rachelchevalaugustana-blog

[rachelchevalaugustana-blog]

*Counterpublics*

      In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): Find an artifact of a counterpublic: Why/how is it a counterpublic? What is its rhetorical message? How is it empowering and/or limiting?

      To investigate these questions, I examined an article called “LGBT Activists Had a Dance Party Protest in Mike Pence’s Neighborhood”. This protest is being done by the counterpublic of the LGBT community in opposition to Mike Pence’s view of the community, which is empowering for the community itself and others around them.

      The protest happened on January 18, 2017 in Washington D.C. in front of Pence’s house (Zorthian, 2017). But, the protesters not only led a march all the way to his neighborhood, they also had a dance party when they got there (Zorthian, 2017). There were about 200 people who participated in this protest and their goal was to shed light on the fact that they oppose the legislation and opinions made by Pence that oppose the LGBT community (Zorthian, 2017). Vice President Mike Pence describes himself as a “Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order” (Drabold. 2016). So, Pence puts his religious beliefs above all things according to this statement. Below is a list of legislation and opinions formed by Pence:

· 2000: Pence states that “Congress should oppose any effort to put gay  and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage.” (“A timeline”, n.d.)

· 2006: Pence stated that gay marriage would be a “societal collapse” and “the deterioration of marriage and family.” (Drabold. 2016)

· 2007: Pence voted against a law that would prohibit and form of discrimination against the LGBT community in the workplace and said that the law “wages war on freedom and religion in the workplace.” (Drabold, 2016

· 2010: Pence opposed the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which prohibited service members from talking about or openly identifying as homosexuality. Pence said he opposed the repeal because “he did not want to see the military become ‘a backdrop for social experimentation.’” (Drabold. 2016)

· 2014: Pence supported an amendment to a bill in Indiana’s Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. (“A timeline”, n.d.)

· 2015: Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBT identifying citizens. (“A timeline”, n.d.)

All of the instances mentioned in opposition to the LGBT community along with Pence being elected as the Vice President caused an outrage in the LGBT community, which led to the protest on January 18th.

      Feliski (1989) explains that a counterpublic is “an oppositional discursive space” and does not concern itself with the Universalist ideology, which is believing that all beliefs should be considered true and just. Members of the LGBT community who marched to Pence’s house represent a counterpublic because they are representing opposition towards Pence’s ideas and views. The LGBT community is also a counterpublic because they are a marginalized group who are concerned with the ridding of the marginalization against their community, an idea proposed by Feliski (1989). The protest was led by a dance activist group called WERK for Peace. The organizer of the group stated, “We want to send a strong message to Pence that we’re a united queer community… We’ve always stood united. There’s always space to dance.” (Zorthian, 2017) The LGBT community is a unified group striving for equality and emancipation from the marginalization that they face. The protest is trying to rid Washington D.C. and the nation of anti-LGBT policies because they are inhumane and discriminatory. They chose Pence to protest because he is one of the most upfront Conservative about his anti-LGBT rhetoric and beliefs. Anti-LGBT discrimination is prominent within the Conservative Republican group and since Mike Pence is the most vocal about his policies and is now the President’s right hand man, people are quick to protest him. The group leaders instructed the participants to “get ready to WERK it and tell Daddy Pence: homo/transphobia is not tolerated in our country!” (Zorthian, 2017). The group is using dance as a form of rhetoric to peacefully protest Pence’s anti-LGBT rhetoric and are giving a marginalized community, the LGBT community, a voice. The group is empowering people of the LGBT community and others around them to stand up for equal rights and empowering the community to use their voices and their dance moves. It would have been unproductive for the protestors to not be peaceful because that will not change the minds of anti-LGBT followers. But, the protest was lead in a peaceful and powerful way, which makes an even bigger statement. Through the peaceful protest the community is showing Pence that his remarks and policies are not killing their spirits and morale, but building them up and making them a stronger community.

      Antonakis (2019) further explains public sphere theory and counterpublics. She particularly focuses on feminist counterpublics and their opposition towards the “patriarchal structures of oppression.” Antonakis’ theories about feminist counterpublics and the patriarchy’s oppression in society can directly relate to the LGBT communities marginalization from the dominant community in the United States. The LGBT community has faced oppression by the dominant heterosexual community just like women have faced oppression for centuries by men. Antonakis works with public sphere theory in her analysis of society and brings up the fact that power relations are changing and or/stagnating in society. She relates this to power relations between men and women, but can also be related to the LGBT community. Power relations between the LGBT community and the rest of the country are changing. The LGBT community, for the past few decades have found their voice, starting with the Stonewall riots, and provide amazing arguments towards the dominant heterosexual community who oppose LGBT rights. At the protest many neighbors of Pence were “coming out of their houses to watch, with many cheering or encouraging the dancers.” (Zorthian, 2017) So, with this being stated, it is obvious to assume that many people who weren’t even apart of the protest were in support of it. A big reason why they were in support is probably because it was peaceful and the protestors were demonstrating a form of art as rhetoric. Music and dance is powerful and the protestors used it to their advantage.

      In summary, the peaceful protest, organized by WERK for Peace is a representation of a counterpublic who has a voice because the community has been marginalized and still is today. The protest, in opposition to Vice President Pence’s views was empowering because it was peaceful, revolved around art, and shows that sometimes talk is not needed and dance can tell a thousand words.

  Antonakis, A. (2019, April 13). Constructing an empirically grounded framework.  Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-25639-5_3

A timeline of Mike Pence’s discrimination against the LGBT community. (n.d.). Indiana Democratic Party (INDEMS). Retrieved from https://www.indems.org/a-timeline-of-mike-pences-discrimination-against-the-lgbt-community/

Drabold, W. (2016, July 15). Here’s what Mike Pence said on LGBT issues over the years. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/

Feliski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Zorthian, J. (2017, Jan. 19). LGBT activists had a dance party protest in Mike Pence’s neighborhood.Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4639152/mike-pence-queer-dance-party/

[rachelchevalaugustana-blog]

*My Definition of Rhetoric*

        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. In the beginning of the term, I stated that rhetoric was “pieces of writing that can be evaluated and criticized based on the meanings found within the pieces.” Now, I believe that rhetoric is language, verbal and nonverbal, or imagery that tells a story, inspires people, and is used to advance truth and justice. I came about this definition of rhetoric by reading artifacts created by Palczewski, Pericles, and Hauser.

       At the beginning of this term our class was assigned to read an article that was written by Catherine Palczewski, called “Narratives”. In this reading, I found that narratives are stories that “inform people’s personal lives… and inform public life” (Palczewski, 2012). Stories are told by people on a daily basis and have different effects on everybody depending on how they comprehend the story. The rhetoric used in telling stories contributes to how it is comprehended. I believe using narratives in rhetoric is so important because stories help the audience generate a mental picture that they can connect to. It helps the audience understand why some things correlate to one another and how some narratives are dominant while others are not. Narratives also provide meaning for a group of people because narratives of a group are something that they can relate to. This brings me into my next point in my definition of the fact that rhetoric creates meaning and inspires people.

       The second week of the term we learned about a rhetorician named Pericles. He was the leader of Athens who was a great speaker who enchanted the public of Athens when he spoke, especially in his Plague of Athens funeral oration (Pericles, 1994). In this speech, Pericles inspires the people of Athens to be the best versions of themselves in order to have the best society possible. He states, “Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well,” (Pericles, 1994). This excerpt stuck out to me because I truly believe that people should ultimately care about every person in this country and not just themselves. In my opinion, people get caught up in money or fame or only worrying about themselves and forget about the country as a whole. For example, climate change is a huge issue, but not everybody believes it or backs up the renewal of the globe. People just ignore it because they believe that if it is not effecting them then it does not matter. But, it does matter and they should listen to the rhetoric of Pericles because he does not believe in people being selfish, but he believes in people caring about the health of the nation. I believe that people need to use rhetoric to benefit society as a whole and not just themselves or their own group and in an inspirational way so that everyone can get behind the cause. In benefiting society, people should also use rhetoric to strive for justice using the truth, which brings me into the next part of my definition.

       Towards the end of the term our class learned about a rhetorician named Gerard Hauser who is a Professor of Communication at the University of Colorado Boulder. He contributed to my definition of rhetoric because his contribution to the idea is that rhetoric should be used for truth and justice (Hauser, 1986). One specific idea, from Hauser, that impacted me was expressive vs. instrumental communication. Instrumental is used to “change opinions and actions’ of others, whereas expressive is used “to vent our feelings” (Hauser, 1986). The rhetoric I use on a daily basis can be categorized as either of these forms of communication. It is important to examine what type of rhetoric a speaker is using by identifying it as either expressive or instrumental. It is important for people to realize if a speaker is trying to change their opinions or if they are just trying to vent to them because they are two separate ideas. Another point that Hauser made was about rhetoric and the self. He came up with 4 categories for rhetoric and the self, but the two that stuck out to me were maintain a self and destroying a self (Hauser. 1986). Maintaining a self is “support[ing] and sustain[ing] an existing self” (Hauser, 1986). So, people are using rhetoric to maintain their existing ideas that are true to themselves. Destroying a self is “slaying the selves of opponents” (HAUSER). So, people use rhetoric for truth and justice by maintaining their true selves and destroying selves of others that are unethical.

       My definition of rhetoric can be symbolized by the video collage that I created of my nephew growing up. My nephew, Joey, was diagnosed with autism before he turned 1 and has been non-verbal all of his life. Joey represents my definition of rhetoric because his language is nonverbal, but so powerful because he is able to show us how he feels through his emotions, which consist of happiness in the video. The video creates a narrative for viewers of a little boy who is growing up in a good home filled with happiness and love. It also creates the narrative that people with autism can live happy and fulfilling lives too even though they are not as privileged as others. He inspires me to be a better person and live life to the fullest because I can tell that he does. Every day he wakes up with a smile on his face and generates happiness in everyone wherever he goes. He inspires me to go to school and excel in as many things that I can because he is not able to and I am privileged to be able to do so. Lastly, I can relate Joey to Hauser’s maintaining and destroying a self. I can because through this video I am maintaining the self in people who are supportive of the autistic community. I am trying to destroy the self of the anti-autistic community who believe that their mother’s should have abortions if they find out their child has autism. Hopefully after they see this video of the most loving, caring, heartwarming little boy they will change their minds.

       I, ultimately, came up with my definition of rhetoric using artifacts from Palczewski, Pericles, and Hauser. These rhetoricians all contributed significantly to my own idea of what rhetoric is. Palczewski introduced me to narratives and storytelling through rhetoric, Pericles showed me how rhetoric can be used to motivate and inspire an audience, and Hauser introduced me to the idea that rhetoric should be used for truth and justice. I completely understand what rhetoric is after this class and know strategies that I can use to demonstrate my definition of it in my daily life.

                                                    Works Cited

Hauser, G. A. (1986). Making commitments through rhetoric. In Introduction to  

       rhetorical theory (pp. 45-55). New York: Harper and Row.

Palczewski, C. H., Ice, R., Fritch, J. (2012). Narratives. In Rhetoric in civic life

       (pp. 117-146). State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc.

Pericles. (1994). The funeral oration. In J.J. Murphy and  

       R.A. Katula (Eds.), A Synoptic history of classical rhetoric (2nd ed.) (p. 217-

       221). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press. (Original work published in 430

       B.C.E.)

[rachelchevalaugustana-blog]

*Feminine Style*

      The critical question that will be used to examine the artifact will be: What gender norm is constructed or undone in this artifact, how is it rhetorically performed, and/or how does it promote a dominant ideology over a marginalized group or push back against the ideology or gender norms? Is it productive/unproductive (ethical/unethical)?

      The artifact explored in this post will be a sermon given by Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C. Worley uses feminine style rhetoric in an unproductive way to construct the ideology that society should be comprised of only heterosexual individuals and that members of the LGBT community should be excluded. Also, the gender norm that is presented in this sermon is that women should be attracted to men and men should be attracted to women and no other alternative.

      Pastor Charles L. Worley was giving a sermon during one of his masses, in 2012, to an audience of Baptist churchgoers. At the time President Barack Obama was running for re-election and the Pastor called him a “baby killer” and a “homosexual lover” because he is a democratic politician who is pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights (Worley, 2012). 2012 was a big year for the LGBT community because, in the year, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the United States court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Perry v. Schwarzenegger”, n.d.). Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment that banned the marriage of homosexual citizens (Perry v. Schwarzenegger, n.d.). Along with Proposition 8 being struck down, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional (Jeang, n.d.). Section 3 did not allow same-sex married couples the recognition of spouses, so they could not receive marriage benefits like their heterosexual peers (Jeang, n.d.). Although the LGBT community were receiving recognition and starting a movement in the government for equality, there were still citizens who opposed the LGBT community and did not think they deserved the same rights as heterosexual citizens, like Pastor Worley.

      In the sermon, Pastor Worley is speaking with a disrespectful rhetoric towards the LGBT community and his Baptist followers agree with him by clapping and verbally agreeing after every remark he makes (Worley, 2012). At one point in the sermon the Pastor says that thinking about kissing another many disgusts him and that it is against the Bible’s views as well as his own (2012). He also makes many remarks about how members of the LGBT community should be exiled so that they can become obsolete, in summary (2012). He is promoting a disintegrating dominant ideology that heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is a disgrace. His rhetoric is very unproductive for society today because the views and laws that have been discriminatory towards LGBT citizens have been changing for the better. For example, according to Pew Research Center in 2017, “seven-in-ten [people] say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 24% who say it should be discouraged by society,” (“Homosexuality, gender, and religion”, 2017). LGBT acceptance has also risen by 19% in the last 11 years (2017).

      The theory that will be used to analyze Pastor Worley’s sermon will be feminine style. Feminine style rhetoric is a way of speaking in which the speaker uses traditionally feminine speaking techniques (Dow & Tonn, 1993). Researchers, Bonnie J. Dow and Mari Boor Tonn, explored the rhetoric of Texas Governor Ann Richards to understand the idea of feminine style in speeches. Feminine style was introduced by Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and “has provided an alternative critical orientation with which to understand the source, form, ad function of female communicative strategies and their effectiveness in feminist movements,” (Dow & Tonn, 1993). Campbell also concludes that although women use feminine style regularly, it is not inclusive to just women, but also men too. In Dow and Tonn’s examination of Governor Richard’s rhetoric they found that she uses “a participatory, peer tone using Campbell’s definition: she acknowledges the audience in her inclusive pronouns, she encourages audiences to draw their own conclusions from the examples she offers, and she self-discloses, a strategy that presupposes the trust among peers,” (Dow & Tonn, 1993). Richard’s uses all of these strategies in a positive and impactful way whereas these strategies were also used in Pastor Worley’s sermon in a negative way.

      Governor Richard’s rhetoric uses narratives as well as “encouragement or audience participation in her speeches” (Dow & Tonn, 1993) which can also be applied to the rhetoric used by Pastor Worley. Worley tells a narrative of a better life for his audience through the discrimination of LGBT citizens. He states that if a wall can be built big enough to keep all of the lesbians, queers, and homosexuals inside, they will eventually die out because they cannot reproduce which will, in turn, make society better. This is unethical and unproductive for society because it is illegal to detain an individual solely based on their sexual orientation. He encourages his audience to believe in this narrative because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Pastor Worley states, “The Bible’s against it, God’s against it, and if you got any sense, you’re against it, (Worley, 2012). In this statement he is encouraging audience participation to have the same views as he has. He is also shedding light on the ideology that homosexuality is a sin and uses a narrative of LGBT citizens being exiled to give an answer to getting rid of homosexuality. According to Dow and Tonn, “Men’s identity encourages separation from others…” (Dow & Tonn, 1993). Pastor Worley is encouraging a separation between heterosexual citizens from LGBT identifying citizens to create a better society. So, although Worley’s statements could be examined using feminine style, he is also expressing beliefs generally identified as masculine and rhetoric used by men. In Worley’s sermon he also tells of personal experience, generally associated with feminine style. He explains that thinking of kissing a man disgusts him and he is looking for the “willingness for audience identification” (Dow & Tonn, 1993) from his churchgoers. He is looking for them to agree with his statement because they should also be against the LGBT community. Ultimately, Worley is expressing his views of the Baptist dominant ideology that homosexuality is a sin and that relationships are between a man and a woman. He uses feminine style by including the audience and expressing his personal views and experiences to hope that his audience feels the same way too.

      Religious leaders have condemned LGBT citizens for a long time in our society, so Worley’s views and sermon is nothing new. According to Epstein, the “religious right has successfully constrained the rights of LGBT citizens through well executed language acts,” (Epstein, 2007). So, through religious leader’s use of rhetoric they have been able to discriminate the LGBT community successfully with the help of their followers. Epstein explores an artifact by Michael Cobb called God hates fags: The rhetorics of religious violence to understand the nature of religious leaders condemning homosexuality. Epstein found that Cobb believes “religious values in contemporary America contributes to the social and moral isolation of LGBT people,” (Epstein, 2007). This can be directly related to Pastor Worley’s sermon because Worley believes in the social isolation of LGBT people and explains this through his unethical rhetoric. Worley explains that LGBT citizens should be isolated to kill them off. He believes in the moral and social isolation of LGBT citizens that Cobb has identified.

      Ultimately, Pastor Worley’s rhetoric is unethical and unproductive for society through the angle of feminine style. Socially and morally isolating a group of people has never proven to be beneficial for society. For example, when the German’s exiled and killed off many Jewish people it was condemned by many, just like the exile of LGBT people would be. The ideology that men can only be attracted to women and vice versa is an ideology that is dominant in religion, but is an ideology that is changing.

Dow, B.J., & Tonn, M.B. (1993). Feminine style and political judgment in the rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79 (3), 286-302

Epstein, G. A. (2007). Review of God hates fags: The rhetorics of religious violence. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(5), 762–763. https://proxy.augustana.edu:2138/10.1007/s10508-007- 9228-6

Homosexuality, gender, and religion. (2017, Oct. 5). Retrieved from https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/5-homosexuality-gender-and-religion/ 

Jeang, E.P. (n.d.). The Supreme Court repeal of DOMA section 3 and its effect on immigration law. Retrieved from https://www.lexisnexis.com/communities/corporatecounselnewsletter/b/newsletter/archive/2013/09/02/the-supreme-court-repeal-of-doma-section-3-and-its-effect-on-immigration-law.aspx

Perry v. Schwarzenegger. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/perry

Worley, C.L. [Corpus Callosum]. (2012, May 21). N.C. Pastor Charles Worley: "Put gays and lesbians in electrified pen to kill them off" [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2839yEazcs

[rachelchevalaugustana-blog]

*Music Creates a Narrative*

      In this entry I will examine the critical question(s): What does this artifact tell me about me or U.S. culture or a certain group of people? What truths does it promote and what truths does it limit or ignore (who does it include/exclude)? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of this narrative (think about ethics)?

      To investigate these questions, I examined a music video called “Now” by R&B and Soul artist, Miguel. The music video as well as the lyrics themselves share a narrative that Americans are unaware and blind to many issues going on in the country and that people need to come together and educate themselves to spread awareness.

      Miguel’s song and music video revolve around the idea that all people need to be aware of unethical situations that are currently happening in the United States. These situations have been brought up in the past and caused citizens to become aware of certain issues, but people forget about them and people continue to struggle. Miguel’s main point of creating this song is to encourage people to keep talking about the unethical situations happening around the country because they are still not resolved. 

      Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch (2012) use Gerald Prince to describe a narrative as “the representation of at least two real or fictive events or situations in a time sequence, neither of which presupposes or entails the other” and “they depict or describe events; they are not the event themselves” (Palczewski, 2012). This is exactly what music videos and/or protest music videos do – they describe events, but are not the events themselves. Miguel talks a lot about people coming together in his lyrics, but it is not the actual event of people coming together. Palczewski states, “to be a narrative, a rhetorical action must organize people’s experiences by identifying relationships among events across time” (2012). This is also true for Miguel’s video because he identifies relationships among Trump’s policies, undocumented and struggling people, and acts of hatred.

      A narrative present in the music video is one about detention centers around the United States, specifically about the San Bernardino County Sheriff High Desert Detention Center in Adelanto, California. People in the music video are holding up signs outside of the detention center that says immigrant detention centers, but detention centers is crossed out and prisons is written in bright red. The narrative being told is that detention centers are prisons and they should be protested. Two men are shown in the video talking about how they were held captive in this detention center – one explains that he and everyone else there is victimized and the other stated he was there for 9 years and that cannot be considered detention, but a prison (Miguel, 2017). These men are sharing their collective memory with the group, which “occurs whenever people who compose a group share memories” (Palczewski, 2012). They are sharing their collective memory and forming a narrative of life inside the detention center for the people around them. In the video there are people also holding up signs that say #______ not prisons (Miguel, 2017). This gives people the opportunity to form their own narrative that they want people to know and be aware of. Compassion and love were words used in that blank space, which will evoke emotions and remind others of narratives that they follow and their own values. Bailey, states that “verbal and nonverbal elements of protest music perform critical persuasive functions…[including] transforming perceptions of reality, altering self-perceptions, legitimizing movements, prescribing courses of action, mobilizing for action, and sustaining the movement” (2006). So, Miguel is transforming citizens’ perceptions of the reality they live in by showing the struggles people are going through, legitimizing struggling people’s movements, mobilizing for awareness of the issues, and sustaining the movement by continuously performing the song.

      Another narrative evident in Miguel’s music is that President Trump sees no value in people who are in need. He wants to build a wall and does not care about people who are struggling in the United States of America. Bailey, states that “music provides the liquid architecture framing our everyday experience and contextualizing our emotional understanding of the world” (Bailey, 2006). This directly applies to Miguel’s lyrics about Trump because he is taking a well-known subject that Trump brings up every day and bringing about a particular emotion about it. Miguel’s lyrics state, “CEO of the free world now. Build your walls up high and wide…'Cause it's plain to see a man's integrity. By the way he treats those he does not need” (Miguel, 2017). Not only does Miguel bring up undocumented citizens, but also people in Puerto Rico, Houston, Flint, Michigan, New Orleans, and people of color who are all being forgotten. Miguel encourages listeners to stand up and fight for what is right while educating others on what is happening around the country. These lyrics promote the truth that President trump has no use for people he does not need a.k.a undocumented citizens and the people all over the country in need, but the lyrics ignore the truth that Trump has never said that he does not need those people. The narrative that is evident is that Americans are struggling and no one is doing anything about it, not even our President. Palczewski, et.al states, “Narratives create culture and community by teaching cultural values, explaining causality, and entertaining” (2012). This is exactly what Miguel is trying to do with his music video when he brings up the people struggling in the detention centers as well as in places all around the United States, including Puerto Rico. 

      There are both advantages and disadvantages to the narrative that Miguel is portraying in his music, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. An advantage is that the narrative will shed light on the struggles of people around the country who need help or support. At the same time a disadvantage is that the narrative is saying people in the U.S. are doing nothing to help or support them. This is disadvantageous to people who are helping citizens in flint, Michigan or New Orleans. But, ultimately, the people in Miguel’s lyrics are being forgotten and people of the country do need to be reminded of what is going on so that they can help. Another disadvantage is that the lyrics shed the President in a very bad light. But, at the same time, he does put bans on immigrants and does want to build a wall, so it is advantageous to people who do not support these things to listen to this narrative that Miguel is portraying. Another advantage of the song is becoming aware of the detention center in California because many people may not know what it is or what goes on there. 

      A piece written by Scott (1984) expands on the idea of narratives and states “both the actual author and the actual readers stand outside the narrative” (Scott, 1984). This goes hand in hand with what Palczewski said about how narratives are not the events themselves but descriptions of them. The author (Miguel) and the readers (listeners) stand outside the narrative because they themselves did not create it. They did not create the narrative that people are oppressed and need help, yet they are just trying to describe it and gain awareness for it. Scott also states that “careful consideration of the narrator’s role might strengthen the rhetorical critic’s analysis and presentation” (Scott, 1984). In this case, Miguel is the narrator telling a story through music and his role is a teacher basically. He is teaching people to become aware of issues and fight for what is right. Over and over in his lyrics he states the title of the song – Now – meaning he wants people to act now for what he thinks is right. Knowing his role will strengthen critic’s analysis of him in a positive or negative way depending on their feelings of the issues he brings up.

      In conclusion, through music, Miguel is depicting many narratives about the country we live in and using lyrics and pictures to create the narratives. He is trying to create a dominant narrative in the country that is not dominant at the moment to spread awareness for what he thinks is just and right.

Bailey, A. (2006). The Rhetoric of Music: A Theoretical Synthesis. Rocky          Mountain Communication Review, 3(1), 20–35. Retrieved from http://proxy.augustana.edu:2059/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=23631455&site=ehost-live

Miguel. (2017). Now [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eFL1zzGK8o

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

Scott, R. L. (1984). Narrative Theory and Communication Research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 197–204. https://proxy.augustana.edu:2138/10.1080/00335638409383690