself/herself would never say, immature humor, or something generally weird. Usually, they are so obvious that people know right away that someone else wrote the status as a joke, so what is the point?

Is it the thrill of knowing you had temporary control over someone else’s account? Is it that people think they will actually create something so scandalous that it will go viral? Is it that people are really bored and want to have some usually short-lived entertainment?
Is it another way of communicating with friends? Who knows?

I don’t think that anyone really takes the time in a “hacked” Facebook status to try and convey any type of underlying message, so I am questioning if these are an instance where there is practically no rhetoric. It does not seem like anyone is trying to convince people to take any action other than laugh, and it certainly does not seem like people are trying to civically engage or persuade people.

Perhaps this is because the faux statuses I have seen are typically made by friends of the account owner and not bitter enemies or ex-friends. Those people are usually not trying to get any revenge or hurt their friends, and even if they were, thinking of the means of doing so, Facebook might not even be rhetorically effective. (I am not trying to condone getting revenge or using the Internet in mean ways though!) What do you think? Is there any point to a “hacked” Facebook status?

"Gotta Catch 'Em All!"

Image From: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=mewtwo+pokemon+card&hl=en&biw=1293&bih=718&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=UgS0hp2yIixYHM:&imgrefurl=http://www.totalpokemon.com/tcg/base/10&docid=2kYC9AR4NQvowM&imgurl=http://www.totalpokemon.com/images/tcg/base/010.jpg&w=301&h=410&ei=oXlhT-OwKIHX0QG8_NnSBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=901&vpy=272&dur=46&hovh=262&hovw=192&tx=106&ty=160&sig=116761782303579820487&page=1&tbnh=123&tbnw=93&start=0&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0

After mentioning to a friend that I still have my Pokémon cards, I was challenged to a battle. (Yes, by a college student.) However, there is one major problem: I have never known how to actually play the game. Actually, I didn’t even know there was a game, or a TV show for that matter, until after I bought the cards—in 1998. I didn’t even buy the cards. My mom did. As a first grader, I was on a very tight budget.

What made them so appealing?

A lot of kids I knew had the cards just to look at them and trade them for better-looking ones. They were purely superficial and served their purpose that way. Rhetorically looking at them, the picture is the main thing we see when we look at the cards. It is the biggest, and is centered, taking up about half of the page. Young kids are drawn to the mystical, imaginary creatures they see and think they look cool. When they are holographic cards with sparkly backgrounds, there is an extra desirability because the cards look unique, and for people playing the game, they usually possess more power. The visual appeals are an appeal to pathos on a first impression.

Another part of the Pokémon fad I would like to think about is the phrase, “Gotta Catch ‘Em All: Pokémon!” Though this serves the purpose of helping to establish the brand name, building ethos, it also works as a subtle way to command collectors of all levels to get out there and buy more cards (or, at least, stay engaged with the product through trading). Having some of the Pokémon is okay, but in the end, you’ve gotta catch ‘em all.

As evidenced by my challenger, the fad has not ended. There are still people out there trying to catch ‘em all. But, there are still remnants of Pokémon’s glory days, like myself, who only bought the cards as first-graders trying to be cool.

Are Our Cellphones Looking Like People?

This could seem completely crazy, and I do not blame anyone for thinking that. Even I think this is a little crazy, but I want to bring it up anyway because it crossed my mind. What I am talking about is the rhetoric of cellphones. Why do people want one type of phone over the other? What makes cellphones appealing?

Sitting here, looking at my phone that people often criticize me for owning when I had the chance to get a smartphone, I'm thinking about the features, and I think that the features popular/desired phones have are comparable to features people stereotypically find attractive in people.

For example, people generally like phones that do things for them efficiently, just as they can be attracted to a person who does not put a huge workload on them. A smartphone matches up with a person who is smart and can find out a lot of information or knows a lot of information. The traits align.

Another trait the phones and people have is a connection, no pun intended. Touch screens are becoming popular now, and they create a connection between the user and the phone. The phone is no longer a removed object, but something people can hold in their hand and feel attached to, just as they can feel attached to a person.

People like the look of a brand new phone because it does not have scratches, dents, nicks, or cracks. Models, movie stars, and people who grace the covers of magazines look this way too (at least with some image correcting!). Either way, the fact that they don't have blaring wrinkles or skin imperfections makes them perceived as attractive. We look at phones the same way. We want a phone that looks nice on the outside.

Another similarity is the "health," modern-ness, or current-ness of the phone which relates to how modern or with-the-times people are. Uninformed or extremely old-fashioned people are not what we see society promoting as an image of beauty. There are people who have the most up-to-date clothes, shoes, and accessories. Similarly, we are drawn to technology that is the most up-to-date.

The last major similarity I would like to call upon is the slenderness of the phones. Who wants a giant, bulky 1990s-style cellphone anymore? Nobody I know. People are attracted to the smooth, thin phones that they can easily slide in their back pockets or purses. Images trying to portray beauty also show slender people, not typically overweight people.

Seeing these very basic traits align, I have to ask, do you think people are subliminally persuaded into buying certain phones or even products in general because they possess traits we are accustomed to seeing as beautiful? Are the traits society deems beautiful spread across the board between people, products, etc.?

Can I Have a Piece?

Every time we used to go to the grocery store at home, standing in the checkout line, my brother would always ask my mom if he could get some gum. However, any type of gum did not satisfy him. He had to have 5 Gum. Why would he have to have that specific type of gum every time? Well, because it was cool. At least that’s what he would say. Then, my mom jumped on the 5 Gum bandwagon and gave up her previous favorite Trident so she could, in her words, “upgrade,” to something that was better. Whatever the reason people decide to buy 5 Gum, I think the packaging is one reason why people are so attracted to it. The color scheme and subtle design nuances work to appeal to consumers’ pathos without actually telling about the taste which is what consumers are ideally looking for.

One thing to note about all of the packages is their use of color. They are mostly black with a burst of a bright color on the side (different colors for different flavors). The contrast between the black and bright colors gives an aura of mystery, almost daring consumers to try the gum. Black is also a very commanding color, almost telling consumers to try it. Additionally, black looks very professional and sophisticated, making the package appealing to a wide variety of consumers. These characteristics of the color have similar effects on all age groups, keeping the potential customer base as wide as possible. The black contrasted with bright colors separated by the number five helps to keep the packaging clean looking and crisp, allowing people to associate those traits with the gum they could be chewing if they bought 5 Gum. Just as the gum transitions from black to sudden neon, people looking at the gum can associate the unexpected transition with the flavor of the gum hitting them.

Another place where the black is contrasted with a sudden pop of neon color is where the actual name of the flavor is written beside a small shot of what looks like fire, but is different for each flavor in color and design. This strategy grants energy to the flavor before the consumer has even tasted it. Also, the names of the flavors are unique from other gums, and the logo is used in very clever ways on the packaging (i.e. the 5 is a man throwing out the box in a trash can as opposed to littering on the back). This works as an appeal to pathos through ego gratification; consumers who get the cleverness of the logo’s use feel included by the brand and start to feel attached to it through that interaction. Other features of the packaging like slight grips on the back, the shape of the package compared to other gums, and way of opening are also unique, making consumers feel like they own something special, driving them to want not any gum, but 5 Gum.

It's Almost State Patty's Day

I am sure that if you are a Penn State student, you are well aware that next weekend marks State Patty’s Day. Though I have not experienced this festivity, I have the impression that it is chaotic and wild. Regardless, from the email warnings and word on the street, it is clear that the administration and police are not so psyched about what may happen. Therefore, I would like to take a closer look at one of the warnings the community has given to students discouraging a following for State Patty’s Day. This is a letter a friend of mine received from the local police, which he uploaded to Facebook.

I would like to start off looking at the top of the letter, which is ornamented, with the letterhead of the State College Police and two seals. It is clear that they mean business, and this is an instant appeal to the reader’s ethos. Surely, this letter is actually from the police, and the Chief of Police’s name and contact information are at the top as well. The overall arrangement of the letter adds to the appeal to ethos too. It is written as a business letter with bullet points and is a generic, noting that the greeting is just “Dear Resident.”

The arrangement of the letter also works to appeal to the recipient’s logos. Seeing it, the person knows it is from the police, creating the instinct to abide by the law and authority. The clarity of the bullet points helps to make the desired actions of the recipient clear. The specific arrangement of ideas works to create a sequence that helps the reader understand the concerns of the police and perspective they have. First, the police say that they “seek your assistance” as opposed to demand, an appeal to pathos through the gentler tone and use of first person, then appeal to pathos again by validating the reader’s knowledge by saying, “as you are probably aware,” then following with a brief summary of what State Patty’s day is, followed by examples of what happened in the past, and drawing the conclusion that it is dangerous, not only for the reader, but the community. Presenting the reader the facts and relating it personally to him/her appeals to logos and makes obedience easier and not forced.

There is also an appeal to pathos in the way that the letter compares State Patty’s Day to home football weekends and the Arts Festival. Allowing the reader to fill in the facts about these events and what they consist of validates his opinion and makes him feel knowledgeable. Explaining all of these events could come off as condescending to the reader, creating anger and bitterness, possibly resulting in disobedience and rebellion.

Giving specific actions to take against the potential dangers of State Patty’s Day leaves the reader with the feeling that he can be influential, again appealing to pathos.

With the intent of preventing a ruckus on State Patty’s Day weekend, the police’s letter appeals to pathos, logos, and ethos, but will it work? I guess time will tell.

Timing is Everything

Image from Yahoo.com I’m sure you heard about or saw M.I.A.’s gesture at this year’s Super Bowl. Surprising? I am not so sure. I would say that it was definitely obscene, especially for an event viewed by all ages and all types of people who were not necessarily tuning in to see if anything scandalous would happen at halftime. The world got a dose of that already with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. Using a halftime performance at the Super Bowl to make such a gesture is a bold choice. Talk about kairos. Would anyone care if this happened at a regular NFL game? Would anyone care if this happened on the street? My bet is that people would care, but not as much. I don’t think there would be articles online about it, radio conversations, or as much mention in small talk. This choice was all about the situational timing. Expertly chosen if she wanted millions to see it. But, I have to ask, what was the point? Was it M.I.A.’s way of establishing ethos as a hard, tough person? Is this even a representation of her character or personality? Does her choice persuade us into thinking differently about her? Was she even thinking about the timing or have such gestures become close enough to slang for our generation and age group that we do not associate them with offense anymore? I have no idea if there was a goal or what it could have been had the situation been forethought. This type of choice distracts people from the rest of what is going on: the game, other performers, the excitement of the surroundings, etc., but was this a rhetorically thought-out moment or an impulsive act? I have heard both opinions voiced. Some people say she was expected to do that while other sources say she was used to rehearsing with potentially offensive language and gestures. Yahoo.com says a source cited her as saying she was sorry for the incident. However, at the end of the day, timing is everything.

This I Believe

http://www.lyricsmania.com/aurelie_lyrics_colonel_reyel.html
(The lyrics in French. Sorry, but I couldn't find a good English tranlsation!)

Another song that I think is a prime example of civic engagement it Colonel Reyel’s “Aurélie” which highlights abortion and teen pregnancy.  I realize that since Colonel Reyel is a French artist, it is unlikely that his songs would be chart-toppers in the U.S., but his content in this song is universal. To summarize the song, he talks about a sixteen-year-old girl, Aurélie, who becomes pregnant, wants to have her baby, but is pressured by family and friends to get an abortion.  They look down upon her and make her feel like an outcast though she sees things differently, wanting to be a mother. Colonel Reyel voices his opinion saying that “we have all known a girl in Aurélie’s case/a girl for whom pregnancy is a crime/rejected by her friends and especially her family who don’t accept her wish to have the baby…to bring a baby into the would should not be punished/it is the most beautiful thing and if you deny it/ you haven’t understood anything…”

            Rhetorically, presenting this issue through a song with a story and character helps audiences relate to it.  Even for non-French-speaking listeners, it is easy to get the jist of the song from the music video where we can see the emotions of the situation through the actors.  Additionally, when he presents his stance on the issue, he avoids completely bashing people.  This way, the song remains a song and does not turn into a great debate.  The fact that it is a song presents some constraints in the sense that there cannot be a live verbal exchange between opposing viewpoints, it is not presented as a heated topic, and the rhythm can distract people from the emotion behind their stances/beliefs, keeping the argument under control. 

            The civic engagement factor comes in when he decides to present his stance on the issue.  I think it is effective near the end of the song because the listener has already been familiarized and acquainted with the story of Aurélie and the fact that he/she probably knows someone who experienced a similar situation.  That being said, even the listener is persuaded to agree with Colonel Reyel because it is difficult to condemn and hate a friend or loved one.  Merely throwing his opinion into the song invites people to consider their own, casting the issue into a public spectrum. 

"Where is the Love?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc&ob=av2e 

To follow up on what my last blog was talking about, I’d like to present an example of a song that I think comes close to civic engagement.  “Where is the Love” by the Black Eyed Peas has a message that, in my opinion, comes across very clearly in the lyrics.  Even without watching the music video or checking someone else’s analysis of the song, listeners can see they are looking at the world and its lack of togetherness.  The lyrics mention gangs, violence, people killing each other, children crying and hurt, hypocrisy, and yet how we all share the world.  Those are undeniable parts of life as we know it, and their negative connotation brings emotions of disappointment, sadness, regret, and more.

Even to people who just sing along or listen because the song is catchy, it is hard to miss the idea of people hating and mistreating each other for no reason.  Merely the repetition of “Where is the love?” throughout the song establishes some type of thought or connection to the problem at hand, making people think, and opening a possibility for a perspective change. 

Additionally, when they say, “ask yourself,” “we,” and “one” in phrases throughout the song, they establish a connection with listeners which can make them feel more connected to the song, artist, and issue; listeners realize they are not hearing about someone else’s breakup, love story, etc., but are part of the issue and its solution. 

Also, the lyrics create an appeal to logos in the way they slip in explanations.  For example, there is a verse that goes, “But if you only have love for your own race, then you leave space to discriminate, and to discriminate only generates hate, and when you hate you’re bound to get irate.”  The progression is simple and makes sense, allowing it to be understood in a song.

In terms of this song as a means of civic engagement, I think it is effective because it points out a problem to which almost anyone can relate.  The feelings of disappointment, sadness, and exclusion have been familiarized with everyone at one time or another.  Using relatable emotions, and also children as examples, creates an appeal to ethos, and motivates change among people; since everyone knows the feeling, people may realize they shouldn’t try to bring that upon others; by not creating it, they can work to eliminate it.  If that happens, people may treat each other more nicely, and perhaps we can discover “the love” that the Black Eyed Peas cannot find.  

Whether working out in the gym, walking to class, going to a party, doing homework, or studying, people are always listening to music.  It surrounds us, and for most people, music is enjoyable.  We see our favorite artists on TV and look at their faces on the covers of magazines while we’re in line at the grocery store.  They have a large public presence and make up a significant part of pop-culture.  People listen to their songs, watch them on interviews, and tune-in when they are on award or talk shows.  Hey, some people even try to be them.  Musical artists have a constant presence and an almost infinite audience, and they attract people through music.  They have above average means to spread their opinions and use rhetoric.   So, for my first blog, I’d like to talk about music as a means of civic engagement.

With the amount of people who listen to pop music, there is a lot of potential to spread a message.  However, I do believe the way in which it is done has a huge effect on specifically what message will be sent, how it will be perceived, and whether or not a message will be sent at all.  I realize different uses of music (i.e. commercials, movies, etc.) also change its meaning, but I’d like for now to think about music alone disregarding where it is heard, where an artist appears, or any other outside circumstance.

Until now, I never really thought of songs as a means of civic engagement, and I am not saying that every song is oriented toward civic engagement, but there definitely are certain songs that aim to spread a message, help people to become aware of issues, encourage them to take a stance (usually that of the artist), and act on it.  I think that as a means of getting an argument out there, songs are an effective means.  Here is how I see it: almost anyone can hear them (whether they want to or not most of the time); the internet provides a global forum for discussion and sharing; usually there are loyal fans who will spread the song and perhaps its message(s) further; and the media is informed and habitually highlights artists and songs.  If a song is executed with the intent of spreading a message, I think it is very likely that people will at least hear the message.  Even if someone gets a glimpse of a message he/she doesn’t like, the most he/she can do is stop listening, but even then, at least he/she is thinking.  There wouldn’t be a reason to turn it off if someone didn’t have to ask oneself, “What is making me turn this off?”  Granted, there are myriad other aspects of songs that affect personal taste as well as the song’s rhetoric, which I can hopefully discuss in the future, but in general, they are a very engaging way to speak publicly and perhaps civically engage.