Angel Lovemore WR-122
Journal 8
My audience is Portland City Council. There are 12 councilors with an even split of women and men. They all seem to be older adults over 40 years old. There are 8 white people and 4 non-white people. There are slightly more white men than white women. Inversely, there’s more non-white women than non-white men. There’s about 2 thirds of european descent and 1 third of non-european descent. It’s difficult to infer much from ethnicity other than potential difference in the degree of land ownership and non-western cultural values. A difference in land ownership likely influences wealth and embeddedness which also influences individual temperament (as wealth influences sense of security, serotonin levels, and confidence) and personal beliefs (as embeddedness is relationships with others, and relationships reinforce beliefs). While I know my speculation is very prone to inaccuracy, I would guess that 66% of city councilors are wealthy (and therefore come with an upper-class belief system) whereas 33% of city councilors are less wealthy (and therefore have more middle and lower class belief systems). Indeed, according to my research, 7 out of 12 councilors have graduate and post-graduate education, which implies both wealth and embeddedness since the graduate degrees are expensive, exclusive, and offer higher income compared to non-degree havers. As a result of these inferences, I predict a higher chance of success if I appeal to upper-class sentiments; also, I should very much avoid offending both upper-class or western values. Moving on to using big five personality traits, I hypothesize that city councilors are probably highly extroverted, highly conscientious, highly disagreeable, moderately neurotic, and moderately open. Considering this, I expect the city council to disagree with my proposal but will appreciate it if it is well-organized. Also, I expect city councilors to be more receptive if my tone was enthusiastic as extroverted people are enthusiastic, and people tend to like others similar to themselves. Moving on to using the dark triad personality traits (psychopathy, narcissism, and machiavellianism), I hypothesize city councilors are more likely to be narcissistic and machiavellian but unlikely to be psychopathic. I hypothesize that it would be a contradiction for city councilors to be both conscientious and psychopathic due to the short-term focus of psychopathy. As for city councils who are narcissistic, I ought to use respectful language and praise in order to boost ego (or save face) and euphemistic language to avoid injuring ego (or losing face). Using the big four motivators (money, honor, pleasure, and power), I would predict that city councilors are most motivated by power due to being in positions of power; honor the second due to being in a prestigious position, money the third due to modest income of the position, and pleasure the least due to the job not necessarily being pleasurable. Therefore, I can make pathos or emotional appeals to the two top motivators: power and honor.
My thesis statement is: “Although this idea has legal restrictions, health risks, and resistance by some, the City of Portland should legalize and incentivize the vending and donating of hot food in public areas like streets and parks because hot food is necessary for livability, safety, and social connection.”
To demonstrate the problem is a problem, I will frame the problem in terms of a threat to their power or honor. I believe I need to frame it this way because it’s not persuasive if I demonstrate the problem as I see it. Instead, I need to show them the problem through the lens of a problem they already see. So, I would guess or imagine that city councilors are afraid of being ineffectual or not leaving a legacy. Therefore, I will frame the problem as powerlessness and ineffectualism. “Influence is diminished due to restrictions that bar the preparation of hot food in parks and along streets.” Importantly, I need to frame the problem in passive voice and euphemistic language so that I do not accuse or threaten their face.
As for the proposal, I will persuade city council by framing their acceptance of my solution as them taking power and an easy pathway to becoming admired by important people. I can say things like, “Hot food at public parks will make you admired by portlanders, and their newfound admiration will give you the power to accomplish your goals. Hot food in public areas will leverage your ability to influence people.” Importantly, I will use active voice and direct language and positive connotated words when I give the proposal. As for supporting evidence, I will use data to support the proposal. This is where i can use my reasons and support the reasons with evidence. I will use academic peer-reviewed and highly cited research since the audience is highly educated.
As for credibility, I can make claims about my connection to Portland. I can embellish my connection to Portland Community College and the church I go to in Portland. I can say all the things that connect me to Portland. The mutual residence will be a bridge for connection. Also, by mentioning college, or mentioning academic work in general, I am bridging for mutual college education. Though, I should refrain from mentioning community college since it invokes class difference from the upper-class council members which will jeopardize credibility. Perhaps I can appeal to my experience in the Honor’s College at PSU, framing myself as a high achiever and researcher, but then neglect to mention that I was suspended from PSU. I could just say I’m a college honors student and Portland resident.
The tone will be important to remember. Throughout the essay, I will keep the tone highly formal, especially in the beginning to signal credibility. Then the problem section will be in a passive, indirect tone to gently prod at their fear of powerlessness while also avoiding injuring their ego. For the proposal, I am conflicted which tone I should keep because i know that some persuasion studies conclude that extreme positions are least persuasive, and my hot-food idea is extreme. Also, I fear I may lose the audience if my tone switches to enthusiastic or confident for an extreme position. However, if i’m not confident, like using uncertain words like “may”, then I could also lose the audience due to losing credibility. So I need to moderate my solution while also being certain and confident, like offering only one park to experiment or offering a short timeline for the legal exceptions. During the supporting argument section, I will be formal but enthusiastic.
For supporting arguments, I will cite academic research and frame the research’s conclusions as evidence of the city council gaining admiration, respect, influence, and power for implementing my hot food idea. Also, i might find a case study and direct quotes from other city councilors (if available) saying positive things about the policy. I hope to find a case study of this exact policy AND quotes of city councilors being happy as a result.
I will end the proposal with a summary and a short phrase or statement that will be an earworm of lost opportunity if they ignore, dismiss, or let go of this idea. I will suggest that this is their chance to pounce or forever fade into obscurity.