mhornrhetoric-blog

[mhornrhetoric-blog]

*Mystery dish blind-folded*

In Comm 320, Rhetorical Traditions, I learned about many theories of rhetoric. At the beginning of this class, I had zero idea of what rhetoric was. I had heard the word thrown around before, but never took it upon me to look it up or ask what it meant.  Therefore, this post is a sum up of my journey of attempting to learn rhetoric.

In the beginning of the term, I stated that rhetoric was “how something is written. Style, word choice, structure of the writing all plays into rhetoric.” It is “how we choose to write about something.” I do not think I was entirely wrong.  I mainly focused on the speaker aspect of rhetoric.  At the time, that is the only aspect I considered as rhetoric but I soon learned that was an entire world I was unaware.

An idea or theory that influenced me or will stick with me the most is Dow and Tonn’s article about the feminine style. In today’s society, I found it as one of the articles I was most able to connect to the world outside of the classroom. What sparked my interest most in the it was the discussion group and hearing the real world applications, primarily on the wives of Presidential candidates.  At the time of this article, I was in the middle of semi-binge watching the tv show Madam Secretary.  This is a political drama/thriller broadcasted on CBS.  Taking points from Dow and Tonn’s article like how “identification is the goal of the personal connection forged between speaker and auditor in feminine style, and this identification serves as the basis for empowerment” (296) and applying it to different aspects of the show, made it all more understandable. 

My view of what rhetoric has changed since the first day of class.  Rhetoric is greater than what is and how it is being spoken.  Rhetoric involves the speaker and who (and who is not) the direct audience.  It is verbals and nonverbals.  It contains a multitude of elements and tactics one could ploy.  It also is different across races, ethnicities and genders.  One way I would now describe rhetoric is that it is like eating a mystery dish blind-folded and the only way to figure out what you are eating, you have to solely rely on your tastebuds.  However, your tastebuds are not always right nor always working.  Each person’s taste buds could recognize something different in the dish, just like each person’s definition or interpretation of rhetoric is different.

Dow, B. Tonn, M. “Feminine Style” and Political Judgement in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 1993, 286-302.

[mhornrhetoric-blog]

*Don’t Take this the Wrong Way*

In this post, I am looking at the critical question: What gender norm is constructed in this artifact, how is it performed, and how does it promote a dominate ideology over a marginalized group?

The artifact above is the music video for the song “Better With The Lights Off” by New Boyz featuring Chris Brown.  The song, released in 2011, was an automatic hit amongst the youth.  The song begins with Brown singing the chorus which describes the girl of interest “Top of the line, so unusual” and that he hopes she “don’t take this the wrong way. You look better with the lights off.”  Other memorable lines from the song come from the two rappers parts.  In the first part, the rapper says “ Can't blame me babe. If you and me were close girl I'd make a change to your lingerie, right like that, lalala make your eyes roll back I mean you really fine though, I just wanna see you with the lights off Every guy wanna know how it is to clap off the lights and turn Khloe to Kim.”  Then the other rapper ends his verse with “but wait let me dim the lights. You look different, she's like boy stop it, No, I ain't playing actually you more poppin' That's shocking, know what's really raw all over baby even the lights off.”

The lyrics of this song constructs multiple gender norms.  The largest one constructed is that women are only good to have sex with.  This construction of this starts with Brown pointing out that the girl looks better than usual.  When most people start a sentence with “don’t take this the wrong way,” something offensive usually follows. In this case it is also true because Brown tells her that “she looks better with the lights off.”  Automatically one thinks, how can someone see when the lights are off? Oh that is right, you cannot. Therefore, two conclusions can be made. Either the girls is ugly but the guy knows she is good in the bedroom or he just wants to have sex and can picture another girl instead of her.  The first scenario is supported by the second rapper’s verse “Wait let me dim the lights. You look different...No, I ain't playing actually you more poppin', that's shocking.”  He turns off the lights and is surprised how good she is, therefore finds her more attractive. The latter is supported by the first rapper’s verse “Every guy wanna know how it is to clap off the lights and turn Khloe to Kim.” The reference “turn Khloe to Kim” is about Khloe and Kim Kardashian.  Here he says that every guy wants to turn the average girl (Khloe) into a sex symbol (Kim) just by turning off the lights.

The second gender norm constructed is that guys only want sex and nothing else.  The song makes it seem that this is that guys only care about sex.  They do not care about how you look, intelligence, personality, nothing.  It almost simplifies them and makes them into animals. Denise Herd in her article Conflicting Paradigms on Gender and Sexuality in Rap Music: A Systemic Review supports this claim and points out men in rap music “are hypersexualize and misogynistic” (580). Neither gender wins in the representation in this song or in most genres in general.

Herd D. Conflicting Paradigms on Gender and Sexuality in Rap Music: A Systemic Review. Sexuality & Culture, 2015, 19, 577-589.

[mhornrhetoric-blog]

**Hey hey hey, goodbye**

In this post, I am going to present the artifact I found and explain how it is a counterpublic, what its rhetorical message is, any empowerment behind it and how it can be limiting.

The artifact above is a video of the House of Representatives after part of Congress voted on the new healthcare bill May 4th. After passing by one vote, Democrats started to sing/chant “Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye” at Republicans as the session ended.  While the clip is only 31 seconds long, I believe it provides a great example of the difference between a public and counterpublic.

In today’s times, it seems that there is a large discourse between what the people want and what Congress wants to do (ironic since the representatives are supposed to represent what their people want).  Yet the two seem on different pages especially with the recent passing of the new healthcare bill.  A counterpublic is a marginalized group from the public.  In this case, the video represents the public, Congress, doing whatever they decided is “best” and the counterpublic, the American people, having to deal with the repercussions.  While the situation is still playing out, most Americans could be negatively affected by this bill given the list of what is considered a preexisting condition.

The rhetorical message here sent by the Democrats via chanting deals with the 2018 congressional elections that will occur.  Their song/chant of choice is referring to those Republicans up for election who voted to pass the bill will not be re-elected into Congress.

This artifact is both empowering and limiting.  It is empowering for the counterpublic in that the chanting how draw attention to the power of the American population during the 2018 congressional elections.  It is all based off of the popular vote giving the people all the power without having to worry about the Electoral College.  At the same time, this artifact also shows the limited power the people have in political situations. Yes we elect them into their positions, but after that they have complete control of what they want to do as representatives. Americans can call, email, write, and contact their elected officials as much as they want, however Americans cannot control how officials vote.  

This artifact reminds me of Michael Dawson’s A Black Counterpublic?: Economic Earthquakes, Racial Agenda(s), and Black Politics. He writes about how the Black community has continually been marginalized by the government overtime.  While it has developed greatly throughout the years, is the true starting point for people singled out by the pre existing conditions clause? It will be interesting to see how everything continues on as time progresses.  Will the marginalization of another group of Americans take some pressure off or distract from the black community in order for them to rebuild within the eyes of the government? Only time will tell.

Dawson, M. A Black Counterpublic?: Economic Earthquakes, Racial Agenda(s), and Black Politics. Public Culture, 7, 1994 195-223.

[mhornrhetoric-blog]

In this post, I am going to examine the ethos, logos and pathos behind Pepsi’s latest commercial.  I will also be looking at its effectiveness and if the overall commercial was ethical.

The artifact above is the latest Pepsi commercial starring Kendall Jenner.  The nearly 3 minute commercial was aimed in kickstarting Pepsi’s “moments” campaign in which Pepsi took on its attempt to tie consumerism and the conflict with police brutality.  The ad begins with a protest starting to form comprised of people within the 20-25 year old range.  From first appearance, all the people are good looking people who are artists and musicians.  There does not seem to be any reason behind the protest.  Then Kendall Jenner is coincidentally having a photo shoot off the street the protest is happening.  She gets the nod from some guy in the crowd and then joins the protest.  They then reach a line of police officers and Kendall has somehow acquired a pepsi.  She approaches one officer and offers his a pepsi which he accepts and the crowd goes wild! He smiles and it seems that the protest is over.

The commercial tried to appeal to the millennial generation via the pathos.  Pepsi seemed to create an emotional bridge with the generation by their choice of actors.  It appears that the millennial generation is viewed as a large group of great looking artistically and musically inclined individuals who do not seem to be protesting for any particular reason.  Very commonly, millennials are ridiculed by older individuals that they have no work ethic, do not know hardship, and are handed everything.  This is how their chose to illustrate the entire generation.  However where are the millennials who are athletes, interested in science, business, educating the future?  Granted it is a commercial and I can understand why they picked great looking models but if Pepsi is launching this huge campaign, why wouldn’t they include a diversity in models more so than just racially and ethnically diverse?  Geraldine Brown writes in her piece The Millennials (Generation Y): Segregation, Integration and Racism that millennials “are the most highly educated and culturally diverse group of all generations” (6).  She also states that are “optimistic, engaged and team players” while in the workplace (Brown 6).  Does that sound like a group of people who take things for granted and have no work ethic?  As a millennial, I can recognize that our generation is very diverse and each person is different.  But the argument starts when a negative attribute of a couple people are propelled onto nearly 83 million people.  Some of the most hardworking people of toward I believe are the millennials who are doing what they can to better their lives and to give their future a chance.

Logically, Pepsi seems to be providing their input on how to ease the tensions between protesters and police officers.  The answer is Kendall Jenner giving an officer a Pepsi.  Not really but they suggest that the answer to the problem is so simple a Pepsi could solve it.  I disagree with the company.  The situation is a bit more complex that warrants a more thought out solution.  What if someone actually tried to follow Pepsi’s lead and approached an officer to give them a Pepsi during a protest? Unless there is also a dialogue involved in the gift giving, I do now foresee it going very well.

Ethically speaking, Pepsi may have had good intentions behind what they were trying to do but I found it unethical that they would use such a heat topic to sell a product. People have been hurt and killed in this conflict and Pepsi is almost exploiting it just to make a couple dollars.  James Herrick wrote in The History and Theory of Rhetoric that Aristotle recognized that ethos (out of ethos, pathos and logos) was probably the most persuasive of the three. He continues on saying that “when people are convinced that a speaker is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and has their best interests at heart, they will be very likely to accept as true what the speaker has to say” (81).  Pepsi has lost credibility after their commercial and have a great deal of making up to do before they can regain the credibility again.  

Brown G. The Millennials (Generation Y): Segregation, Integration and Racism. ABNF Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, Winter 2017, pp. 5-8.

Herrick JA. The History and Theory of Rhetoric. Routledge, NYC, 2013, pp 69-87.

[mhornrhetoric-blog]

**Pepsi, Saving the World One Cold One at a Time**

In this post, I am going to look at the dissoi logoi that was produced from the recent Pepsi commercial and provide examples how it was effective or ineffective.

The artifact above is the latest Pepsi commercial starring Kendall Jenner.  The nearly 3 minute commercial was aimed in kick starting Pepsi’s “moments” campaign in which Pepsi took on its attempt to tie consumerism and the conflict with police brutality.  The ad begins with a protest starting to form comprised of people within the 20-25 year old range.  From first appearance, all the people are good looking people who are artists and musicians.  There does not seem to be any reason behind the protest.  Then Kendall Jenner is coincidentally having a photo shoot off the street the protest is happening.  She gets the nod from some guy in the crowd and then joins the protest.  They then reach a line of police officers and Kendall has somehow acquired a Pepsi.  She approaches one officer and offers his a Pepsi which he accepts and the crowd goes wild! He smiles and it seems that the protest is over.

You may think that I am going to analyze the main argument of Pepsi solving the issue of police brutality but rather I am going to look at the dissoi logoi behind the portrayal of the millennial generation in the ad.

As mentioned above, the millennial generation was portrayed as artistic people who protest for no reason.  This seems to be how the older generations view millennials.  Very commonly, millennials are ridiculed by older individuals that they have no work ethic, do not know hardship, and are handed everything.  The artifact above supports that argument.  However, where are the people who are involved in the social sciences? Where are the individuals who are sacrificing their lives for this country? Where are millennials who are finishing medical and law school?

This artifact is so quick to argue and support the older generations’ view on millennials when that is not true across the entire generation.  Geraldine Brown writes in her piece The Millennials (Generation Y): Segregation, Integration and Racism that millennials “are the most highly educated and culturally diverse group of all generations” (6).  She also states that are “optimistic, engaged and team players” while in the work place (Brown 6).  Does that sound like a group of people who take things for granted and have no work ethic?  As a millennial, I can recognize that our generation is very diverse and each person is different.  But the argument starts when a negative attribute of a couple people are propelled onto nearly 83 million people.  Some of the most hardworking people of toward I believe are the millennials who are doing what they can to better their lives and to give their future a chance.  

Brown G. The Millennials (Generation Y): Segregation, Integration and Racism. ABNF Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, Winter 2017, pp. 5-8.

[mhornrhetoric-blog]

**Bill Who? Oh Bill Clinton!**

In this post, I am going to look at the question should current leaders have to have great delivery skills? What are the benefits and disadvantages of requiring our leaders to be great orators in terms of delivery? The artifact about is a video of President Bill Clinton’s address at the 2012 Democratic Convention. The video features his entire speech lasting roughly 50 minutes long.

To simply answer the critical question, yes, leaders should have great delivery skills. I believe so because communication is a complex and interactive action that is more than just saying words. As discussed during the first few days of class, there are multiple components that go into rhetoric. Body language, tone, intonation, and empathy are only four examples of what influences rhetoric.

Based on Josiah Ober, in Ancient Greece, politicians also had to have strong for delivery skills. One reason why was because stakes were high. If politicians misspoke or did not have good rhetoric skills, they could be financially ruined, exiled or be put to death (Ober 133). While the punishments were a bit extreme, they have a point. Politicians, especially the president of the United States, are representatives of the people on a national and global stage. If they cannot communicate effectively, do not look and sound put together, how will other countries take the United States seriously? 

Additionally, having leaders who possess great delivery skills sets a standard for the rest of the American public.  It puts a pressure on the people to better their skills.  In turn will allow the public to better understand rhetoric.  Which they can then use to depict what their leaders are telling them.  They can better differentiate if the leader is putting on a show or actually telling the truth.  

They are disadvantages when it comes to leaders having to have great delivery skills. If they do so well enough, there is the option that they can trick the American people or other world leaders.  However if we hold our leaders accountable, like ancient Greece, we could better our politicians and nation overall.

Ober, Josiah. The Orators. 1989.