schopprhetoricthings-blog

[schopprhetoricthings-blog]

*Rhetorical Commitments*

Example scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDAsABdkWSc

The critical question that I will be examining here today is: “How does the rhetorical artifact display unilateral or bilateral arguments or both and what are the implications? Could the rhetoric be improved by taking a bilateral approach? What is the appropriate position between maintaining and destroying a self? Does the artifact find that position?”.

Whiplash is a 2014 film written and directed by Damien Chazelle, who would later go on to direct LaLa Land and First Man, among others. The story focuses around a young jazz musician named Andrew Neiman, played by Miles Teller, who wants to become the best jazz percussionist the world has ever seen. In pursuing that goal, he enrolls at a highly respected conservatory and attempts to get into an ensemble directed by famed conductor Terrence Fletcher, played by J.K. Simmons. Simmons puts in a remarkable performance as the temperamental and abusive Fletcher, but Neiman sees him as someone to look up to. After a series of grueling auditions where Fletcher verbally abuses, slaps, and throws chairs at Neiman and other drummers, Neiman lands a spot as the core drummer of Fletcher’s ensemble. In the process of pursuing this spot, Neiman practices drumming until his hands bleed and mercilessly dumps his girlfriend to pursue his music career. On the way to a performance, the bus Neiman is on breaks down, when he rents a car he leaves his drum sticks at the rental place, and gets t-boned by another car while frantically rushing back to get them. After the accident, Neiman still gets his sticks and gets to the performance, but is dismissed from the stage by Fletcher when he has trouble performing. In a blind rage at Fletcher’s inhumanity, Neiman attacks him there in front of the audience and is removed from the conservatory. After testifying in a lawsuit against Fletcher and having him fired, Neiman runs into him again at a Jazz Club, where Fletcher explains he’s hard on his students because he wants to create another Louis Armstrong or Charlie Parker. He extends an offer to perform with his ensemble at a festival and Neiman accepts. At the festival, Fletcher reveals the he knows Neiman testified against him, and he embarrasess him by cuing a song Neiman doesn’t know. Defiant, Neiman cues the band to start a different song, and performs a long solo, where he and Fletcher share a smile before the movie ends. In this film, we see a constant struggle between the choice to maintain or destroy the self. The film shows the pitfalls of its constant example of unilateral arguments, hints that bilateral approaches are better for the world of teaching, and gives a definite opinion that relying entirely on destruction of the self for anything is the wrong way to go.

In “Making Commitments Through Rhetoric”, Gerard Hauser explains the concepts of unilateral and bilateral arguments. Unilateral is the one that is present all throughout Whiplash, and Hauser describes it as: “one in which the arguer uses devices of argument not available for the interlocutor’s use” (Hauser 48). This style of interaction is the very cornerstone of Fletcher’s teaching style. The devices that Fletcher use include name-calling, a long list of terms too offensive to dive into here, and violence. It seems obvious that, in the setting of a classroom, Fletcher doesn’t expect to have violence, name-calling, and abuse used against him. As Hauser points out “Unilateral communication denies the other party equal opportunity of response” (Hauser 49).  If there’s any doubt, the scene following Neiman’s accident confirms this. When he reaches his breaking point and lashes out at the instructor, he is quickly removed from the Conservatory. This interaction makes it clear that Fletcher’s instruction is unilateral, he doesn’t see his students as equals, but those far below him who needs to rebuild. Some may argue that the violence and abuse aren’t part of Fletcher’s “arguments” but just an unfortunate addition to his teaching. However, the scene where Neiman rediscovers Fletcher playing in a jazz club and Fletcher tells him he intentionally pushes students away seems to speak against this. It is an integral part of the way Fletcher sees himself as an instructor.

The question is, then, if Fletcher’s teaching could be improved by a bilateral approach. The movie seems to imply, at the end, that Fletcher has created his own Armstrong in Nieman, but there’s a dark undertone to it. Before that last scene, Neiman’s father begs him not to do the performance for a man that destroyed his life so profoundly. Even as Neiman plays the final solo, we get a shot of his father dejected and forlorn in the audience. Neiman has lost so much on his way to where he is. His girlfriend, his health, some dignity, and the relationship he has with his family are all included in this. The movie implies that these are side effects of Fletcher’s instruction. Even as Fletcher pushes his students away, they push away anything important to them that isn’t music. We even learn at one point of the film that one of Fletcher’s former students committed suicide after a depression that started while in his ensemble.  This could all be avoided with a bilateral approach to instruction. Hauser defines bilateral arguments as: “one in which ‘the arguer must use no device of argument he could not in principle permit his interlocutor to use’” (Hauser 48). As we’ve discussed, violence and verbal abuse are not strategies that could be permitted for all to use, as it could not possibly be productive. The situation that lies at the center of the movie would clearly be improved by Fletcher treating his students with the same respect that he believes he deserves from them. While this may not be as entertaining, it could create a jazz legend, minus all of the emotional trauma.

Another aspect of Hauser’s work that Whiplash deals directly with is the rhetoric of the self. Hauser divides this into four categories: reflecting a self, evoking a self, maintaining a self, and destroying a self (Hauser 52). In Fletcher and Neiman’s stories, we can clearly see evoking, maintaining, and destroying selves, or failed attempts to do as much. The basis for Fletcher starts in evoking, what Hauser describes as: “Sometimes rhetoric presents arguments in ways that force the individual to reexamine assumptions and the self they define” (Hauser 52). When he describes himself as creating a new Armstrong or Parker, he’s talking about evoking a self in his students, about creating a jazz legend where there previously was just a musician. However, as we’ve seen, his methods to get there are less than scrupulous, and mostly have to do with the destruction of the selves his students already possess. The destruction of self is a process that Hauser vividly describes as “symbolically slaying the selves of their opponents” (Hauser 55). This is what Fletcher does when he verbally abuses and mocks his students in the ensemble, he’s scapegoating them to the others, putting them down as an example of what not to be and destroying their confidence to rebuild his own vision of a musician there. There are examples of students fighting against this, or attempting to maintain themselves, but often they do away with maintaining themselves entirely, opting instead to go along with the destruction in the hopes of success. We see this in the film when Neiman leaves his girlfriend, friends, and family behind in his mad drive for greatness. In this way, the movie doesn’t show us how to strike a productive balance between maintaining and destroying the self, but it does show us that it’s extremely unhealthy to rely on destroying the self and focusing all of life’s efforts on just one pursuit.

In Max Loges’ “Verbal Abuse in the Army of the Cumberland: William Rosecrans' Acid Tongue As A Major Factor In The Union Defeat At The Battle Of Chickimaugua”, Loges describes a similar leadership style to Fletcher’s and the harm it caused. Loges asserts that discord that grew from a commander’s poorly chosen verbal abuse lead to a defeat for the union, and that: “What happened at Chickamauga seems a perfect example of Bill McCarthy’s previously mentioned declaration that destructive conflict in the workplace ‘undermines relationships, distracts team members from their common goals and encourages them to give any conflict a wide berth in the future’” (Loges 170). This is an example that leadership styles like Fletcher’s, that rely on destruction of self and unilateral arguments, result in a less than dynamic learning and working environment. Loges would also likely advise a move to more bilateral interaction.

Whiplash is based on a well worn story. The struggling musician is a trope, but not often do we see the instructor working actively against them. As demonstrated here by Hauser, it’s an excellent example of the negative effects of unilateral leadership styles and reliance on the destruction of self. This movie can stand as an example of how not to approach rhetoric in learning spaces, and a jumping-off point for more productive future rhetoric.

Works Cited

Chazelle, Damien, director. Whiplash. Universal Pictures, 2014.

Hauser, Gerard A. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. Waveland, 2010

Loges, Max. “Verbal Abuse in the Army of the Cumberland: William Rosecrans' Acid Tongue as a Major Factor in the Union Defeat at the Battle of Chickamauga.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, vol. 41, no. 2, 2011, pp. 161–171., doi:10.2190/tw.41.2.d

[schopprhetoricthings-blog]

*Rhetoric Definition Reflection*

In Rhetorical Traditions, I’ve learned, heard, and read about many different rhetorical theories that I had never been exposed to before. In this post, I’ll be taking a look at the ways in which my definition of rhetoric has changed since the beginning of the class. On the first day of Rhetorical Traditions, I defined rhetoric as: “Communication and the strategies used to communicate effectively, and often persuasively. Examples of rhetoric include speeches, books, some film and other art, even a commercial could be considered rhetoric, as they drive towards a certain point” (Schopp 1). I still find that definition fairly accurate, but there are certainly ways in which I think it could be improved. Now, I believe that rhetoric is anything communicated through the use of symbols, which can be language, imagery, action, or writing, and the various interpretations made by the people that receive those symbols. Additionally, in its purest form, rhetoric must be as close to a reflection of reality as possible, pure, authentic rhetoric cannot be misleading or deceiving. In this form, rhetoric becomes a process within itself, where the outcome is stronger communication and building of understanding in society at large. I firmly believe that is one of the most important aspects of rhetoric.

There are many readings and theories from the class that stand out as being influential on my newer definition of rhetoric. The earliest strong influence on my changing definition of rhetoric would come from Plato’s Gorgias. The distinction that Socrates attempts to make between “knack”, something like a party trick, and “craft”, something resembling a profession more closely, within the writing is particularly helpful to the idea that some forms of rhetoric are more legitimate than others. As Plato, through his fictionalization of Socrates, puts it: “I call this flattery...because it guesses at what’s pleasant with no consideration for what’s best...I say that it isn’t a craft, but a knack, because it has no account of the nature of whatever things it applies by which it applies them, so that it’s unable to state the cause of each thing” (Plato 101). Essentially, Socrates operated under the belief that the main goal of all rhetoric, which he refers to in the above reading as oratory, functions only to convince someone of something, with no consideration of the surrounding context or reflection on the paths used to convince someone. On this basis, Plato’s Socrates dismisses all of rhetoric as a party trick. In this reading, I find things both that I disagree with and things that push along my own understanding. As stated, I agree with Plato that rhetoric without substance is lesser, serving only a purpose of convincing. But, I disagree that all rhetoric is so vapid, and as I’ll explain, an ultimate function of the best rhetoric is to propel societal change.

A couple of sources that are far less ancient supply the majority of the rest of my reasoning for the evolution of my definition of rhetoric. Kenneth Burke, in his work “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’” supplies one of the other reasons that I believe rhetorical study is both important for progress and capable of discerning better and worse forms of rhetoric. After analyzing Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the various ways in which the author’s rhetoric is misleading, Burke identifies what he calls “the Unification Device” and offers the following use for it: “Our job, then, our Anti-Hitler Battle, is to find all available ways of making the Hitlerite distortion of religion apparent, in order that politicians of his kind in America be unable to perform a similar swindle” (Burke 201). Burke stands as living proof that good rhetoric is the way in which we can find and root out bad or misleading rhetoric. This fact is part of the reason my definition expanded to include the interpretations of rhetoric created by listeners, they may be just as important, or more important, than rhetoric delivered by orators.

Finally, we need a way in which to gather, hear, and understand all of these various speeches, acts, and interpretations. The final contributor to my more recent understanding of rhetoric is Steven Goldzwig and his paper “Multiculturalism, rhetoric, and the 21st century”.  The crux of the paper is, when we interact with rhetoric, we need to make sure to consider all relevant voices and cultural lenses, only by doing this can we ensure rhetoric that is productive for society as a whole. Near the end of the paper, Goldzwig describes use of all these lenses as:: “Sustaining a productive tension between commonality and diversity between and among various cultural communities while simultaneously maintaining a vigilant concern for transcending dangerously reified dichotomies seems to be an effective mode of addressing our joint future” (Goldzwig 286). This solidifies the idea that constant use of rhetoric to improve the quality of what’s being discussed is the way to growth for society as a whole. These three theorists are the most influential on my more recent understanding of rhetoric.

Perfect rhetoric to me, then, might sound a bit utopian, or a bit unattainable. I do not necessarily think that is a bad thing, as constant improvement is always possible if a perfection is what is being attempted. However, as an example of a purest form of rhetoric, I would submit a short instrumental musical composition. Music is clearly an act of rhetoric, as it is a symbol that inspires interpretation and feeling in those who receive it. However, unlike speech and language, music is not subject to incorrect interpretation in the same way. All an E chord sounds like is an E chord, people may interpret it differently, they may feel happy if it’s an E chord in a song they like or sad if it’s an E chord from the song that was a favorite of a past romantic partner, but regardless of the interpretation there is no way that the E chord can mislead or lie to the listener. It’s this particular quality, the purity of what music communicates, that makes instrumental music my example of the purest form of rhetoric.

In conclusion, my understanding of rhetoric has evolved considerably throughout this class. I’ve been heavily informed by voices such as Burke, Plato, and Goldzwig and firmly believe music is an excellent form of the quality rhetoric these theorists uphold. Rhetoric is the use of symbols to communicate and the various interpretations the receivers of the symbols create. In it’s best forms, that rhetoric is not misleading and operates with the goal of continuously improving the quality of rhetoric in our discourse and improving our society as a whole. This is the way in which this class has updated my understanding of rhetoric.

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. “The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle.” Readings in Rhetorical Criticism, by Carl R. Burgchardt, 3rd ed., Strata Publ., 2005, pp. 188–201.

Goldzwig, Steven R.Multiculturalism, rhetoric and the twenty‐first century, Southern Communication Journal, 63:4, 273-290, DOI: 10.1080/10417949809373102, 1998, pp. 273-290

Plato. Plato Gorgias. Focus, 2007.

[schopprhetoricthings-blog]

*Burke: Rhetoric As Division*

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJ25LXtLTg

Prager University? More Like Prager Unification Device

The critical question that I will be exploring in this post is: “How is Burke’s notion of the unification device evident in this artifact? How are each of the components at play? How is this productive and/or unproductive (ethical/unethical) for society?

The artifact that I will be examining for this question is a recent video entitled “Why You Should Be A Nationalist” uploaded by the YouTube channel PragerU. PragerU, short for Prager University, is a non-accredited conservative-leaning nonprofit group. The mission statement of Prager University, which, it should be mentioned, says it is “not a university” on the frequently asked questions page of its website, is to create 5-minute educational videos that cover issues that are “important to understanding American values” (PragerU 1). This includes, primarily, politics, history, culture, and economics, all with the angle of a belief in: “economic and religious freedom, a strong military that protects our allies and the religious values that inform Western civilization, also known as Judeo-Christian values” (PragerU 1).

This video in particular is focused on the topic of nationalism and the supposed bad rap the ideology has recently received. In the video, Yoram Harzony, a scholar of Jewish theology and philosophy, shares several points from his book “The Virtue of Nationalism”. In essence, he argues that nationalism means true personal freedom, while globalism, which is grouped with fascism, imperialism, and transnationalism, means the forcing of an ideology upon the entire world. In making this argument, Harzony makes constant use of Burke’s notion of the unification device. He creates a vision of inborn dignity by associating respected historical figures with nationalism, uses the projection device of an impending globalist threat, promises a symbolic rebirth by asserting that nationalism has long been dormant, and makes the whole thing viable for commercial use by packaging it with slick graphics in a video essay format. The components all make themselves increasingly clear as his arguments develop, in a result that is unproductive for society as a whole, due to its simplification of opposing views and demonization of continued dialogue.

Burke describes the qualities of inborn dignity as: “[a] categorical dignity is considered to be the attribute of  all men” in reference to the religious ideals of humans as above other living things (Burke 193). Burke also points out that this inborn dignity can be twisted to apply to any two opposing groups, his example being the inborn dignity that Hitler attributes to the German, over the Jewish, people. As soon as the video begins, Harzony begins to bestow an inborn dignity to nationalism, implying its inherent superiority over opposing ideologies. Harzony does this by tying nationalism to respected historical figures. These include Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Mahatma Gandhi, historically significant names that their target audience most likely respect at the very least. In tying nationalism to these figures from the past, Harzony is implying a previously existing dignity in nationalism, making nationalism a standard to adhere to. Elsewhere in the video, Harzony argues that human nature is to prioritize loyalty to family, tribe, and nation, calling this nature the “key to human freedom”. In arguing that nationalism is just the natural state of humans, Harzony furthers the concept of nationalism possessing an  inborn dignity. In these two moves, Harzony both paints nationalism as something admirable and asserts that it is a natural law. As a final addition, Harzony claims the Bible extolls the virtues of nationalism. He references God creating borders for the Israelites, saying: “Borders are in the Bible and are where you should stop” (PragerU). This functions as an additional appeal to authority, as well as appealing to the Bible for validation of the inborn dignity. The result is a perfect example of Burke’s inborn dignity created around an ideological group.

The pivot to the use of Burke’s projection device begins when Harzony begins to employ scare tactics. Burke describes the use of the projection device as: “the ‘curative’ process that comes with the ability to hand over one’s ills to a scapegoat” (Burke 193). Harzony creates a scapegoat in globalists. Harzony argues that the only alternative to a nationalistic world is a one-world globalist order, in which all nations are brought into line at gunpoint. By his reasoning, the only control a globalist system could exert is force. Harzony also lumps together globalism with imperialism and communism. He also asserts that the Nazis are misunderstood as nationalists and actually were, in fact, imperialists. This creates a dichotomy in which nationalism is a misunderstood, slandered ideal, and opposing viewpoints are supposedly in line with some of the most oppressive regimes to exist in the 20th century. Furthermore, Harzony paints nationalism as an oppressed ideal in itself. He argues that the nationalists in America are referred to as “Deplorables”, unifying them as a supposedly oppressed group. He then argues that, following the World Wars, a reactionary world pined for the simpler narrative of a global community to avoid tragedies like those that had occurred. Because of this reaction, Harzony says that the creation of the United Nations, the European Union, and a global move to a less nationalistic view oppressed nationalism for nearly half a century. Harzony even describes the Earth before the World Wars as a “better, freer world for 300 years” (PragerU). This conveniently allows for any current societal ills to be blamed on this long stint of globalist views, solidifies globalists as the projection device, and prepares the audience nicely for the device’s next element.

In general, the message created here is unproductive for society. In using the unification device, it continues to encourage “us vs. them” dichotomies and misleading rhetoric, pushing further away from any goal that involves mutual understanding between competing ideologies. The ignorance of a goal of understanding creates a scenario in which one ideology must be dominant and wipe out competing ideologies. This is a scenario Kenneth Burke was hoping to help society at large avoid in identifying Hitler’s use of the unification device in the first place. The place that Prager U’s brand of nationalism leads is a discordant one, but the utilization of the device is allowing it to be presented as the only possible solution for the problems of the common citizen.

Harzony then moves to the final unification device elements of symbolic rebirth and commercial use, combined here because they don’t quite saturate the video as much as the first two. Burke argues that, in combining the first two elements, “they can again get the feeling of moving forward, towards a goal” (Burke 194). As the video ends, Harzony says: “Nationalism is having a resurgence. If you care about freedom, you should hope it succeeds” (PragerU). What Harzony is promising here is Burke’s symbolic rebirth exactly. He is implying that with a resurgence of nationalism onto a global stage, society’s ills, caused by the ruling globalist ideology, will be fixed. Additionally, this entire message is packaged in a way that gels with Burke’s final notion of the unification device, commercial use. Essentially, Burke argues that the unification device is packaged to sell the ideology. Harzony’s message is packaged with cute animated graphics, a video-essay style that is currently popular on Youtube, and the “University” in the channels name, all elements that will make the video palatable to the average viewer that may stumble upon it. In all these ways, this video embodies the idea of the unification device.

Jason Thompson, in his paper “Magic for a People Trained in Pragmatism: Kenneth Burke, Mein Kampf, and the Early 9/11 Oratory of George W. Bush.”, applies Burke’s unification device to the post-9/11 rhetoric of George W. Bush similarly to my own application of the device to PragerU’s video in this analysis. In Thompson’s words: “George W. Bush, who also had 'crude magic,' used the Hitlerian rhetoric of a common enemy and a geographic center in order to realign post 9/11 attitudes” (Thompson 1). There are clear parallels that can be drawn between George W. Bush’s strategies presented here and the creation of a common enemy, appeals to nationalism, and attempted unification present within the PragerU video. Comparisons like these make it clear that Burke’s unification device isn’t just still used, it’s used frequently. As stated elsewhere in Josef Schmidt’s “In Praise of Kenneth Burke: His "The Rhetoric of Hitler's'Battle'" Revisited”: “Kenneth Burke closes his review of ‘The Battle’ by returning to his own pragmatic context, namely that ‘Hitlerite distortions of religion apparent’ not be used by American politicians ‘to perform a similar swindle’” (Schmidt 6). Between the device’s appearance in the analyzed video and its presence in other scholarly analysis of political speech, it’s clear that Burke may have been correct in his worry, we should be vigilant of a “similar swindle”.

In conclusion, Prager U’s video “Why You Should Be A Nationalist” uses Burke’s unification device by creating an inborn dignity in nationalism, making globalists a common enemy, promising a symbolic rebirth in the new dawn of nationalism, and packaging it all in a commercially consumable video. It works against progress in society by sowing division and moving further from mutual understanding. The way to progress is a society that’s more critical of messages that come from pragmatic institutions like Prager U and a sharper public eye that can spot what Burke had warned us about.

Citations

Burke, Kenneth. “The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle.” Readings in Rhetorical Criticism, by Carl R. Burgchardt, 3rd ed., Strata Publ., 2005, pp. 188–201.

PragerU, director. Why You Should Be A Nationalist. YouTube, YouTube, 17 Dec. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJ25LXtLTg.

Schmidt, Josef. “In Praise of Kenneth Burke: His ‘The Rhetoric of Hitler’s “Battle”’ Revisited.” Rhetor. Journal of the Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric, vol. 1, Jan. 2004, pp. 1–7. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=103101821&site=ehost-live.

Thompson, Jason. “Magic for a People Trained in Pragmatism: Kenneth Burke, Mein Kampf, and the Early 9/11 Oratory of George W. Bush.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 30, no. 4, Oct. 2011, pp. 350–371. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/07350198.2011.604608.

[schopprhetoricthings-blog]

*Biden Our Time*

Article Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opinion/sunday/biden-2020-dont-run.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

The critical question I will be exploring in this post is: “How are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to convey a certain message? Is this message effective for the target audience? Is it ethical?”.

The artifact that I will be exploring to answer these questions is the New York Times article “I like Joe Biden. I Urge Him Not To Run.” by opinion columnist Frank Bruni. The article is fairly well explained through its title. Last week saw a renewed wave of “Biden for 2020” fervor spurred on by Biden’s assertion that he is the “most qualified person in the country” to be president (Wagner 1).  Bruni uses his platform to give a thoughtful argument as to why it would be a mistake for Biden to be the basket that the Democratic party puts all their eggs in for the next presidential election. The Democratic party has seen relative success by backing younger candidates and progressive policies, particularly in the midterms. Bruni worries that Biden may be too representative of past politics and may have too juicy of a history to be the best bet against Trump in the ever-approaching presidential elections. The artifact uses ethos, pathos, and logos to convince the reader that Bruni just wants what’s best for the Democratic party, it’s message is likely very effective for readers of the New York Times, and it is ethical, as the motivation of the writer comes from a place of concern.

The article, though it uses all three of what Aristotle refers to as the “artistic proofs”, is primarily an appeal to the reader’s logos, or the logical reasons that Joe Biden would be a poor nomination for the 2020 presidential race, against the emotional reasons, or pathos, that may make voters think Biden would do well. Herrick defines logos as: “proofs available in words, arguments, or logic of a speech” (Herrick 79). These types of proofs are nowhere in this article more present than in the opening. In the first section of his argument, Herrick asks a lot of leading questions. He points out that Biden has tried and failed at the same position twice before, that he’s spent 45 years in Washington already, and that he is 77 years old, going for a position where no non-incumbent older than 52 has won (Bruni 1). These are logical arguments, built from prior evidence. It is reasonable, and logical, to believe that two previous failures and a trend towards younger candidate victories bode poorly for a Biden presidential run. These have nothing to do with emotions surrounding Joe Biden and his previous public images.

The article, as I mentioned, does dip into Aristotle’s other artistic proofs. From there very beginning, there is an appeal to ethos. Herrick defines ethos as: “a sociology of character” (Herrick 81). Specifically, Aristotle breaks this down into three main categories: “phronesis (intelligence, good sense), arete (virtue), and eunoia (goodwill)” (Herrick 81). In other words, ethos is the building of  a trustworthy persona for the audience to listen to. On a base level, Bruni already has some ethos. He’s published in the New York Times, a well-respected newspaper, and according to his bio, has been an opinion columnist for seven years. At the very least, we know this is a person who is respected for their opinion, to the point where others will read it. Bruni’s logos based arguments demonstrate intelligence and good sense fairly well. Additionally, there’s the tone of the whole article, the title includes the phrase: “I like Joe Biden,” and in the article, among other compliments, he says: “he’s an admirable person.” (Bruni 1). Even though he’s arguing against Biden’s run, he’s making it clear that his criticism comes from a place of goodwill, a very important component of Aristotle’s ethos. Bruni also builds much of his initial argument on the idea that the best course of action, with the country’s best interest in mind, would be to pick any candidate with the most likely chances of beating Donald Trump (Bruni 1). In Bruni’s context, this would be an appeal to virtue, as it would be a good thing to have Trump out of office. In these ways, Bruni also builds an ethos throughout the article.

Finally, Bruni does spend some time with pathos. He makes a joke about “Making America Guac Again” if it turns out an avocado is the best option to beat Trump (Bruni 1). In a joke like this, Bruni wants his audience to laugh with him, building a bond that will help them to trust in some of his larger points. Additionally, Bruni makes a pathos appeal by pointing out some smudges on Biden’s record: “his stern treatment of Anita Hill when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was chairman; his role as an ambassador for the financial services industry in Delaware; his key part in the passage of crime bills that ended up punishing African-Americans disproportionately.” (Bruni 1). These reminders of past discretions are attempts to make the reader feel unsure and plant some distrust in Biden’s value as a potential presidential candidate. The article is, however, very low on appeals like this, but they are used. Bruni has a full fledged argument, then, that utilizes all three of the Aristotelian proofs.

This still leaves us with the question of whether or not the message will be effective with the target audience and ethical. As for effectiveness, it will be effective with its target audience. The target Bruni implies in this article are those who are on the fence about whether or not Biden would be the person for the job, this early in the process that’s going to be the stage where most of the voting population resides. Arguments based primarily in logos are going to be effective in winning members of that audience over. This is because, as evidenced by last election cycle, pathos appeals heat up and increase in number as the elections themselves draw closer and closer. At this point, before the flurry of election campaigns and debates, cooler heads are still present to process points based around previous outcomes and data. The potential effectiveness of this article is also ethically based. As mentioned earlier, Bruni starts the argument with the platform that what would be best for the Democratic party is any candidate that can beat Trump (Bruni 1). From the viewpoint of that party, getting Trump and his potentially harmful policies out of office is going to be the ethical choice, so striving for that goal would be ethical. Even if the reader disagrees with that goal, Bruni presents facts from Biden’s political career with light analysis and comparison and no clear intention to mislead. All of this together gives the reader very little reason to question Bruni’s ethics.

In Stucki and Sager’s “Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames”, they use some interesting definitions of the Aristotelian proofs in political analysis that line up nicely with Bruni’s analysis of Biden’s political capability. Specifically they define the proofs in this context as being: “political arguments (logos), cultural symbols (ethos), and emotional appeal (pathos)” (Stucki 1). Stucki and Sager apply these definitions of ethos, logos, and pathos to Swiss direct-democracy campaigns, but they can also be applied to Bruni’s political analysis here. The logos is his political arguments, Biden’s previous failures and the recent midterm results that favored younger candidates as victors being notable among them (Bruni 1). The cultural symbols that built ethos were his position as a columnist, something trustworthy, and his favorable and pleasant nature towards Biden in general, something relatable that much of the public holds as well. The emotional appeals line up with our previous definitions of pathos, so the same examples are applicable, although it’s worth mentioning that Bruni also brings up: “Biden’s famous propensity for cringe-inducing gaffes” (Bruni 1). In reminding us Biden can be less than smooth, he’s again prompting an emotional reaction, a mounting distrust on what a “sure thing” Biden would be as a presidential candidate. These similarities are helpful because they show how logos, pathos, and ethos can show up in similar manners, depending on the genre of writing or speaking their in. These definitions, for instance, make it easier to find the uses of ethos, logos, and pathos in the analysis of political positions.

In conclusion, Bruni’s article is a solidly formed argument on why Biden isn’t the shoe-in for president that some in the Democratic party may believe he is. Bruni uses pathos, logos, and ethos, presents an argument that should be effective on his target audience of New York Times readers and undecided voters, and his argument comes from an ethical place. Additionally, Stucki and Sager give some context to the article and show that its application of the Aristotelian proofs is common when writing or speaking about politics. If Biden is the one for the job, only time will tell for sure, but Bruni gives sufficient reason to wonder in his article.

Works Cited

Bruni, Frank. “I Like Joe Biden. I Urge Him Not to Run.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opinion/sunday/biden-2020-dont-run.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront.

Stucki, Iris, and Fritz Sager. “Aristotelian Framing: Logos, Ethos, Pathos and the Use of Evidence in Policy Frames.” Policy Sciences, vol. 51, no. 3, Sept. 2018, pp. 373–385. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9322-8.

[schopprhetoricthings-blog]

*Rhetoric As Narrative*

Tumblr Essay #1: *Rhetoric As Narrative* Edited White House Video w/ comparison: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/?utm_term=.84fcd9b35508 

Unedited News Conference Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmUAb4Ot_Iw

The critical question that I will be exploring in this post will be: “What narrative does this artifact tell 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 or exclude)? Overall, is this narrative positive or negative for society?”

The artifact that I will be exploring in relation to this question is the official, White House released video and the full unedited video of an incident with CNN’s White House Correspondent Jim Acosta that lead to him being barred from the White House. The video intentionally presents the reporter as being more physically aggressive than he was, in order to justify the revoking of his credentials. In doing this the video promotes narratives that the American press are openly hostile and aggressive towards the president and that it is acceptable for the White House to edit videos they release to promote their version of any given event, it completely ignores the nature of the questions being asked or the context around the incident, and is overall a negative narrative for society, as it undermines trust in the public institution that is the press and implies that the White House is allowed to edit photos or videos to support whatever narrative is desired. For clarity, when I say the White House, I mean President Trump and his staff.

The video in question came from a press conference held Wednesday, November 7th with President Trump at the White House, CNN reporter Jim Acosta was asking questions about Trump’s characterization of a migrant caravan fleeing from violence in Central America as an “invasion” of our nation. President Trump refused to answer the questions, and insisted that the next reporter speak, but Acosta continued asking questions, and brushed off the attempts of a White House staffer to take the microphone from him. At this point, President Trump becomes openly hostile, calling Acosta rude, his network failing, and letting other journalists who speak up in Acosta’s defense know that he doesn’t like them very much either. Acosta’s press pass was revoked by the White House later that day. The next day, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a short video that showed Acosta chop at the arm of the staffer trying to take the microphone from him. Additionally, the video included no audio, and you can’t hear Acosta say “Pardon me, miss,” to the staffer, nor does any of President Trump’s verbal abuse of the journalists come through. As well as removing audio, experts also found that the video was doctored, with several frames edited to make Acosta’s movement towards the staffer appear more aggressive than it does in the original video. (Harwell). Since this video, Acosta’s expulsion from the White House was deemed unconstitutional and his press pass returned. But, despite the eventual victory, the narrative the White House promoted and President Trump built while addressing the journalists is incredibly disturbing.

Palczewski describes narratives 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” (Palczewski). The events that occur in this artifact are the interactions between Acosta and the President, but also the interactions between Acosta and the staffer and between President Trump and the other journalists. When looking at all the events, the White House had to decide how to depict the incident, it would surely make the news, and there would surely be a narrative, so they had to decide what their narrative would be. The first truth they promote is the recurring theme within the Trump strategy that press is the enemy of the people. In August, Trump shared that he considers roughly 80 percent of the press to fall under this label (Wagner).  This continuation is made clear by the manipulation of the video, portraying Acosta as openly violent reinforces the narrative that the press is an enemy of the White House and, by extension, America. The repetition of this description of the press over time is the White House contributing to its own narrative fidelity. Narrative fidelity is characterized as: “whether the events included in the story correspond to the experiences and understanding of reality of the audience.” (Palczewski). In repeatedly referring to press as “the enemy of the people”, Trump creates a reality in which Acosta being a villain would have enough narrative fidelity to feel credible.  The other proof of this can be seen in what the video leaves out. The audio, as mentioned, is gone completely. Acosta’s “pardon me, miss,” gives context to his action and makes him seem less aggressive, additionally Trump’s taunting of Acosta as a “rude, terrible person” and the protests of Acosta’s peers are left out. These exclusions intentionally leave a plot with Acosta as the villain and his brushing away of the White House Staffer the only notable event. The other truth that this editing supports is the right of the White House to present its information however it wishes. The editing of raw footage and the releasing of it as fact implies that this could be common practice, and attempts to normalize alterations of truth and fact from the White House as acceptable. In using these strategies, the White House is attempting to control the public memory. Palczewski describes the public memory as: “a particular type of collective memory that combines the memories of the dominant culture and fragments of marginalized groups’ memories, and enable a public to make sense of the past, present, and future.” (Palczewski). In editing this video, the White House is attempting to create a public memory.  In this desired public memory of this incident, Acosta was the villain and President Trump was stalwart and powerful. The overarching narrative is that this was a failure on the part of the press, the press is the enemy of the people, and all White House information should be trusted, even if it may be edited.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this narrative. The narrative is useful for the White House, as their battle against the enemy that is the press would gather sympathy from the public. It is also useful for the White House because it means that the public will accept the information received from them as fact. Now, we know that wasn’t the case, but an edited video was likely not released with the expectation that the public would call it out as edited. The narrative could also be spun for Trump himself into support for the next election, if the White House’s narrative was the widely accepted one, he could lean on his no-nonsense approach to the evil press as an admirable quality. However, the advantages only really exist for the White House. The disadvantages are far greater. This narrative creates a society in which the press can’t be trusted. The press function as an often forgotten extra step in our democratic system of checks and balances. The press, in a healthy society, hold the public institutions accountable with their reporting. This narrative, by sowing doubt in the press, is interested in creating a society in which the White House is not held accountable. This narrative prevailing, and us turning away from the press as a whole, would be a blow not only against our democratic ideals as a nation, but also the informed nature of many of our citizens. This disadvantage on a societal level greatly outweighs the advantages and ease of operation the White House would likely enjoy from this narrative.

Levinger gives an example of other governments using edited information to contribute to what he calls the “master narrative” (Levinger). He defines that as: “the story that generates all the other stories, endowing factual claims with meaning and emotional significance by embedding them within a larger coherent narrative structure.” (Levinger). What the White House did, in releasing this edited video, is attempt to contribute to their own master narrative that they’ve built: the press is the enemy of the people. In that framework, Acosta as a villain fits naturally and is all but expected. For a broad comparison, Levinger uses the example of pre-World War 2 versus post-World War 2 America to demonstrate a master narrative. After World War 1, America was disillusioned with a war that killed so many of their own, and retreated into isolationism to avoid conflict. Then: “ Provoked to action by the rise of Nazi tyranny and the perfidious Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, America joined the fight to vanquish despotic regimes in Europe and Asia. This time, having learned its lesson, America remained engaged in global affairs after its victory, promoting peace and prosperity.” (Levinger). The master narrative shifts with World War 2, and global involvement becomes the American way. In much the same way the war shifted popular opinion on global involvement, the White House is attempting to create a master narrative that the press are the enemy. Levinger’s descriptions of master narratives provide more context to Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch’s narratives when on a nation-sized scale.

In summary, the edited video released by the Trump administration is an example of rhetoric being used to create a narrative. It creates a story line in which Jim Acosta is the villain. The truths presented here are that the Trump administration’s information is to be trusted, and, overall, the press is the enemy of the people. This narrative is damaging to society, as it undermines any confidence the public can have in the press, and invalidates that whole section of our democratic process. The return of Jim Acosta’s credentials was a victory for the press, but the attempted use of this edited video is a cautionary tale of how rhetoric released to the public can be used to create narrative.

Sources

Harwell, Drew. “White House Shares Doctored Video to Support Punishment of Journalist Jim Acosta.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Nov. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/?utm_term=.84fcd9b35508.

Levinger, Matthew. “Master Narratives of Disinformation Campaigns.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 71, Jan. 2018, pp. 125–134. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132491878&site=ehost-live.

Palczewski, Catherine Helen., et al. Rhetoric in Civic Life. Strata Pub., 2016.

Wagner, John, and Felicia Sonmez. “About 80 Percent of the Media Are 'the Enemy of the People,' Trump Says.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 22 Aug. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/about-80-percent-of-the-media-are-the-enemy-of-the-people-trump-says/2018/08/22/d7d5710c-a635-11e8-a656-943eefab5daf_story.html?utm_term=.68b19f54afec.