Yes Men and Punk

The Yes Men and the punk movement both used their appearances as means of expressing there opinions. In the case of the Yes Men, Andy and Mike use a very professional appearance to convince people that they are in fact representatives of the World Trade Organization. After doing so, they use the ethos they built up using their professional looking website and the beginnings of their presentations, to express their beliefs against the WTO. Using ridiculous outfits, such as the leisure suit, and by presenting ideas that are absolutely ridiculous in a totally serious manner they give the WTO a reputation of putting money over people, a reputation that they claim is entirely truthful. However, other than their presentation in Australia, I didn’t see much evidence that the WTO is the organization they portray it to be. This is definitely understandable in their presentation of the WTO, but I would think the documentary itself would have more evidence. Finally, what is most impressive is how they were able to pull all of this off. All the travelling and time they put into it must have cost a lot of money. Sure they were asked to do this by some organizations but it still is pretty unbelievable.

As for the punk movement, I definitely agree that appearance is a means of expression. However, sometimes it goes a little too far. One example of this is how they mentioned that some punks would wear swastikas for their shock value not as a symbol of their beliefs. I think this is inappropriate, even if it does protest against the societal norms of being proper, which is their goal. However, it does hurt their ethos as people will focus more on thinking that they are anti-Semitic instead of thinking that they are challenging societal norms. Also, as with most trends in fashion, once it gains popularity you end up getting a lot of posers who simply dress like it because they are popular. I think these two things hurt their overall hurt their overall cause, as their message is never really clearly stated or understood.

PETA and GG'S

PETA and the Guerilla girls are two organizations that have entirely different approaches when it comes to attracting attention and recruiting support. PETA’s official website has a very professional layout which helps establish its credibility as a legitimate organization. Furthermore, their FAQ’s section was put together nicely and was assertive, yet not aggressive. Rather than trying to impose their beliefs on other people, their FAQ’s used logic and also took into account the types of beliefs their opponents might have. Furthermore, in their actions portion of their website, they traded radical behavior for support. I definitely liked how they weren’t hostile on their website or in their section about how you can get involved, but some of the connections they tried to make were flimsy at best and pretty ridiculous at worst. Despite this professional outlook, their actual actions spoke otherwise. Some of their ads regarding the march of dimes seemed too extreme and previous PETA acts have been too aggressive.

The Guerilla girls on the other hand took a humorous approach. Their billboards and stickers included some shocking statistics in a funny and flashy manner. I think this helped enormously because it draws attention to their problem to people who wouldn’t care as much if statistics were just thrown at them. Their billboards are extremely effective because they reach out to everyone and are not aggressive. By taking this light-hearted approach, they expand their audience by letting people soak it in, rather than bludgeoning their opponents with their ideology. However, I don’t particularly agree with their gorilla suit idea. It is definitely a great way to draw attention and make people focus on the issue, but at the same time they compromise their credibility by looking goofy.

Critical Mass

When the video first started and the concept of Critical Mass was explained by some of its creators, my first impression was that these people, for some reason, had way too time on their hands. It seemed like one day they said to themselves we should try and get a bunch of bikes on the road, just for kicks, and then see what happens. The only reason I think this is because there are way too many interpretations of what exactly Critical Mass does. One of the most important aspects of it, however, is to bring people together in a fun, safe, and interactive environment. The broadest and most inclusive goal that I picked up from the video is that Critical Mass is just a way to rethink the notion of public space. It was a social experiment that brought people together. Any additional perceptions of Critical Mass are particular to each individual that decides to participate. Personally, if I were to encounter Critical Mass as a bystander, I would not be extremely bothered by it. Sure, it may cause inconvenience for cars and can make people late to important appointments, but it only occurs about once a month and getting stuck in traffic randomly happens more often than that.

While Critical Mass is hard to understand due to its lack of centralization, I believe that it is an undefined protest. By this, I mean that any individual that believes it a protest makes it a protest because they have a notion that their actions are going against something they do not agree with. However, due to a lack of direction, the message of the protest gets lost in noise created by everyone’s unique ideas.

Malachi and Cindy

Malachi Ritscher’s ethos was built mainly by the testimonies of the people that were closest to him. Unfortunately, even these people only knew him at a superficial level. They knew that he was a dedicated man, as seen by his continual appearances on the Chicago indie jazz scene. These accounts however, along with the number of forums and blogs he participated on give us enough evidence to see that he was very firm in his beliefs. Despite this, I do not think that his protest was very successful because had not established his ethos well enough for it to truly affect people.

On the other hand, Cindy Sheehan was directly affected by the war that she was protesting. The fact that her son Casey died in the war, gives her strong connection to her cause. We further see her dedication to the cause as she initiated such large protests such as Camp Casey. By being directly connected to the war and her involvement in numerous protests, people will more readily accept her appeal because she has established herself as an activist that truly cares. What did bother me about Cindy Sheehan is that she was too aggressive when criticizing people that were unable to make her rally. If she acts in this manner, the only people that will support her are those who had already planned on supporting her from the start.

I think that the most persuasive way to establish ethos is for someone to do the research on a subject. If someone can show that they are well informed on a topic they can better attract supporters. For example Cindy Sheehan’s son’s death directly involved her in the debate and made her appeal legitimate. Ritscher, however, suffered no direct injury from his cause, and with his hermit lifestyle, he had no where near enough ethos for people to think his self-immolation was more than a flashy act.