pierceson-mapes24

[pierceson-mapes24]

*Foucault: Rhetoric as Power*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): How does this artifact provide an example of a discursive formation and its elements? How does this discursive formation evoke a certain sense of power, and how is this power limiting/constraining/unproductive?

To investigate these questions, I examined the multifaceted corporation Amazon as my rhetorical artifact. Using Foucault’s notion of discursive formation as a lens to analyze Amazon, it is clear, that a discursive formation and its elements are at play. Two discursive practices create identifiable rules, roles, knowledge, and power possessed by Amazon, in an ultimately productive capacity.

In 1994 Jeff Bezos founded Amazon, what started out as an online marketplace for books quickly grew into a multinational 1.63 trillion-dollar technology corporation. Amazon today is known for a multitude of different things: from its online marketplace (That sells almost anything imaginable), to its innovative subscription service (Amazon Prime), to its AI assistant Alexa, to its live streaming platforms (Amazon music, Amazon prime video, Audible, and Twitch), to its consumer electronics (Kindle e-readers, Fire tablets, Fire Tv, and Echo), and its cloud computing service (Amazon web services). Amazon has revolutionized online retail pushing e-commerce in new directions with there subscription service Amazon Prime, which pairs the convenience of online shopping with the luxury of same day delivery or at the most 2-day delivery. Amazons’ ability to deliver products in a speedy manner with no extra cost to Prime members has made them the one stop shop of the future, leaving competitors in their dust. In just twenty-seven years Amazon has become one of the biggest global retailers, as well as a contender for the most recognizable brand.

Foss and Gill in their 1987 work “Michel Foucault’s Theory of Rhetoric as Epistemic” use Foucault’s notion of discursive formation to create “a middle-level theory that explains the process by which rhetoric is epistemic.” (Foss, pg. 385). Foucault’s term discursive formation focuses on “A framework for knowledge is constituted by a shared body of discourse or given discursive practices.” (Foss, pg.387), from Foucault’s term come five primary units: Discursive practices, Rules, Roles, Power, and Knowledge. Discursive practices as defined by Foucault is discourse that follows a specific set of rules or passes tests, ultimately understood to be true in a culture, discursive practices are not limited to written or spoken discourse but includes non-discursive acts as well. Rules “for Foucault, are principles or procedures that govern a discursive formation; a discursive formation assumes its particular character because of these rules.” (Foss, pg.388) rules dictate what can be included in discourse for a particular discursive formation, who can engage in discourse spoken and written, rules also specify discourse in which knowledge resides. Foucault suggests that roles in a discursive formation “serves as the organizing principle of discourse and thus of knowledge” (Foss, pg.389), he is more concerned with the role that is played or filled than the individual who fills it, as this unit is a tool for analysis of individuals as subject, being that it does not matter the individual who fills the specified role. Power is defined by Foucault “as the overall system, process, or network of force relations spread through the entire discursive formation” (Foss, pg.389), power is also seen not only as negative or repressive but positive and creative in discursive formations. Foucault’s final unit knowledge represents whatever is deemed to be truth in a specific discursive formation, Foss suggests that “knowledge is discourse that comes from individuals' occupation of certain roles, that follows specified rules, and that involves certain power relationships of the discursive formation.” (Foss, pg.390).

With application of Foucault’s first unit of discursive formation, discursive practices, it is clear, that two practices make up the major discursive practices of Amazon. These practices include customer’s role and Amazon prime. The role Amazon’s customers are assigned in purchasing and consumption constitute a discursive practice. Amazon has created a retail space unlike any traditional retailer, Amazon offers an almost endless number of products from recognizable brands to independent creators to Amazons own line of products (Amazon basics). Amazon as of late has become the one stop shop for pretty much everything its customers need, with the culmination of reasonable prices, boundless product offerings, and the ability to purchase products at anytime or location, consumers needs are met creating meaningful and lasting relationships that lead to consistent source of revenue. Furthermore, customers become loyal patrons of Amazon specifically when it comes to routine and quick purchases. It is clear, that Amazon has taken a share of mental real-estate in its customers minds, sitting dormant until it comes time to consume. Amazon employs almost anti-competitive practices when it comes to the role it has assigned to its customers, discourse is centered around the idea that Amazon has everything a consumer needs, so there is no reason to shop anywhere else. Amazon also promotes specific products by labeling some products as “best seller” or “Amazon choice”, this can be seen in two differing ways, first Amazon is making product selection easier, secondly Amazon is forcing the hand of consumers to purchase specific products in an elaborately unconscious way. Discursive practices can also be seen in Amazon’s subscription service Amazon prime. Amazon prime offers a multitude of different services, however the focal point of interest for its members is the delivery incentives that come with the service. With the ability to have a product delivered the same day of purchase or at the longest two days after purchase, it would be crazy not to subscribe to Amazon prime. At least that is what Amazon wants you to think, the subscription-based service creates discourse that implies not ordering a desired product from Amazon is a waste of the subscription. Leaving the consumer with a feeling of guilt that was ultimately desired in efforts to keep prime member consumption high. While the subscription service appeals to the idea of saving money on shipping and other consumption, the reality is the service creates inverse consequences, often pushing consumers to spend more money than they would have initially saved by subscribing to Amazon prime.

The discursive practices evident in the discursive formation that is Amazon exemplify the rules of that formation that allow certain utterances and thus knowledge to emerge. One-time purchases, friction points, minimalism, independence, and traditional retail are clearly not part of the body of discourse and thus the knowledge of Amazon. Equally clear are the objects of discourse; Accessibility is an object of discourse, Convenience is an object of discourse, Speedy delivery is an object of discourse, and Consumption is an object of discourse. Rules of appropriate and acceptable discourse govern Amazon and the knowledge that it illuminates, dictating that customers should be avid consumers, subscribe to Amazon prime, and posses loyalty. On the other hand, Amazon itself reflects consistency, convenience, and speedy delivery (Through prime). Amazon portrays the knowledge of a perfect retailer, anything short of that is considered not an object of discourse.

Amazon’s discursive practices create a clear, consistent role for consumers and its subscription service- one that focuses on consumption, accessibility, speedy delivery, loyalty, and consistency. Consumers exemplify traits of consumption through their purchases made, paired with consistency from regular purchases. Amazon itself exemplifies accessibility through their easy to access website and around the clock service, as well as consistency with its abundant product selection and relatively unchanging interface. Amazon’s prime membership embodies speedy delivery with its same-day, one-day, and two-day delivery model simultaneously providing consistency with its regularly scheduled subscription fees. Prime members themselves exemplify consumption, loyalty, and consistency through regularly made purchases. It is clear, that the roles being portrayed by Amazon prime, and its customers are co-dependent, if customers do not portray their role Amazon revenue and market value drop, on the other hand if Amazon does not portray its role their customers will likely find other mediums of consumption, rendering Amazon’s services obsolete.

Through the identification of discursive practices that follow rules and maintain roles, specific knowledge or truth of Amazon is produced. The highest truth Amazon produces is in consistency, consumption, convenience, loyalty, and of course speedy delivery. Amazon exemplifies these truths through Amazon prime and the roles they assign to customers. The truths do not seem pretty but at the end of the day revenue is the biggest factor in the creation of Amazons truths.

The discursive practices, rules, roles, and knowledge of Amazon all portray the normative power that possess an unconscious and conscious control over its customers and their consumption. The unconscious power aspect that is at play in Amazons discursive function is used to guide and control Amazon’s customers in what on the surface appears to be helpful to consumers. On the other hand, Amazon is conscious of the normative power they posses over its customers, with its ability to influence purchases, create long term customers, and render traditional retailers obsolete. Overall, it does not seem that Amazon is using their power to take advantage or control its customers, it is also clear that their use of power can be deemed productive in that consumer value is at the heart of Amazon.

The discursive formation that is Amazon evokes a normative power over consumers that in some capacities can be seen as limiting and unproductive. It is clear from the perspective of Amazon the power that is evoked from its discursive formation is neither limiting or unproductive, the normative power Amazon has over its customers has not been used in an unethical or unproductive way (Besides data mining... but we all technically agreed to that). When getting down to the brass tacks the whole goal of Amazon is to create revenue while providing a service or product that consumers deem valuable. Amazon is able to successfully provide value to customer and address the needs of consumers while also making a profit, which historically is not easily maintained. Looking from a different perspective, the argument for Amazons use power could be labeled as unproductive. When looking at Amazon it is evident that the argument of anti-competition practices could be made, which is unproductive from a market valuation standpoint being the economic concerns of a monopolistic corporation taking control of e-commerce. Fortunately for other online marketplaces like eBay, and Alibaba, Amazon has decided to infiltrate the brick-and-mortar sector of retail, acquiring Whole Foods, as well as the creation of their Amazon go stores.

In summary it is clear, that Foucault’s notion of discursive formation is evident in Amazon. Amazon as a discursive formation portrays all the elements of discursive formation, in my analysis I identified two discursive practices that are maintained and tested with rules, that create roles, and identify knowledge or truth as well as the evocation of power. Overall, we have deemed the power evoked as productive and unlimiting, but that is not to say with other outside exploration the results will be the same.

Work Cited:

“Amazon (Company).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 May 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company).

“Amazon Prime .” Amazon, Goettsche Partners, 2011, www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G6LDPN7YJHYKH2J6.

“Amazon.com Print at Home Card.” Amazon , www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Gift-Cards-Print-Home/dp/BT00DDC7BK.

Foss, Sonja K., and Ann Gill. “Michel Foucault's Theory of Rhetoric as Epistemic.” Western Journal of Speech Communication, vol. 51, no. 4, 1987, pp. 384–401., doi:10.1080/10570318709374280.

[pierceson-mapes24]

*Burke: Dramatistic Rhetoric*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): How are symbols at use in this artifact in the way Burke describes the symbol using animal? How is this particular use productive/unproductive?

To investigate these questions, I examined a Twitter & TikTok post describing the disparities between the Men’s and Woman’s March Madness tournaments as my rhetorical artifact. Through application of Burkes first clause Man is the symbol-using animal, the symbols in this artifact are used for comparison to showcase inequality and inequitable treatment of division 1 Woman’s basketball teams by the NCAA. Overall, the use of symbols is productive in that it brings light to the historical unjust treatment of Woman’s basketball by the NCAA.

March Madness is a division 1 basketball tournament that is hosted by the NCAA, for both Men’s and Woman’s collegiate teams. Being able to play in March Madness is seen as one of two of the biggest dreams for any basketball player, the other being playing in the NBA/WNBA. The Men’s tournament has been hosted every year since 1939 (apart from 2020), the Woman’s tournament was introduced in 1982 and has been held simultaneously since then (apart from 2020). However, this year the NCAA received backlash from players, coaches, fans, and celebrities, this backlash was centered around the NCAA inequitable treatment of the Woman’s tournament. Oregon states own Sedona Prince took to TikTok to show the disparities in treatment of the Woman’s and Men’s tournaments, after the Men’s weight room was displayed on various social media accounts. Prince in her TikTok directly compares the weight rooms, showing the Men’s full of multifunctional adjustable weight racks and other gym necessities, while the Woman’s weight room consists of yoga mats and a dumbbell rack. Prince goes on to address the NCAA rational of not enough space showing a large open room readily available for the necessary gym equipment. Five days later Nell Fortner the head coach of Georgie Tech’s Woman’s basketball team took to twitter to post a thank you to the NCAA for showing how they really feel about Woman’s basketball. Fortner touches on disparities in Covid testing, lack of weight room necessities, lack of proper branding, among the things mentioned Fortner address the larger problem at hand, woman’s sports and the NCAA substandard treatment of their programs.

When thinking of the difference between humans and other animals we often focus on our ability to communicate in various forms alongside the ability to use tools for innovation. There are many things that separate humans from other animals… one of the biggest is our use of symbols. Kenneth Burke in his book “On Symbols and Society” in search for a satisfying definition of man denotes that “Man is the symbol-using animal”, while this may seem like an obvious and open-ended definition I assure you it is more complex than that. Burke dives into our use of the symbol-system as he calls it, to retain knowledge, to learn about history, to share ideas, and to perceive our reality. Symbols are the greatest tool humans have, being that with the use of symbols we have been able to expand our concessions past our own experiences, this can be noted as the biggest difference between human and animal. Burke tells a story of a wren that would not leave its nest, in short one of the parent wrens uses leverage to get the baby wren out of the nest… the reason Burkes story is so important is that a non-symbol using  animal may have a stroke of genius but will never be able to conceptualize the act or share it with the rest of its kind. As humans we have the ability to share experiences through symbols such as books, movies, tv, stories, maps, we are also able to define things through symbols such as logos, names, pictures, drawings, and much more.

Using symbols Sedona Prince was able to display the inequality that has plagued the woman’s NCAA basketball tournament. Sedona Prince’s TikTok displays both the men’s and woman’s weight rooms, showing the men’s weight room filled with everything you would expect to be in a division 1 weight room: multipurpose weight racks, a large assortment of different weight plates, multiple dumbbell racks, yoga matts, and benches,  then Prince moves to the woman’s weight rooms which displayed some yoga mats and a dumbbell rack that didn’t appear to go past 15 pounds. This depiction of the weight room disparities is a symbol in itself, it proves that the NCAA does not regard the woman’s basketball tournament in the same way as the men’s tournament. Focusing on the disparities in the weight room we can assume that the NCAA does not believe woman’s basketball players need proper weight training equipment, for no other reason than they are woman. One could also address the idea of symbol-making in reference to the weight-room disparities, weight rooms are a symbol of strength, toughness, and commitment, we as a society have made this symbol, the NCAA use of this symbol signifies that the NCAA believes woman’s basketball does not possess these qualities. Moving on, one can also make the claim that Prince’s use of TikTok, a form of social media, is a symbol used to share experiences to a greater collective of people rather than just those that have experienced the event first hand. Prince’s use of TikTok to share her and many other woman’s experience with this years tournament is overall productive in that it showcases inequality in the biggest woman’s basketball tournament, as well as it gained a large following that pushed the NCAA to respond to the problem they ultimately created. Prince’s TikTok also created a medium to facilitate change and equality for future March Madness tournaments using easily and widely understood symbols.

Nell Fortner uses the women’s march madness tournament as a symbol to showcase on many different levels the inequitable treatment of woman’s basketball by the NCAA. Fortner comes out guns blazing from the first sentence where she wrote “Thank you for using the three biggest weeks of your organization’s year to expose exactly how you feel about women’s basketball – an Afterthought.” (Fortner). From Fortner’s first sentence it is clear this is not the first-time women’s basketball has been inequitable treated, rather this is the first-time attention was brought to it. Later on, Fortner writes “But these disparities are just a snapshot of larger, more pervasive issues when it comes to women’s sports and the NCAA” (Fortner) While Fortner does not directly describe the issue, it can be assumed that the issues stem from gender, and a preconceived notion from the NCAA that woman’s sports do not matter as much as men’s do. Using the symbol of the tournament Fortner was able to address both the inequitable treatment of woman’s basketball and all woman’s NCAA sports. If Fortner did not already make her point clear enough, she goes on to say, “In what other non-profit educational endeavor is it acceptable to treat young women as a less valuable financial commodity?” (Fortner) this sentence is a double edged sword; on one side it can be assumed the NCAA perceives its athletes as a financial commodity insinuating that the NCAA only cares about the profitability of their athletes, on the other side it directly calls on the NCAA’s perceived notion that women’s athletics lack value. Overall, Fortner’s use of the NCAA women’s tournament as symbol to articulate the inequitable treatment of woman’s basketball is productive. Fortner’s address to the NCAA is well crafted and raises many questions about the ethical implications of the NCAA actions and reactions concerning the woman’s basketball tournament.

Overall, the symbols used to showcase the inequality and unequitable treatment of woman’s basketball during the 2021 March Madness tournament are productive; however, one could argue that the reason for the disparities between the men’s and women’s tournament are strictly business related. Using a purely business focused lens for analysis, the men’s tournament creates billions of dollars in revenue from TV contracts while the woman’s tournament only brings in about half a billion. According to yahoo sports “The 2019 men’s tournament, the NCAA said, generated $917.8 million in revenue, and $864.6 million in net income. The 2019 women’s tournament, it said, generated $15.1 million in revenue, and that $2.8 million in net losses.” (Bushnell) it is clear from these financials that the NCAA is losing money by hosting the woman’s tournament, in business it is common to cut funding to projects that are not profitable and that seems to be exactly what the NCAA did. From the financials we could also assume that the woman’s tournament is funded by the revenue created from the men’s tournament. Cutting outside costs like weight rooms and excess branding can be seen as an effort to ensure that the woman’s tournament is a profitable venture for the NCAA.

In summary, the combination of Nell Fortner’s address to the NCAA and Sedona Prince’s TikTok showcasing disparities between the men’s and woman’s tournament, use symbols to shed light on the inequality and inequitable treatment of woman’s basketball by the NCAA in a productive way. Fortner and Prince use of symbols aimed for reformation and acknowledgement of not only the woman’s tournament but woman’s sports college sports in general, requesting no more than these athletes deserve for the years of hard work and dedication they have put in.

References:

Bushnell, Henry. “NCAA Reveals Budget, Revenue Gulfs between Men's and Women's Basketball Tournaments.” Yahoo! Sports, Yahoo!, 26 Mar. 2021, sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-revenue-budget-march-madness-mens-womens-basketball-tournaments-202859329.html.

Fortner, Nell. “To the NCAA.” Twitter, 23 Mar. 2021, twitter.com/NellOnWheels/status/1374330881607892992/photo/1.

On Symbols and Society, by Kenneth Burke and Joseph R. Gusfield, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 56–74.

Prince, Sedona, director. Let Me Put It on Twitter Too Cause This Needs the Attention. Twitter, Twitter, 19 Mar. 2021, twitter.com/sedonaprince_/status/1372736231562342402.

[pierceson-mapes24]

*Aristotle: Ethos and Logos and Pathos*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): What is the main purpose of this artifact's message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

To investigate these questions, I examined Malcolm X’s 1964 speech The Ballot or the Bullet as my rhetorical artifact. Throughout The Ballot or the Bullet, Malcolm X uses ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade his listeners that black nationalist philosophy and political maturity are required in order to obtain equal rights and opportunity, thus pushing the civil rights movement in new direction. This is ultimately productive as it persuades listeners to be proactive rather than reactive.

The Ballot or the Bullet is a speech given by Malcolm X on April 12, 1964, at King Solomon Baptist church in Detroit. Malcolm X, or Malcolm Little –his birth name– is considered to be one of the most influential civil rights activists of all time, as well as one of the greatest martyrs of the Americas civil rights movement. Malcolm X differs from his fellow civil rights activists of the 20th century in that he preached black nationalism philosophy rather than preaching for equal rights through nonviolent protests. This brought a large amount of scrutiny on Malcom X because his ideas were considered to be separatist in nature. Malcolm X’s address on April 12, 1964 was given nine days previously in Cleveland, however, his Detroit version is viewed by scholars to be the better of the two. Throughout The Ballot or the Bullet, Malcom X preaches the importance of his black nationalism philosophy, offering ideas of economic, political and societal change, as well as a call for political maturity, which he states will open the eyes of his people, disabling the control white politicians have over black communities. In doing so, Malcolm X shames his listeners for sipping the cool aid the white man has provided, in a charismatic way that only he could pull off. In conclusion, Malcolm X frames the time’s civil rights injustices as human rights injustice, threating to take the issue to the united nations.  

 Rhetoric can be perceived all around us; rhetoric is widely not defined in the same way, through differing definitions similarities arise. One can imply that rhetoric at its core is persuasive; effective, motivational, or informative, writing or speaking tailored to an audience in a specific situation. Aristotle is seen by scholars as the father of rhetoric, and while rhetoric existed before Aristotle, he challenged the preconceived notions of what rhetoric is, as well as how it should be used. Herrick provides Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric as “the faculty (dunamis: capacity, power) of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (Herrick, pg. 72) from Aristotle’s book Rhetoric. Knowing the definition of rhetoric is just the tip of the iceberg that is rhetoric, for the purpose of this post we will focus on Aristotle’s three artistic proofs: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. These artistic proofs “taught by the art of rhetoric—are (1) logos or arguments and logical reasoning, (2) pathos or the names and causes of various emotions, and (3) ethos or human character and goodness” (Herrick, pg. 78). These proofs are tools that a speaker uses in their speech to persuade the audience and accomplish the main purpose(s) of a specific speech. One can dive deeper into the three artistic proofs to view how Ethos is used to build the credibility of the speaker through nuanced claims of their character, within ethos exists Phronesis (proof practical wisdom), Arete (proof of virtue or excellence), and Eunoia (proof of good will). Pathos is used to persuade the audience through an emotional appeal. Logos, unlike ethos and pathos, is used to “refer to proofs available in words, arguments or logic of a speech.” (Herrick, pg. 79). With logos comes syllogism which is simply the form a proof can take. Syllogism structure is the major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.  

 Malcolm X builds his ethos as an honorable man through the comparison of himself to other Christian ministers, ultimately helping to introduce himself to the listeners as someone who they can trust. Malcolm X states that at the present time he is a minister to a newly founded Muslim Mosque in the heart of Harlem, he then begins to list other ministers; “And when we realize that Adam Clayton Powell, is a Christian minister, he has Abyssinian Baptist Church, but at the same time he's more famous for his political struggling. And Dr. King is a Christian minister from Atlanta Georgia, or in Atlanta Georgia, but he's become more famous for being involved in the civil rights struggle. There's another in New York, Rev. Galamison, I don't know if you've heard of him out here, he's a Christian minister from Brooklyn, but has become famous for his fight against the segregated school system in Brooklyn. Rev. Cleage, right here, is a Christian minister, here in Detroit, he's head of the Freedom Now Party.” (X). At first sight this list of catholic ministers may seem like just a list, although when one looks closer that is not the case. We can assume this was deliberately done to establish a point of reference to later be capitalized on by Malcom X. In listing these catholic ministers, he also included what civil rights activism these ministers are, or were involved in. In doing so he warms the audience up to the idea that ministers do more than just preach religion. Malcolm X then states, “all of these are Christian ministers but they don't come to us as Christian ministers, they come to us as fighters in some other category.” (X). Malcolm X’s choice to use the phrase fighters in some other category is strategic, he could have said civil rights activists, but he chose not to. As fighters are commonly associated with violence and being that Malcolm X was commonly portrayed by the media as an angry and violent man, his choice of phrasing made the audience’s comparison of himself and other noble ministers easier. Malcolm X goes on to lessen the comparison by stating “The same as they are Christian ministers, I'm a Muslim minister. And I don't believe in fighting today on any one front, but on all fronts. In fact, I'm a Black Nationalist freedom fighter.” (X). Malcolm X’s specific phrasing once again implies a comparison of Christian ministers and himself, this time however, he goes farther in establishing to his audience how he is focused on not one individual fight but the whole battle, which can viewed as the highest level of honor. His choice to pair freedom fighter and black nationalist together is noteworthy. In doing so he frames his black nationalist philosophy as a fight for freedom, which many at the time believed the goal to be black separatism, going farther to have freedom fighters be viewed as heroes to their people, thus regarded in history as honorable individuals.

Malcolm X uses a pathos appeal to encourage the audience to feel resentment through examples of nationwide unjust treatment solely based on race, while simultaneously evoking the emotion of fellowship through shared trauma. Malcolm X dictated the notion that “Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim or a nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don't hang you because you're a Baptist; they hang you 'cause you're black. They don't attack me because I'm a Muslim. They attack me 'cause I'm black. They attacked all of us for the same reason. All of us catch hell from the same enemy. We're all in the same bag, in the same boat.” (X). It’s clear that this quote should evoke fear, fear of being attacked or killed solely for being black, though Malcolm X was not trying to bring about fear, nor was he trying to warn the audience of what could happen. He wanted to remind his audience of what was happening, not to just one subgroup of those who were affected by his words but to the entire audience. By stripping away their perceived differences and leaving nothing but their similarities, the choice to unite, specifically under the black nationalist philosophy, becomes an easier choice. In another part of his speech, he goes on to further enforce his pathos appeal stating “When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism. We see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don't see any American dream. We've experienced only the American nightmare. We haven't benefited from America's democracy. We've only suffered from America's hypocrisy.” (X). Through the consistent repetition of the word “We”, Malcolm X imposes a shared belief on his audience, a belief consisting only of unjust treatment. In doing so he fosters resentment to be felt, one could assume that this was purposeful, based on the seriousness of the problem at hand. The end goal being unification. “What is 20th — what, what do you call second-class citizenship? Why, that's colonization. Second-class citizenship is nothing but 20th slavery.” (X); In this quote Malcolm X is once again illuminating the unjust treatment all black people faced at the time. His comparison between second-class citizenship and slavery is meant to drive the nail in the coffin, to seal the emotion of resentment in every single audience member, ultimately sealing the audience in a shared Mausoleum.

Malcolm X uses a logos appeal to establish the importance of political maturity in the black community, he frames political maturity as the means to achieving equal rights and opportunity. “You look at the structure of the government that controls this country, is controlled by 16 senatorial committees and 20 congressional committees. Of the 16 senatorial committees that run the government, 10 of them are in the hands of southern segregationists. Of the 20 congressional committees that run the government, 12 of them are in the hands of southern segregationists. And they're going to tell you and me that the South lost the war? (X). The logic that Malcolm X uses is clear and sound, there are 36 committees in total of the 36 committees 22 committees are run by southern segregationist, 22 is a larger number than 14, meaning that southern segregationist have more power in the government than any other group, making it impossible to pass civil rights legislation. This is where things get tricky, clearly a large portion of the government in place at the time is not in favor of civil rights legislation, understanding this can be seen as the first step in what Malcolm X calls political maturity. “You're the one who sent Kennedy to Washington. You're the one who put the present Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. The whites were evenly divided. It was the fact that you threw 80 percent of your votes behind the Democrats that put the Democrats in the White House.” (X). The next step of political maturity is seen in the quote above; understanding that black votes have the power to affect the outcome of elections. Knowing this gives more power to the black voter, creating the possibility to put black men in politics. “In Washington, D.C., in the House of Representatives there are 257 who are Democrats. Only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats. Only 33 are Republicans. The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate and still they can't keep their promise to you” (X). The final step of political maturity is the recognition that without representation in politics, civil rights legislation will continue to be sidelined. Overall, Malcolm X’s logic is sound, he draws logical conclusions from statistics and facts.

Malcolm X’s The Ballot or the Bullet is overall productive to the audience, throughout the speech Malcolm X is persuading the audience to take action rather than reacting. His claims are not outlandish or unethical given the circumstances of the time. Looking from a different perspective one may argue that the message portrayed in his address was riddled with calls for violent action to be taken, which is unethical when compared to the non-violent messages of Dr. King and other activists at the time. With ethics in mind, the act of civil revolution has never been non-violent as Malcolm X claims there has never been a revolution without bloodshed. It is also important to note that the oppression of human rights is among the biggest of unethical acts if not the biggest in our civilized world.

In conclusion Malcolm X’s use of Aristotle’s three artistic proofs are both productive and ethical given the circumstances of the oppression of human rights. Malcolm X’s use of ethos to build his credibility as an honorable man, convincing the audience that his words can be trusted and have the best intentions in mind. His use of pathos to evoke the emotion of resentment and foster fellowship, with the goal of uniting his listeners under his black nationalist philosophy. As well as a sound logic and reasoning carried throughout his logos appeal to persuade the audience that political maturity is needed to understand and combat the system that has oppressed his people for too long. Malcom X’s address is both productive and ethical in that it portrays ideas, actions, and philosophy to fight against the oppression of human rights in 1964.

 The History and Theory of Rhetoric an Introduction, by James A. Herrick, Routledge, 2021, pp. 69–81.

“‘The Ballot or The Bullet’ - African-American3k.” Google Sites, sites.google.com/site/africanamerican3k/-the-ballot-or-the-bullet.

Citation for the image above

X, Malcolm. American Radioworks - Say It PLAIN, Say It Loud. americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/blackspeech/mx.html.

[pierceson-mapes24]

Rhetoric as a Narrative

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): What is a narrative that is important to me or U.S. culture? What truths does it promote? What truths does it limit or ignore? What are the societal/ethical advantages and the disadvantages of this narrative?

To investigate these questions, I examined the article Slavery Gave America a Fear of Black People and a Taste for Violent Punishment. Both Still Define our Criminal-Justice system. As my rhetorical artifact. (Which is an excerpt from the 1619 Project) Stevenson uses a series of themes to present on counter-narrative to our public memory about slavery in order to illuminate that slavery did not end with the 13th amendment but that it evolved into a harmful criminal justice system. This is overall productive for society because it calls for the people of the United States to stop romanticizing the past and create a more equitable future.

Slavery Gave America a Fear of Black People and a Taste for Violent Punishment. Both Still Define our Criminal-Justice system. By Bryan Stevenson is an excerpt from Nikole Hannah-Jones “The 1619 Project” published by The New York Times in August 2019. Before I elaborate on Stevenson’s article, I feel the need to give a brief description of “The 1619 Project” as a hole. “The 1619 Project” was created with the intention to reframe American history placing Black American contributions and long-term effects of slavery at the center of the American narrative, illuminating truths that are so widely withheld from U.S. history curriculums. Following the central theme of “The 1619 Project” Bryan Stevenson shines light on the history of the criminal justice system, illuminating the ways our criminal “justice” system has historically preserved and evolved slavery since its “abolishment” in 1865. Stevenson begins his article with a narrative centered around his law offices fight for the release of a black man named Mathew, who was condemned to life in prison at age 16 for a nonhomicide charge. Stevenson stops his story to give a well-crafted history lesson on the mass incarceration of black people and the brutal nature of its history. After completion of his well-crafted look into some defining moments in U.S. history, he moves the story to more modern times, focusing on the inequality and systemic racism that still plagues our society today.

 Narratives or stories exist in every facet of life, from books to TV shows to Movies to Speeches to lectures to recounts of family, the point is narratives are everywhere. Narratives are spoken or written accounts of connected events or experiences, fictional or non-fictional, that embody events, lessons, information, ideology, and tradition ETC… Narratives are a way to connect and reflect on past events personal or public. Narratives are comprised of two differing types of memory, public and private. Public memory, which is described as “a particular type of collective memory that combines the memories of the dominant culture and fragments of marginalized groups, memories, and enables a public to make sense of the past, present, and future.” (Palczewski, Pg.120) Palczewski’s definition of public memory is key to understanding narratives that are central to U.S. history; looking deeper into this definition, dominant culture stands out, providing a face for the narratives narrator, as well as an assumed tone of events, based on dominant cultural traits and truths. G. Thomas Goodnight states “As an inventional resource, collective memory resides in an uneven, heterogeneous region where specific recollections are sometimes contiguous and sometimes fragmented.” (Goodnight, pg. 609), just as Palczewski noted, the shortcoming of public memory is public memory frames narratives from the eyes of the dominant group. This short coming allows for glorification of events and fragmented truths to be told.

One of the narrative evident in Slavery Gave America a Fear of Black People and a Taste for Violent Punishment. Both Still Define our Criminal-Justice system. Is that the U.S. criminal justice system gave slavery a new face, Stevenson frames the U.S. Criminal justice system as a means for slavery to take new form, justified through the creation of the black criminal ideology. In Stevenson history lesson he notions to the loophole within the 13th Amendment stating “After emancipation, black people, once seen as less than fully human ‘‘slaves,’’ were seen as less than fully human ‘‘criminals.’’(Stevenson) he includes this quote suggesting that after emancipation posed criminality took place of forced slavery, which can be seen as the first step in the evolution of slavery. Stevenson connects this shortcoming of the 13th amendment to the start of mass incarceration of black people, he states, “’Laws governing slavery were replaced with Black Codes governing free black people — making the criminal-justice system central to new strategies of racial control.” (Stevenson) Seemingly unsatisfied by merely suggesting that incarceration of black people was a legally justified version of slavery, Stevenson includes, “The imprisoned were then ‘‘leased’’ to businesses and farms, where they labored under brutal conditions.” (Stevenson). Traditionally when using the term leased it is in reference to property or things, once again black people have been reduced to things, showcasing the true intent behind black codes and the creation of black criminal ideology. The narrative that Stevenson shares is one often hidden from U.S. history curriculum; the true story of slavery is one of devious and malicious intent aimed at an already marginalized group. The 13th Amendment may have emancipated slaves, but it did not halt slavery. The notion of black people seen as less than fully human “slaves” before emancipation and after emancipation seen as less than fully human “criminals” can be assumed as a tactic to sustain the racial hierarchy that white men profited off for so long. Overall Stevenson’s narrative is productive, it shares truths about our harmful criminal justice system, countering the tradition narrative told by Americas dominant group.

Another narrative evident in Slavery Gave America a Fear of Black People and a Taste for Violent Punishment. Both Still Define our Criminal-Justice system. Is the history of normalized brutality of black people. Stevenson frames this normalization using public records describing laws allowing for brutal physical punishment of slaves, along with homicide justified by nothing more than race. Stevens states “By 1729, Maryland law authorized punishments of enslaved people including ‘‘to have the right hand cut off . . . the head severed from the body, the body divided into four quarters, and head and quarters set up in the most public places of the county.’’(Stevenson) the public display of quartered slaves is the first case of brutality offered in Stevenson’s counter-narrative, as well as the first step in normalization of brutality. If that wasn’t proof enough Stevenson states “An 1887 report in Mississippi found that six months after 204 prisoners were leased to a white man named McDonald, dozens were dead or dying, the prison hospital filled with men whose bodies bore ‘‘marks of the most inhuman and brutal treatment . . . so poor and emaciated that their bones almost come through the skin.’’” Stevenson’s inclusion of this quote in his narrative suggests in the eyes of the dominant culture (white men) black prisoners where still seen as slaves justifying the brutal treatment of incarcerated black people. While Stevenson did not address if McDonald was punished for his actions, it can be assumed that no actions were taken against McDonald; only furthering the collective memory of normalized brutality. Stevenson, driving his point home states “In 1904, in Mississippi, a black man was accused of shooting a white landowner who had attacked him. A white mob captured him and the woman with him, cut off their ears and fingers, drilled corkscrews into their flesh and then burned them alive — while hundreds of white spectators enjoyed deviled eggs and lemonade” (Stevenson). Stevenson’s use of the word accused suggests that the white mob did not hesitate to inflict brutal punishment on this black man and the woman he was with, inclusion of the refreshments enjoyed by white viewers suggests the aspect of a party or celebration. Overall, these quotes build Stevenson display of normalized brutality of black people, suggesting that the murder justified by race was widely practiced and celebrated. Such grotesque actions were made into events for public display. Stevenson narrative is productive, in that it points to historical actions that provide a footing for race-based violence in todays time.

This narrative is ultimately productive, the nature of this counter-narrative is one that focuses on truths commonly withheld from public memory. These truths are productive for fostering a better tomorrow, as George Santayana once said, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it, without an impartial narrative about slavery and our harmful criminal justice system, it is easy to look over the truth that slavery has evolved. Overall, this narrative has no disadvantages, being that these truths are important to understanding unfiltered U.S. history.

In conclusion Stevenson use of counter-narrative displays grotesque truths about U.S. history, focused on shifting public memory from the dominant groups recollection to events seen from the marginalized groups point of view. Throughout his narrative Stevenson sheds light on the brutalization of black people, and the birth of ethical corruption in our criminal justice system fostered through the creation of the black-criminal ideology and black codes. Stevenson narrative is productive in that it brings truths widely withheld from U.S. history curriculum to light.  

 References:

“DISCOURSE 2: COLLECTIVE MEMORIES OF WAR AND RACE” Shared Power, Foreign Policy, And Haiti, By G. THOMAS GOODNIGHT AND KATHRYN M. OLSON, pp. 605-608.

LeBlanc, CJ, et al. “Angola Prisoners Say: ‘This Is a War – and We're in It.’” HARD CRACKERS, 21 Apr. 2020, hardcrackers.com/angola-prisoners-say-war/.

“Narratives .” Rhetoric in Civic Life, by Catherine Helen Palczewski et al., Strata Pub., State College, PA, 2012, pp. 117–141.

“Slavery Gave America a Fear of Black People and a Taste for Violent Punishment. Both Still Define our Criminal-Justice system” The 1619 project, by Bryan Stevenson, The New York Times Magazine,2019.