fluorescentlightbulboftruth

[fluorescentlightbulboftruth]

*What is Rhetoric to Me?*

In Comm 320, Rhetorical Traditions, I learned about many theories of rhetoric. This essay highlights how my definition of rhetoric shifted from the beginning to the end of the course. After completing the course, the concepts that stand out to me in defining rhetoric are Aristotle’s theory of ethos, pathos, and logos, Booth’s conception of listening rhetoric, and the concepts that marginalized people have difference experiences than those typically in the main “public,” and we cannot essentalize when using rhetoric.

In the beginning of the term, I stated that “rhetoric is using words to persuade and create a narrative.” Although I still think these can be important elements of rhetoric, I think there is much more to rhetoric, and also that rhetoric as a whole must be defined more broadly. My new definition of rhetoric is any form of communication that relays a message. I think rhetoric has to be defined broadly in order to account for the different views and types of rhetoric. However, what makes for good rhetoric is a different question. To me, good rhetoric is done by someone who has good credibility on the specific subject being discussed (ethos), draws on people’s emotions (pathos) in a way that is not manipulative, creates sound arguments based on true, supporting evidence (logos), is focused on trying to find a solution rather than win an argument (Booth’s listening rhetoric), and recognizes the importance of acknowledging differences amongst different groups’ experiences (publics vs. counterpublics).

Aristotle’s theory of ethos, pathos, and logos is an extremely important element to consider when determining if something is good rhetoric. I do not think it is possible for rhetoric to omit one of these elements. Instead, I claim that it is essential to consider whether the speaker is using these elements ethically.

First, consider ethos. Ethos is the speaker’s credibility. In other words, a person with “good” ethos is someone who the audience trusts (Herrick 2005). However, just because a speaker has good ethos does not mean they are using their ethos appeal ethically. This is because ethos is effected not only by prior experience but also by aspects such as clothing choices or social status. For example, placing celebrities in ads just because people want to be like them is not an ethical way to use ethos. People may end up buying certain products and this would be considered “good” ethos because the audience trusts the speaker. However, the celebrity oftentimes does not have a lot of prior knowledge or experience in the topic. For example, celebrities are often used in beauty ads (i.e. hair products) and are shown endorsing products that they likely do not use themselves. I think what makes for trustworthy ethos claim is if the focus is on prior experiences. However, again, people need to be careful not to use merely anecdotal evidence/cherry pick instances that support their claims. The speaker should be honest (arete), understand what is going on in the world (phronesis), and have empathy towards people (eunoia).

The second element of Aristotle’s theory, pathos, is one of the easiest to be manipulated in my view. Pathos deals with the specific emotions the speaker’s rhetoric makes an audience feel (Herrick 2005). One way this could be done unethically is through the emotion of fear. During war propaganda, the tactic often used is making people afraid enough (before they can do any research) so that they will support the ideas that the speaker is endorsing. Likewise, politicians often use this type of pathos. Think about Trump’s campaign which was built on ideals of distrusting certain racial and religious groups. These claims had no evidence and drew on emotions in unethical ways. This fear tactic is also discussed through Burke’s rhetorical notion of the unification device. One element of this device is projection device. This is the idea that some individuals (who are praised as the norm by society) find another group to use as the scapegoat for their community’s problems (Burke 2005). During the election process, Trump blamed America’s unemployment problems on undocumented immigrants for“stealing” jobs away from US citizens. This idea of fear and anger are unethical because Trump is perpetuating stereotypes and false beliefs in order to win the election, which is extremely harmful for the US because hateful ideals are reinforced and normalized. The speaker should instead use pathos in a way that promotes caring about each other.

The third aspect of Aristotle’s theory is logos. Logos is essentially the proof that the speaker gives through evidence to back up the main points (Herrick 2005). To me, in order for rhetoric to be considered “good,” the logos claims must be true and valid in order to be ethical. Speakers should not leave out any piece of their argument, and they should not force the audience to make a leap from their statement to their conclusion. Speakers should state all of their premises and explain clearly why their premises (and therefore conclusion) are all true. They should not make inaccurate or deceptive claims. Although in doing so, they are still using rhetoric, they are not using rhetoric in a good, ethical way.

In addition to Aristotle’s concept of ethos, pathos, and logos, I think another important aspect of good rhetoric is that it is focused on finding a solution rather than winning an argument. Nobody is right 100% of the time, and a good rhetor should be able to admit there might be a better way of going about something when another possibility is brought up. We live in a culture where the ideas of winners/losers are constantly being reinforced. If you consider political campaigns, this idea is demonstrated by the fact that we even talk about a “winner” while simultaneously neglecting to talk about the actual political issues and arguments. This is why I think Booth’s idea of listening rhetoric plays a key role in ethical and productive rhetoric. Essentially, Booth claims that rhetoric is “social” truths, or opinions. They cannot necessarily be “proven,” and that is why it is important to listen to one another. Listening rhetoric is that idea that it is more important to listen to each other than to prove yourself right. We should listen to gain other perspectives and listen to our own responses when we reply (Booth 2004). We can always improve, and just acknowledging this fact makes us better rhetors.

Although I think in general it is important to acknowledge everyone’s perspectives, in many instances, some people’s voices need to be amplified over others. This idea can be demonstrated through thinking about Habermas’s concept of the public sphere and Squires’s idea of counterpublics. According to Habermas, the role of the public is to speak out against the state in order to bring about change (Habermas 1974). The problem with relying on the “public” to do this is that those within the public are those with privilege (most often white, heterosexual, economically well off, men, etc.). Because these people have different experience than marginalized people (i.e. black people, women, etc. - especially those with overlapping aspects of marginalized identities), the main public does not always listen or address the needs of marginalized groups. This is why counterpublics are a necessity. A counterpublic could be black people, for example, and this counterpublic would make space to push back against the public and state to get their voice heard (Squires, 2001). However, another idea that needs to be explored is the theory of The Margin to the Centers created by bell hooks, where she states that it is essential that those in the center (or the main public sphere) step out of the center and let marginalized people speak for themselves (Goldzwig 1998). This is an important part of rhetoric. We cannot ultimately know what it is like for people whose experiences are different from our own, especially if we grow up in place of privilege. This relates largely to concept of listening rhetoric as discussed earlier - people who reside in the main public should be open to listening to other perspectives instead of essentializing everyone else’s experience to their own (i.e. when white women think of all women as having the experience while neglecting race/class) or completely ignoring marginalized groups altogether.

There are so many types of rhetoric that it is impossible to boil it down to one definition that encompasses everything. However, acknowledging that good rhetoric is using credibility (ethos), emotional appeal (pathos), and arguments/evidence (logos) in an ethical way, in addition to putting your focus on listening and understanding (rather than winning) and acknowledge people’s different experiences (counterpublics) are important characteristics of what makes good rhetoric. Comm 320 has strengthen the way I view rhetoric by giving me lenses of theorists (Aristotle, Burke, and Booth, just to name a view) to analyze speeches and other forms of communications. As I go into next term, I may forget some of the names these theorist or their theories, but I know the main concepts will stick with me as I think about my own communication and how I can improve as an individual speaker. Rhetoric is powerful, and it is our responsibility to use it in appropriate and ethical ways.

References

Booth, W. (2004). How many rhetorics? In The Rhetoric of Rhetoric. (pp. 3-22). Malden, MA: The Blackwell Publishing.

Burke, K. (2005). The rhetoric of Hitler’s battle. In C. R. Burckhardt (Ed.), Readings in rhetorical criticism (3rd ed.) (pp. 188-202). State College: Strata Publishing, Inc. (Original work published in 1974)

Goldzwig, S.R. (1998). Multiculturalism, rhetoric and the Twenty-First Century. Southern Communication Journal, 63(4), 273-290.

Habermas, J. (1974). The Public sphere. New German Critique. (3), 49-55. Retrieved July 26, 2012, http://frank.mtsu.edu/~dryfe/SyllabusMaterials/Classreadings/habermas.pdf

Herrick, J.A. (2005), Aristotle on rhetoric. In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.) (pp. 69-81). New York: Routledge.

Squires, C. (2001). The Black press and the State. In R Asen and Drouwer (Eds.). Counterpublics and the State (pp. 111-136). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

[fluorescentlightbulboftruth]

*Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Rhetoric*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: How are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetoric artifact to convey a certain message? Is this message effective for the target audience? Is it ethical?

To investigate these questions, I examined the interaction I have with kids before I let them come back into the ThinkShop at the Family Museum where I work. The Family Museum is an interactive children’s museum, and the ThinkShop is one of the exhibits. The ThinkShop gives children a chance to use their imagination to build creations with real tools. Each child who comes back gets to work at their own station. Below is a picture of the supervisor’s workplace, and all of the tools are displayed in the proper place.

I found that: Ethos claims can be seen in my clothing, youthful appearance, and gender. Pathos claims of excitement and eager/impatience can be displayed by the children throughout the rhetoric. Logos claims are used when I describe why everyone has to wear safety glasses, can only use two pieces of woods, use both hands when using tools, use the vice whenever using the saw, and clean up their station before they leave. Overall, I think the rhetoric is effective when thinking about the end goals of having everyone follow the rules of safety glasses, using both hands for tools, using the vice, but less productive when considering the two pieces of wood rule and cleaning up before leaving. These claims are ethical because they are all necessary in order to ensure fun and safety.

The kids are always super excited to come back and work in the shop with me, but there are of course rules I have to enforce in order to make the area a safe and fun environment for everyone. A child safety gate ensures that they do not enter before I assign them a spot. Here is an example of how a typical interaction may go:

"Hey, do you guys want to come build something?” -Me

"Yeah!!” -Kid(s)

"Awesome! Have you guys been back here before?” -Me

"No, this is our first time.” -Parents

"Okay, well let me tell you a little about the shop before you come back. [Hands kids and adults safety glasses] Here are your safety glasses. Make sure you wear them at all times when you’re back here so that you don’t get anything in your eyes. There’s wood in the back. We ask that you keep it two pieces per kid so that there’s enough for everyone. If you’re going to use any of the tools, make sure you have both hands on them at all times so you have more control. If you’re going to use the saw at all, whatever you’re sawing needs to stay in the vice, the metal on the edge of the table, because this will hold it in place so you don’t hurt yourself. The glue station is in the center, and a whole bunch of other stuff is in the bins all around. There are also brushes on the table so you can clean up your station for the kid who comes in after you. And if you need help finding anything or with any of the tools, just let me know. I’ll have you guys go to station #3. [unlocks gate]” -Me

There are of course variations of the way this conversation goes depending on the specific circumstance. An additional rule, for example, is that kids cannot come back without an adult unless they’re 14 or older. If a younger kid wants to come back, I usually just tell them they need an adult with them if they’re really little, or I ask how old they are if they look older (usually this a response to them asking “How old do you have to be to come back here?”). The kids always listen to me when this specific circumstance comes up though.

Ethos

Ethos is the speaker’s credibility. If the audience has reason to trust the speaker and do what they want them to do, then the speaker has good ethos (Herrick, 2005). This is often demonstrated through the speaker’s clothes, credentials, and prior experience in what they are talking about. My uniform and walkie talkie add to my ethos in a positive way, because they tell the visitors that I am a staff member, and people generally listen to these employees since they’re regarded as being “in charge.” However, my appearance also harms my ethos - because of my youthful appearance, sometimes visitors (typically the adult with the child) tend to think I’m too young to be working there. This goes along with the results of a 2001 study, which found older instructors are viewed as more credible than younger ones (Semlak & Pearson, 2001). Even though I am 21, I am still the youngest of my coworkers, and visitors probably think I am even younger than that. I have had a couple people ask how old you have to be to work at the museum, and although I know they do not mean it in a bad way, these instances demonstrate that visitors think I am extremely young. And as previous research has shown, age can start to reflect how competent an instructor is perceived to be. Another aspect of my appearance that may harm my ethos is my gender - I’ve noticed that the visitors tend to think of my male coworkers as having more authority, and therefore they tend to respect the rules more when they are in the room. Again, this is probably also reflected in how old people think I am, but I can tell gender plays a role by thinking about the comparison of my male and female coworkers are treated as a whole. My gender also plays a role in my ethos, because visitors sometimes question if I know how to use the tools when they do not do so for my male coworkers. For example, the other day a little boy asked me for help using the saw, and before I could respond, another dad in the room asked me if I wanted him to help the boy. This doubt is likely due to being a woman, because using tools in this type of environment is considered a traditionally masculine activity.

Kids tend to pay more attention to my clothing that symbolizes I’m an employee rather than questioning my age or gender, so my ethos is not typically affected for my target audience. However, if the adult with them is not following the rules (i.e. safety glasses), than the kids are likely to think they do not have to follow the rules as well, therefore undermining my ethos as the supervisor.

Pathos

Pathos is the emotional appeal (of a specific emotion) that is caused by the rhetoric (Herrick, 2005). When I first greet the kids who come to the back, the emotion typically generated is excitement. The tone of my voice is enthusiastic and welcoming, and this energy is quickly transferred to the kids if they were not already showing signs of happiness. I greet the visitors with a smile, and when I ask them if they want to come build something, they generally cheer (”Yeah!!”), and some of the shier kids will nod with a big smile on their face.

I think another emotion generated from our conversation is often eagerness/impatience. Kids are eager to get back into the shop and start their projects, and they do not necessarily want to listen to the rules. If they have been to the ThinkShop before, sometimes the kid will tell me, “We already know all the rules,” to which I have to say, “Awesome, but I still have to go over them with you anyway just as a refresher.” Typically the adult will listen to what I am saying, but it is hard to tell with some of the kids - their eyes wonder around the shop. It is not so much that the kids are bored. They are definitely still excited. But they want to play instead of having to listen to the rules.

Logos

Logos is the evidence used to back up claims through arguments (Herrick, 2005). I do a fairly good job of this when I am explaining the rules, because I try to tell them why they have to do certain things instead of telling them, “That’s just the rule.”

When I hand them safety glasses, I make the argument that everyone has to “wear them at all times when you’re back here so that you don’t get anything in your eyes.” Sometimes I will have to remind kids to put their glasses back on, and they always listen (and I generally won’t have to remind them again), but sometimes they’ll ask, “Why?” I then remind them that their purpose is to protect our eyes. Sometimes the child will use the logo claim, “But I’m done with project, and I’m just waiting on my sister, so I don’t really need them anymore.” Other times they will use the logo claim, “But my mom is not wearing hers, so why should I have to wear mine?” To these responses, I show them that I am still wearing my safety glasses, even though I am not working on anything. It is still possible to get hurt if saw dust is flying everywhere, and sometimes other accidents can happen too. If I notice an adult is not wearing their glasses, I have to ask them to put them back on. They will generally do this after I tell them they need them, but you would be surprised at how many adults are willing to demonstrate to their children that safety rules are not a big deal with something that seems so simple and easy.

Another logo appeal that I use before the kids come back is that I make the argument that kids can only use two pieces of wood each in order to ensure “that there’s enough for everyone.” This is the rule that kids tend to ignore the most. The other day I had a kid who took ten pieces of wood when I told him and his dad that they could only use two before letting them in - and the dad was encouraging him to grab more. The boy came up to me to ask for my help with the hot glue. I said of course before heading over to the glue station with him: “Hey, can we put some of these pieces back? Remember you can only have two pieces - that way there will still be enough wood for other kids throughout the day,” I told him. My logo claim in this case was that he needed to limit his use of wood so that other kids would have a chance to build something with it. His counter-argument (logo claim) was, “Well I need this many so that I can make a skateboard. Can’t you just make an exception for me?” I looked at his dad, who had indulged his son’s behavior, and was now looking pleadingly at me. Adding to my logo claim, I said, “I’m sorry, bud, I wish I could. But if I made exception for you, I would have to let everyone else in here use the same amount of wood, and then we wouldn’t have enough for the kids who come in later today.” Eventually I got him to put the wood back and use a different material for his project. Normally kids listen upon my first reminder, but sometimes reasoning with kids using a logos appeal is not necessarily effective. Most kids are pretty good at listening to me, but if the adult with them (usually a parent or grandparent) does not seem to care about the rules, my rational line of thinking sometimes goes in one ear and out the other - probably because, as I talked about earlier, the adult is undermining my ethos, or credibility.

I also make logo claims about how to use the tools when I state: “If you’re going to use any of the tools, make sure you have both hands on them at all times so you have more control” and “If you’re going to use the saw at all, whatever you’re sawing needs to stay in the vice, the metal on the edge of the table, because this will hold it in place so you don’t hurt yourself” These are logo claims, because I am telling them the proper ways to use the tools in order to keep themselves safe. Kids will generally listen to these claims, and the adult with them will typically remind them of the rule when they are helping them, so I do not have to. However, occasionally neither a kid nor the adult were listening to the rules at the beginning, and I have to remind them of the proper way to use the tools. Again, most people do fine with these rules, and if they forget, they will typically remember after one reminder.

The final logo claim I make is that the kids and their adult should clean up their station so that it is nice and ready “for the kid who comes in" next. No one wants to come in and be assigned a messy workplace, and the ThinkShop gets busy, which does not leave me a lot of time to pick up after everyone.  

Effectiveness

I would say that overall, the rhetoric I use is effective because it is generally gets the kids to do what I want them to. Kids tend to do a good job at wearing their safety glasses. I probably have to ask adults to put theirs back on more than I have for children. The effectiveness of adults following rules is extremely important though - this is not only because kids tend to replicate what their adult is doing, but also because my job is to enforce the rules for everyone.

With exception to rare occasions, the rhetoric is also good at helping kids and adults understand the proper way to use tools. Kids understand how to use them because their adult usually shows them, but if I see someone who looks unsure (or if someone asks me specifically), I will always go over and demonstrate for them.

My rhetoric is generally less effective at enforcing the two pieces of wood rule. Although they follow the rule upon my reminder, probably about half of kids try to get away with it, and their adult usually tells them it is fine. In some cases, like the one described of the boy and his father (in the Logos section), it takes some extra convincing because the adult is undermining my ethos by ignoring my rules themselves.

The major rule that is not effective in my rhetoric is that people do not need to clean up their station before they leave. The ThinkShop gets really busy, and sometimes it is hard for me to keep track of which tables are occupied, because people leave unused supplies and tools on their tables along with lots of saw dust. Because it gets so busy, this rule is also hard to enforce. It seems weird to me that adults may except their kids to pick up their toys at home but do not do it when they are at a public place, possibly because they think of it as being my “job.” Below are a few examples of how people generally leave their station.

My ethos is generally effective because kids focus on my uniform and walkie talkie as meaning I am in charge. However, when adults pay more attention to my age/gender and interpret these characteristics as meaning I have less authority, adults are less likely to follow the rules, making their children also less likely to follow the rules (making my ethos ineffective)

The pathos that talking about rules generates (eagerness and impatience) is overall harmful to the effectiveness of the rhetoric, because if kids are impatient, they are not listening (and therefore will not remember) the rules. However, because kids are excited to be in the ThinkShop (and because they want to stay back there), they will generally follow my rules upon reminders (in whch case the pathos is effective).

Ethics

I think this rhetorical artifact is extremely ethical because all the rules are in place to ensure the safety of everyone. Using the ethos appeal of being in charge, generating emotions of eagerness/impatience, and telling rational for rules are all necessary and/or important in order to effectively get my message across to the audience. My ethos appeal of being in charge is necessary, because kids would not feel the need to follow my rules if they thought I was just another visitor. My pathos appeal of the emotion of eagerness/impatience is ethical because it is unavoidable, since I have to tell kids and adults the rules to keep them safe (even though kids just want to play). My logos claims are ethical, because they are truthful and not deceptive, and they give rational for rules instead of simply stating it’s “the rule” - even if kids are not listening to the reasons at the point I first tell them the rules, I think it is helpful for the adult to hear them, because if they feel like my ethos is undermined by my age/gender, maybe hearing my reasons will help boost their likelihood to listen to me.

Conclusion

My uniform, youthful appearance, and gender all effect my ethos, or perceived credibility. The emotions of excitement and eager/impatience (pathos) are expressed by children due to the words I use. My descriptions of why everyone has to wear safety glasses at all times, can only use two pieces of woods, use both hands when using tools, use the vice whenever using the saw, and clean up their station before they leave are all logos claims. My rhetorical artifact is effective when thinking goals of having people follow the rules of safety glasses, both hands on tools, using the vice, but less productive when considering the two pieces of wood rule and cleaning up before leaving. These claims are ethical because they are all necessary in order to ensure fun and safety. The ThinkShop is a fun place where kids can let their creativity run wild - but it becomes less fun when they get hurt. Getting hurt can be easily avoided if they follow the rules, and I make sure that kids understand this before they start working on their projects.

References

Herrick, J.A. (2005), Aristotle on rhetoric. In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.) pp. 69-81. New York: Routledge.

Semlak, J.L. & Pearson, J.C. (2001). Through the years: An examination of instructor age and misbehavior on perceived teacher credibility. Communications Research Reports, 25(1).

[fluorescentlightbulboftruth]

*Rhetoric as the Feminine Style*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): What gender norm is constructed or undone in this artifact? How is it performed? How does it promote a dominate ideology over a marginalized group or push back against the ideology or gender norms?

To investigate these critical questions, I examined Maddie and Tae’s “Girl in a Country Song.” This is a country song sung by two women. They bring to light some of the gender norms that are often promoted in country music by making clear how women are objectified, and in doing so they empower their female audience to feel like they should not have to adhere to the gender expectation of dressing and acting to please men.

I found the gender norm of how women are supposed to dress and act to please men was undone in this artifact. This ideology was illustrated through clear examples of objectification and pushed back against both through lyrics sung as well as the gender role reversal displayed in the music video.

Throughout the entire music video, the idea that women should dress in clothes to please men is evident. The music video starts out showing two girls in short shorts and bikini tops walking down the road. Three men are sitting on their truck and looking and pointing at them. In just the first few seconds, this visual illustrates how women are often objectified through the male gaze, and the singers argue this is especially prominent in country music. The very first verses of the song set the expectation right off the bat: “Well, I wish I had some shoes on my two bare feet. And it's gettin' kinda cold in these painted on cut-off jeans. I hate the way this bikini top chafes. Do I really have to wear it all day? (Yeah, baby).” These lyrics illustrate the gender norm that women have to wear things they might not be comfortable in (“it’s getting’ kinda cold” and her “bikini top chafes”) because it pleases men. This idea of objectification is further demonstrated when the women sing, “I got a name. And to you it ain’t pretty little thing, honey, or baby.” This phrase goes with the theme of objectification because the men do not care about the women themselves – the men only care about women’s looks, and the men do not even bother to learn the women’s name. During the chorus, the women sing, “All we're good for is looking good for you and your friends on the weekend. Nothing more.” This again reinforces the idea that men, especially those in country songs, do not care about women as people. They objectify women, and women’s job is often thought to be the eye candy. As is emphasized in these lyrics, women are expected to constantly perform this gender role in music videos. This relates to queer theorist Judith/Jack Butler’s notion of how binary male/female language affects our lives: “Consider gender, for instance, as a corporeal style, an “act,” as it were, which is both intentional and performative, where “performative” suggests a dramatic and contingent construction of meaning” (Butler 443). In other words, Butler thinks that gender is a performance because we constantly have to act in certain ways in order to “prove” our gender. In country music videos, revealing clothes that please men is often a standard of what it “means” to be a woman.

The singers push back against this norm: “Aww y'all, we ain't a cliché. That ain't no way to treat a lady… like a girl in a country song.” Through these lyrics, they empower their audience to push back against the gender norm that they have to wear and act in ways that will make men happy, and they call for men to treat women with more respect. The first goal relates strongly to Butler’s point of view. Butler states: “I may feel that without some recognition I cannot live. But I may also feel that the terms by which I am recognized make life unlivable” (Butler 4). In other words, Butler encourages everyone to go against the norms of what is expected of them, because if we are simply following society’s expectations, we are not truly “living.” Likewise, Maddie and Tae think that women should do what makes them feel comfortable instead of trying to adhere to the gender norm which tells us women’s role is to please men: "Yeah, baby, I ain't your tan legged Juliet. Can I put on some real clothes now?” In these lyrics, Maddie and Tae are encouraging women to live for themselves and not men’s expectations, just like Butler encourages her readers to do. For this reason, the artifact is productive at pushing back against the ideology of how women (especially in country songs) are supposed to act. 

This music video also pushes back against the idea of the male gaze by using a role reversal strategy, where they show men dressing and acting in the same ways as women in country songs are supposed to. The men wear crop tops, short shorts, and other revealing clothing. They dance in ways that are thought to be seductive when women do it, including moving their hips, running their hand through their hair, and ringing soapy water from the car wash onto themselves. They also exhibit the expected behavior of women in country songs when they wink and put their finger to their mouth. These behaviors illustrate how normalized the male gaze is, because when we see men doing these behaviors, it is seen as comedy, whereas most people do not think twice when the same actions are portrayed as sexy or normal when they are done by women.

In summary, “Girl in a Country Song” challenges the gender norm that women are supposed to dress and act to please men, and that men’s job is to objectify women. The video illustrates this through lyrics and as well as the visual of reversing the roles (by showing men doing the stereotypical girl actions displayed in country music videos). The display of objectification of women in music videos is extremely pressing, even if we do not feel like we are personally being affected by suggestive lyrics and visuals. This is because when voyeurism, looking at someone without knowledge or consent, is used in videos, the camera shot forces us to see women from the male gaze, and thus objectification becomes normalized. Because it has become normalized, it is essential that artists with an influential platform (like Maddie & Tae) push back against the ideologies that play a role in this process.

References

Butler, J. (2013). “From gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity.” In Feminist theory: A reader (pp. 436-444). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Butler, J. “Introduction: Acting in concert.” In Undoing gender (pp. 1-4). New York: Routledge.

Marlow. M. & Dye, T. (2015). Girl in a Country Song [music video]. On Start Here. Dot Republic.

[fluorescentlightbulboftruth]

*Rhetoric as Division*

http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): How is Burke’s notion of the unification device evident in this artifact? How are each of the components at play? How is this productive and/or unproductive (ethical/unethical)?

I found that all four of Burke’s unification device elements (inborn dignity, projection device, symbolic rebirth, and commercial use) were found in this artificial. This is productive at uniting the audience but unethical/unproductive to society at large.

To investigate these critical questions, I examined highlights from Trump’s Presidential Announcement speech as my rhetorical artifact. This clip focused on Trump’s views of immigration and his plan on how to deal with what he sees as the problem.

The video starts out with Trump saying he is officially running for president so that he can “Make America great again.” He then goes on to talk about Mexican immigrants, and states, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Trump paints himself as the leader who can restore America’s jobs and security. The clip ends with Trump saying he doesn’t need anyone’s money, and it’s not bragging to say that, because it is just the kind of “mindset” the president needs to have in order to be successful.

The first element of Burke’s unification device is inborn dignity. This is the idea that some people are simply born better than everyone else (Burke 193). This is clearly evident in the clip. Trump says he wants to “make America great again,” right before talking about immigrants, which implies that he thinks current immigration has made our country worse. Later, in reference to Mexico, Trump states, “They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you.” This quote illustrates that Trump thinks US citizens (”you”) are better than Mexican immigrants.

The second element of Burke’s unification device is projection device. This is the idea that individuals with inborn dignity are not responsible for their condition alone - in other words, the use of scapegoating is a projection device (Burke 194). This is shown in Trump’s announcement speech when he exclaims, “Mexico is sending people who have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.” Here, Trump is trying to claim that the main cause for the US’s problems are not due to the citizens, but rather the undocumented immigrants who bring their “problems with us,” by which he means they bring the problems to the US.

The third element of Burke’s unification device is symbolic rebirth. This is the idea of “moving forward, towards a goal” by uniting those who are not immigrants (Burke 194). Trump’s solution to the “problem” of immigration is for the people to elect him as president so that he can “make America great again.” His solution is a leader who can bring back jobs, manufacturing, and military - and although he does not give a concrete plan for how he will actually go about addressing these issues, his speech still encompasses himself as a solution. He succeeds at uniting his audience as can be heard by the cheers from the crowd.

The fourth element of Burke’s unification device is commercial use. This is selling an idea and blaming economic problems on the group painted as the enemy (Burke 194). Trump sells the idea that immigrants are the reason for the country’s problems. He also implies that they are responsible for economic burdens when he states, “We need a leader who can bring back our jobs,” as he says this right after talking about the problem of immigration.

This rhetoric was productive at uniting his audience. The crowd cheered after all of Trump’s statements. However, if we measure productivity using ethical standards, I find Trump’s speech to be extremely unproductive for society. This is because it is dividing the people by creating an enemy (immigrants, specifically undocumented Mexican immigrants in this clip) for the use of scapegoating. Trump’s rhetoric is especially unethical because it rests on stereotypes and false assumptions. For example, Trump makes the argument that Mexican immigration is bad because, “they’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” However, when we look at the facts, there is no reason to believe that these immigrants commit any more crime than native born US citizens. In addition, first generation immigrants actually commit less crime than native born US citizens (Camarota &  Vaughan 2008). In addition, according to the Congressional Research Service, the large majority of undocumented immigrants do not fit into the category of “criminal aliens” that Trump described because they have not committed a crime (See Figure 1) (Rosenblum & Kandel 2012). This is also unethical because Trump is not thinking of his audience as rational beings who can think for themselves. Instead, he is assuming that they are sponges who will absorb and agree with any idea he puts forward.

In summary, Trump’s rhetoric of “making America great again,” along with his rhetoric on undocumented immigrants creates a unproductive result of dividing our country based on false assumptions and scapegoating. He does this by using all four elements of Burke’s unification device: inborn dignity, projection device, symbolic rebirth, and commercial use. Burke claims that rhetoric can be extremely dangerous when it is used in this manipulative way, and it is clear that this is still happening even today. Burke suggests that if the people get education on rhetoric and the unethical techniques used by public speakers that perhaps we can become less susceptible to the effects of rhetoric like Trump’s. Although damage has already been done, more people are starting to realize how scary blind following of rhetoric can be.

References

Burke, K. (2005). The rhetoric of Hitler’s battle. In C. R. Burckhardt (Ed.), Readings in rhetorical criticism (3rd ed.) (pp. 188-202). State College: Strata Publishing, Inc. (Original work published in 1974)

Camarota, S. A. &  Vaughan, J. (2009).  Immigration and crime: assessing a conflicted issue. Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved from https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-Crime.

Rosenblum, M. R. & Kandel, W. A. (2012). Interior immigration enforcement: Programs targeting criminal aliens. Congressional Research Service.

TIME Staff. (2015). Here's Donald Trump's presidential announcement speech. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/.

[fluorescentlightbulboftruth]

*Rhetoric as Narrative*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What narrative does this artifact tell? Is the speaker using their rhetoric to lead or speak the views of the demos? What are the benefits and disadvantages of doing so?

To investigate these questions, I examined an episode of Parks and Recreation (season 7, episode 9: Pie-Mary) as my rhetorical artifact. During this season, Ben Wyatt is running for Congress. During this episode, his wife, Leslie, refuses to participate in a pie baking contest that all the candidates’ wives traditionally par take in. This causes a lot of backlash from the community because Leslie is refusing to conform to the gender role that wives must be domestic, including having good baking skills. Some of the “men’s rights” activists (self-proclaimed “male men”) even go as far as to claim Ben is being oppressed by his wife’s refusal to conform. In the attached clip, Ben gives his wife a platform to speak about her feelings towards the backlash. Leslie states, “I’m sorry that the spotlight is on me, and not Ben, because he is going to make a great congressman.” Leslie points out that a lot of the questions the media are asking about the campaign are pointless and have nothing to do with what matters – Ben’s political stances and policy ideas. She does so by asking and answering all the questions she thinks the media will ask to her over the election cycle: “‘Why did you change your hairstyle?’ I don’t know, I just thought it would look better, or my kids got gum in it. ‘Are you trying to have it all?’ That question makes no sense… ‘Do you miss your kids when you’re at work?’ Yes, of course I do. Everybody does. And ya know, sometimes I don’t.” Ben chimes in, pointing out how sexist the questions that women get are, considering nobody has ever asked them to him. When Leslie is done giving her speech, she is met with half cheers and half boos.

Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch (2012) define narratives as a story. They state that narratives are a form of rhetoric, and they are everywhere, always informing all aspects of the world in which we live. Consequentially, narratives are a way for people to make sense of their lives. Oftentimes there are narratives that an entire community shares, and these stories have the purpose of teaching cultural values. In the Parks and Recreation episode, the narrative of the Pawnee pie baking contest represents the values of the community, and this is why so many people get upset with Leslie when she declines to participate. By not entering the contest, Leslie is refusing to perpetuate the narrative that wives must be domestic, which is a strong belief upheld by most of the people in her small hometown. In addition, Leslie’s speech indicates a different narrative – that it does not actually matter what she is doing, because the people are voting for her husband, and not her. However, as can be seen by the crowd’s reaction, this is not a cultural value supported by the majority, and she is therefore not using rhetoric to speak the views of the demos. Instead, Leslie is hoping to convince the people that there are more important matters than baking, and that the election should be focused on the candidates instead of their spouses.

In addition to beliefs held by smaller communities, narratives often convey cultural beliefs perceived to be held by the country as whole. For instance, Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch (2012) discuss the narrative of the American Dream, which places value on hard work and tells citizens that if they are determined enough, they can accomplish anything. Iversen (2014) further expands upon this idea by analyzing a speech by President Obama. In his 2009 address on health care, Obama retold “Ted Kennedy’s experience of children suffering from cancer with a larger narrative of what constitutes the American character in order to persuade his audience to act in favor of the proposed reform.” In this address, Obama is appealing to a value, the “American character,” that he already knows the United States citizens care about. Public speakers are generally expected to align their rhetoric with what the demos want to hear and what will make them feel good about themselves. Speakers do this by incorporating the beliefs of the demos into their speeches, and by avoiding ideas that conflict with preexisting values of the community (Kunde 2017). However, as can be seen by Leslie’s speech, this does not always happen.

There are advantages and disadvantages of politicians and public servants like Leslie being blunt about how citizens can improve. One obvious disadvantage is that there can be serious political consequences. In Ancient Greece, if someone chose to sue someone, the equivalent of the plaintiff could be fined or even sentenced to death if the public disagreed with them (Ober 2000). Similarly, in the case of Ben Wyatt’s campaign, his wife’s disapproving speech could have resulted in his loss. Another disadvantage is that people in power are not always representing the people, and therefore the democracy of the community may be called into question. In the case of Ben Wyatt’s campaign, he is not yet elected, and therefore he does not have much influence over many changes in the community. However, if he or Leslie were in office, they could make the decision to put their personal beliefs in front of the beliefs of the majority, possibly getting rid of the pie baking contest altogether. Of course, this lack of democracy is not necessarily a bad thing. One danger of blindly following the wishes of the people in order to have a representative democracy is that the majority can be (and oftentimes is) wrong. Therefore, one advantage of speaking out against the demos is that positive change can come about when people in power question the status quo. If rhetoric is done effectively, it has the power to change people’s opinions of reality (i.e. “maybe focusing on Leslie’s pie baking skills is not really a productive civic duty”), and as a result, it can also change people’s behaviors (i.e. “maybe I should consider Ben’s platform instead of his wife’s domestic life when deciding who to vote for”). Rhetoric is not only a reflection of reality – it has the power to change reality in and of itself (Booth 2004).

In summary, the narrative of the Pawnee pie baking contest upholds the community’s value of placing women in domestic areas, and therefore Leslie’s refusal to participate in it is seen as rejection of Pawnee values. For this reason, many people were upset with Leslie. However, Leslie spoke up for herself by disagreeing with public opinion. Leslie was honest and upfront about how Pawnee Indianans could be better citizens. Of course, there should be a balance between telling people the truth and out right criticizing all of their beliefs. Although a lot of the audience probably did not change their minds after Leslie’s speech, there nevertheless needs to be someone who forces us to question the status quo, and there needs to be more people like Leslie who tell everyone what they need to hear instead of trying to appeal to them for political and personal gain.

 References

Booth, W. (2004). How many rhetorics? In The rhetoric of rhetoric (pp. 3-22). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Iversen, S. (2014). Narratives in rhetorical discourse. In: The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University.

Kunde, M. (2017). Democracy and rhetoric in Athens [Powerpoint]. Retrieved from Moodle: http://moodle.augustana.edu/mod/folder/view.php?id=208894.

Ober, J. (2000). The orators. In C. Rowe and M. Schofield (Eds.), The Cambridge history of the Greek and Roman political thought (pp. 130-141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palczewski, C. H., Ice, R., Fritch, J. (2012). Narratives: In Rhetoric in civic life (pp. 117-146). State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc.