Perceptive Rhetors

     The articles by Wysocki and Jamieson got me thinking a lot about just how influential one's station is on individual perception.  We've read and talked a bunch about the communicative abilities of rhetors and how diverse understanding of a text or subject can be.  Wysocki and Jamieson give us some pretty specific instances of what goes into these various interpretations, each stemming from a specific social platform.
     Applying some of the concepts scattered about The Sticky Embrace of Beauty was a little difficult at first, but there were a few points I found interesting.  Wysocki breaks down the power of the center and unites her readers with their root of understanding.  In reference to Arnheim and in response to his statement this idea is egocentric, Wysocki writes, "anyone who regards the world visually (through a sight that is 'spontaneous') makes sense of the world and of human artifacts primarily by 'reserv[ing] to the self the largest possible share of the power to organize the surroundings around itself at the center'" (157).  One's perception is born as a product and in response to their surroundings.  In a social context, people's own environments are individualized based on this relationship.  Future comprehension, decision, application, etc. are thus largely influenced by such anterior factors.  Of course there are other factors to consider, though the entire nature vs. nurture debate, for example, could fall under this center argument.  How a person is raised is a part of their environment.  Their beliefs, ideals, lifestyle choices, and plain functional abilities are but natural responses.  I feel like a lot of what Wysocki implies could be easily contested due to its vague nature, but I like the idea that people literally see the world through their own eyes.  Though it may be relatable to others, my perception is my own.
     Jamieson applies these ideas of individual perception to different parts of the social realm, focusing primarily on gender differentiation.  Whether they are so different seems to be the recurring discussion throughout.  Modern politics is always a fun subject to throw into a debate, so Jamieson does just that. I was happy to see the author refuting the idea women are too emotional for politics, additionally putting a positive spin on the value of impassioned candidates.  The author writes, "[e]ven in campaigns in which issue distinctions are clear, men and women alike consider personal evaluations of candidates as important or more important than their stands on issues" (809).  These people present themselves as worthy enough to represent the whole of society so they should look the part.  Personality, physical presentation and speaking ability are essential factors in winning votes no matter what their actual views are.  How a candidate is perceived is everything.  The hard part is satisfying those perceptions that make up the majority of the voting public.  Jamieson's article helps to prove just enough flare can win elections and what was once deemed as irrational public discourse is actually playing quite a role in conquering audiences.
     Below is a link to an article discussing audience reaction to political advertisements for both male and female candidates in consideration of their specific presentation to voters and how appearance is everything.
http://crx.sagepub.com.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/content/22/4/430.full.pdf+html