myslickvickposts

[myslickvickposts]

**Rhetoric In Its Purest Form**

In COMM-380, Rhetorical Traditions, I’ve analyzed and connected a multitude of theories and theorists to the definition of rhetoric. This essay highlights how my definition of rhetoric has shifted from the beginning to the end of the course.

On the first day of class, Dr. Kunde asked the class to write down and express what each individual felt was the definition of rhetoric. Before Rhetorical Traditions, I had no prior experience with the study of theorists or even what rhetoric meant to me. I remember myself stuck on where to even start. The word rhetoric was shared. However, rhetoric never played deeply in my thoughts. This course allowed me to not only develop an understanding of rhetoric, but also the components and elements that relate.

In the beginning of the term, I thought rhetoric was the ways in which an individual speaks and expresses knowledge. I had a rather basic understanding of ethos, logos, and pathos, and seemingly understood the ways in which one presents an argument. Although I still believe rhetoric consists of the ways in which an individual speaks, I now know that there is more in regards to defining the term. Rhetoric is a technique of language used to effectively convince or challenge others viewpoints. Rhetors are utilized as the communicators, persuaders, and the understanders.

The ideology of the speaker creating a persona was exhibited through our study of rhetorical criticisms and the Ancient Greeks. “The Funeral Oration” written by Pericles serves as an example portraying the rhetor- Pericles, as the communicator, persuader, and the understander. Pericles wrote “The Funeral Oration” to regard and  “honor the fallen soldiers” (Pericles, 217).  His intent was to console and provide reassurance to the citizens of Athens. He reminded them of the continued success of the city, and the honor each individual should feel as citizens “worthy of their city”(Pericles, 220). Through speech, Pericles was able to redirect negative recallations by convincing the Athenian people that they were above all, and had the strength of ancestors to think back on. As a leader, the rhetoric used during his speech allowed him to control the narrative. This, leaving Pericles the communicator, persuader, and executive understander of the conditions.

As Pericles wrote to convince his audience, there are also instances where rhetors are expected to challenge other viewpoints. In John M. Murphy’s, “John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion”, Murphy puts emphasis on speeches that regard togetherness and inclusiveness. As President of the United States, John F. Kennedy had to work to unite the American people. Murphy analyzes Kennedy’s speeches, and expands on the ways in which Kennedy tried to bring the American people in as one through his speech. Kennedy utilized constitutive rhetoric, which is the way of using rhetoric to create a narrative of “we the people, we are one”. Kennedy worked to challenge other viewpoints through his use of symbols. Murphy explained how “God, the Constitution, and all else” are all examples of symbols that people create their own meanings of (Murphy, 16). Rhetoric surrounding symbols ‘is impossible for us to ‘know’ anything about matters cannot be verified” by all (Murphy, 16).  Murphy concludes that as writers try to create a sense of unity through the use of symbols, it is inevitable that one will not be inclusive of all thoughts, uses, and representations.

As I mentioned constitutive rhetoric, it is important for rhetors to understand how an audience is constructed. For John F. Kennedy, his audience consisted of Americans of multitude genders, and cultural and ethnic backgrounds. In order to successfully reach all people, one would have to be knowledgeable of their audiences. This concept is regarded by the inclusion, and paved a path for speakers to unite and speak to people of different demographics.

From the Ancient Greeks to the study of multiculturalism, Rhetorical Traditions has allowed for a vast array of study. As the course progressed, topics that pertain more to the society I live in became a way for me to connect to the readings closely. In Steven Goldzwig’s, “Multiculturalism, Rhetoric and The Twenty-First Century”, the development of people’s mindsets, understanding, and acceptance of multiculturalism were explored. Goldzwig expressed the importance of one understanding that the society we live in will continue to develop, just as our viewpoints of one another should. Goldzwig believed that the teaching of acceptance first takes place in schools where people of different racial backgrounds should intertwine and explore each other. Within his writing, it seemed as if Goldzwig understood that as our societies continue to advance, the “call for inclusiveness in multicultural projects [will be] directed to all participants” (Goldzwig, 274).

As Goldzwig believed we could benefit and learn from people of diverse backgrounds, this also included the multitude of perspectives. Being able to learn from one of a different background allows for a more well rounded individual. Essentially, the inclusion of everyone's thoughts, feelings, and ways of life would create more informed students. Goldzwig was able to communicate his perspective and help others understand his ideology.  

In conclusion, Rhetorical Traditions has impacted my thought process. I was able to expand my vocabulary when referring to leaders and citizens of the Ancient Greek time period, and understand the starting points of rules and ideologies I live by today. Writings of Pericles, Murphy, and Goldzwig all contributed to my renewed definition of rhetoric. As these writers worked to effectively convince or challenge others' viewpoints, they collectively served as communicators, persuaders, and understanders. Rhetoric is a tool of speech that will continue to develop the mindsets, viewpoints, and opinions of the people, or as I’ve most recently added to my vocabulary- the demos of our world.

Pericles. (1994). The funeral oration. In J. J. Murphy and R. A. Katula (Eds.), A Synoptic history of classical rhetoric (2nd ed.) (pp. 217-221). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press. (Original work published in 430 B.C.E.)

Murphy, J. (2019). Preface. In John F. Kennedy and the liberal persuasion (pp. xii-xvii). East Lansing: Michigan University Press.

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

[myslickvickposts]

**Feminine Style and Kitchen Play Sets**

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): How do you see the feminine style at play in this artifact? Is it public or interpersonal? In which ways is it empowering and/ or limiting? Overall, is it more empowering or more limiting?

Throughout the “Feminine Style and Political Judgement”, Dow and Tonn were able to encapsulate the ideology related to specific roles women and men are limited to within our society.  The political standpoint in their argument analyzed tactics that women utilize to form an emotional built connection with audiences. When referring to the feminine style of writing, Dow and Tonn question why it is often categorized as “the other” style, and not included as a mainstream way of speech. This is seen as an opportunity to build a wedge between male and female counterparts, as well as a way to play into how society has created a wall between the differences between men and women. The difference in roles that women and men are expected to fulfill are on different spectrums. Women are encouraged to primarily work towards roles that categorize them as “concrete, participatory, cooperative, and oriented toward relationship maintenance”(Dow and Tonn, 288). While, men have roles that primarily are categorized as “hierarchical, dominating, and oriented towards problem solving” (Dow and Tonn, 288).  Society has encapsulated how each gender should act in personality and professionally, and have created limitations that affect how men and women create relationships, outlook on dreams and aspirations, and character developments.  The artifact examined relates to the toy industry. Advertisement for a kitchen set sold by Fisher-Price sketches the gender specific ideology within the modern society. The American Psychological Association published a scholarly journal examining the gender stereotypes and roles.

Based on suggestive limitations surrounding gender, items such as children’s toys have been at the forefront of subjective gender normalities. The Fisher-Price Kitchen Set Advertisement has aired on television for years. The advertisement’s usually include young children playing with the toys. It is not always one's first instinct to analyze or examine, “Why did the corporation choose the actors and actresses for each toy set?” In this commercial, two children are seen playing with the kitchen set with typical kitchen gadgets.  Surprisingly, the scene includes children, one male and one female, playing alongside each other as they both pretend to make a meal. The advertisement seems to enforce the notion that all genders are welcome to play with the kitchen-set. Both male and female seem to be empowered as the roles and characteristics of genders are not illustrated. However, the audio voiceover played throughout the commercial makes one think twice, and backtrack.  

Throughout the “Gender: Stereotypes and Roles” scholarly journal, Basow’s thoughts and study correlate to the Dow and Tonn discoveries. The journal expands on the distinction between sexes as being “the result of gender roles” (Bascow). The journal explores how gender is constructed, and relates the roles back to how they are portrayed throughout society. Bascow concludes that “gender is constructed by every socializing agent and force in society” starting with “parents, teachers, the media, and religion” (Bascow). In relation to the Fisher-Price commercial, this idea that humans learn through what one is shown and has experienced correlates.

As Dow and Tonn review the expectations and limitations associated with males and females, the ideology that women and men do indeed have certain roles is asserted in the Fisher-Price Kitchen Set advertisement. Dow and Tonn concluded that “feminine ideals of care, nurturance, and family relationships function as a critique” of traditional reasoning (Dow and Tonn, 289). The Fisher-Price Corporation utilizes the young girl and boy in the advertisement to serve as the epiphany of a caring, nurturing, and family oriented pair. However, the voiceover seems to support the idea that this was a scene very different from real life. While exploring the political aspect of the journal, Dow and Tonn conclude that “the use of experience in testing generalization, the importance of trusting personal reactions, and the applicability of wisdom from the private sphere of home and family” all correlate to how women are viewed.

Throughout the Fisher-Price advertisement, the idea that the young girl has experience, personal reactions, and wisdom is apparent as she manevers her way through the kitchen set. The young girl for example, is seen completing the process of cooking food on the stove, she initiates setting the table by handing the young boy the items needed, and she also utilizes the microwave to complete their meal. This is all done while the young boy is seen talking on the phone, taking a piece of bread out of the toaster to set on the table, and placing what appears to be ice cream from the freezer on the table. While this observation gestures an example of the two working together, the scene correlates the gender roles examined by Dow and Tonn.  Connecting  the adjectives used by Dow and Tonn to address how women and men are viewed within society, the young girl is seen as participatory, cooperative, and household oriented.  The young boy  correlates with these values, however the voiceover manifests activities he was completing much different than what would normally happen.

Another way the Fisher-Price advertisement supported the societal roles created was through the scripted voiceover.  A perfect example utilized, “It’s just like a grown up kitchen with one exception, everyone wants to do the dishes”. This supports the idea that the young boy shown in the advertisement is cooperating with the feminine style which is not normally exhibited in our real world. The idea that our society does not typically expect a male presence in the kitchen is created, and the claim that men should not usually want to do the dishes is supported. For the younger generation and children watching, this serves as an example of a hierarchical society of male dominance and gender equality. This is the first step towards creating roles specifically gender oriented.

The feminine style through gender roles could be categorized as public and interpersonal. Dow and Tonn tone suggests roles are predicted, sets issues that women and men both have to work against. They conclude that men have defined these social and cultural categories, however “women in public life are not likely to admit” reasoning from the feminine style (Dow and Tonn, 292). The ideology that the feminine style affects communication and roles is an aspect that relates to the public. Women continue to wonder why the feminine style has to stand out, and is not categorized as simply a form of communication. The interpersonal aspect arises as the male and female roles seen through advertisement or other various forms of illustration serve as a display of how roles typically form. The exchange of thoughts, ideas, and feelings heard through the Fisher-Price voiceover summarize the ways in which a typical kitchen would operate.

In conclusion, the sharp contrast of deliberate conversations expound on essential topics evolved around human needs.  Realistic observation is exemplified relating to human dignity and needs of a fallen society. Dow and Tonn conclude that women have an innate sense of caring and elevation for all humankind. While men seem to think more of delegating and being in control.   The great migration of people in America from the South to the North was built on grounds for growth. Growth regarding education, success, empowerment and dignity.   Immigration to America spearheads the American Dream. Women are still dreaming.

Fisher-Price Kitchen Set Commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QARRTNJURd4    

Dow, B. J., & Tonn, M. B. (1993). Feminine style and political judgement in the rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal Of Speech, 79 (3), 286-302 American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-97754-000.

Basow, S. A. (1992). Gender: Stereotypes and roles (3rd ed.). Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

[myslickvickposts]

**Hillary Clinton, The President of Rhetoric**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jK2eIpj6-c

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What is the main purpose of this artifact’s message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact. Is the way that these rhetorical appeals used ethical or unethical? To investigate these questions, I examined Hillary Clinton’s democratic debate against Bernie Sanders. Throughout the debate, Hillary Clinton uses ethos, pathos, and logos to convince her audience that she is the more informed candidate that should be elected to represent the American people.

Politics throughout America is an essential element within our society. Through the early month of November, up until the voting period, most American politicians work tirelessly to develop their stance on key issues throughout the nation. Debates allow politicians to display and announce their stance. Along those same lines, debates are essential to the American people choosing who to stand behind. The goal of these political debates is the decisional factor substantiating a central understanding of which candidate’s views align closely with the views of citizens of the United States. Politicians use rhetorical techniques that work alongside connecting with the American people. Throughout this post, the works of Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Debate will be analyzed closely with how she utilizes ethos, logos, and pathos. Hillary Clinton utilizes these techniques to connect closer with the larger American demographics such as immigrants, racially impoverished, women. Rhetorical theorist James Herrick’s text will also be analyzed, as he defines and explains the way Aristotle approached rhetoric.  

Aristotle believed that ethos, logos, and pathos were the elements of rhetoric.  As James Herrick defines the ways rhetorical techniques are utilized, he highlights that Aristotle also believed there were positive and negative ways to use rhetoric in defending one's positions. Ethos is an appeal to an ethical argument. When using ethos, one is using rhetoric to display how one feels morally and emotionally. Throughout Hillary Clinton’s debate against Bernie Sanders, Hillary utilizes ethos by continuing to mention all the work she’s done in the past with people of higher stance in our society. For example, Hillary mentions the work she contributed to the Barack Obama campaign; restatign her platform of improved healthcare, a woman’s choice for abortion, reducing inequality, better jobs and income - all for the American people. To have the appearance of having insight in being a President, along with pleas for human dignity, improved healthcare, supporting education, and improving our relationship with our ally countries. Clinton mentions Obama as he represents a strong support backing of the American people, he had a solid platform,  he overcame many obstacles throughout his political career, all while becoming the first African American President of America. Prior to campaigning for President, Hillary Cinton was Secretary of State. She utilizes ethos readily throughout the entire debate, as she not only wants the American people to recognize how much experience she has, but she includes her involvement with Women’s Rights, wants the recognition for the progressive nature she possesses. When regarding herself, she uses rhetoric in a positive light, which inevitably promotes her.  Hillary Clinton also repeatedly asks the audience if they want to progress the healthcare systems and fight for universal healthcare. Ethically, this is a way of jarring the American people to side with her as healthcare is a major obstacle  for many American families, more specifically those of the lower socioeconomic communities. On the other hand, unethically this is Clinton’s way of gaining more of a following as she begins her speech mentioning what has obviously failed within our society, and promising it’s her priority to make it all work.

Aristotle regards Pathos as a way to appeal to emotion, or using feelings to win an argument. Hillary Clinton’s goal seems to be to unify the American people. She mentions in her speech that “the economy has not been working for most Americans”. This statement would appeal to the majority of Americans struggling to find minimum wage jobs to support their families, which evokes emotion throughout a majority of the nation. She also mentions the work she planned on doing within the LGBT community to again, promote a sense of togetherness within the American people. These are a few examples of communities pushed aside and sometimes forgotten about. Clinton believed her key to the presidency would be to unify and bring the American people together as one to represent one nation. As Clinton continued to speak on unifying the different societies within the United States, most people took her promises as wanting to get the nation back on track. Her rhetoric would bring attention to the estranged communities, which would inevitably make her campaign stronger with more supporters. Within this element of her speech, Hillary seems to use pathos more unethically as the demographic of listeners and viewers are all different. Hillary Clinton knew of the differences in backgrounds, and chose to address the communities usually unspoken for to make points about. This way of attracting support was her way of achieving the vote of many minorities, both culturally and economically.

As both Hillary and Bernie continue their debate, the issue of immigrants  throughout the United States becomes a pivotal highlight. In a point to connect with immigrants, Hillary says “I have stood up and fought and have the scars to prove it”. This rhetoric was used to create an image of Hillary giving it her all, and stirs up emotion throughout the nation within the community of immigrants. For Clinton to mention that she has scars to prove how hard she has fought for the freedom of immigrants provides a sense of protection for a community that has been rejected throughout our society. She is empathizing with the hatred towards people who come here for the American Dream, despite the fact she comes from a different background.  

Logos is the appeal to logic by using proof or being rational. Logos is common, and easy to point out in a speech. One would utilize common sense to make them seem more in tune or educated on the topic at hand. At the forefront of  Bernie Sanders’ campaign, his main goal is to make college free throughout the United States. Bernie Sanders was able to achieve the vote of most younger Americans, as college tuition and how one will afford it, is what worries the younger American population that desires to continue their education.  Throughout Hillary’s speech she mentions that she “does not believe in free college and experts can back [her] up on how America can’t have free college”.  In regards to her mentioning how experts can back her up, she does not mention the experts who can actually back her up. She brings up experts that can back her up because most people would believe her after she solely mentions that there are experts who agree with her stance. People recognize experts as people with extensive educational backgrounds, who have done an abundance of research to prove others right or wrong. In this case, Clinton utilizes logos in an unethical, positive light as credit is split between the “experts” and herself. After stating that experts have backed her up, she mentions that “Sanders goals are just not achievable”. Her statement seems to be logical as she has already mentioned that scientists and experts have acclaimed she is correct.

As the debate continues, Bernie Sanders mentions that Hillary Clinton is not “progressive enough” to be the party's standard bearer. Clinton simply responds that “she is a progressive that gets things done”, and then she swiftly concludes that the American people are watching in their homes not to discuss how progressive each candidate has been, but to analyze where they will go from this point forward. Within this argument, Hillary Clinton is able to again explain all that she hopes to do to bring the country together. She mentions that “we all have differences and honestly should be talking about what we will do for the progression of the country”. This is an example of her logically centering the conversation about her specific plans for our nation. She mentions what others have done before her, continuing onto what she will do in the future. As Clinton mentions that we all have differences, this is again her way of unifying. Unifying and connecting with Americans at home, as she tries to relate that she too is different and will work for all other “different” Americans.

Bernie Sanders is seen as the gatekeeper for progressivism as he continuously fights for the rights of younger Americans. Hillary Clinton defends that she does agree on Sanders being the progressive candidate, but she also wants to bring to light that there are other progressive leaders throughout the democratic party that have stood up against special interest and those that have been left behind and left out. She seemingly expands the title of “progressive” leader to fit her persona.

The points made throughout the entirety of the debate are examples of unethical and ethically acclaimed points made through the use of rhetoric. Elements explained by Aristotle; ethos, logos, and pathos are apparent throughout the speech and set the tone of both politicians. Hillary is explained as utilizing ethos to create a level of professionalism and experience for herself as she mentioned positions she has held and successful politicians she has worked closely with. Clinton utilizes logos to appear more to the point, and as a candidate that respects the opinions of experts who have done research in order to be more efficient. Lastly, Hillary Clinton uses pathos to unify and bring the American people of all different demographics together as one.

[myslickvickposts]

*Narratives In Regard to Experience*

While reading the “Narratives” article by Palczewski, the concept of how one remembers events became extremely interesting. Before reading, I personally never stopped to wonder why certain memories from the past are seemingly more vivid than others. This artifact taught me about the differences in memories or stories, and even went in depth about why some memories stick vs others. Not only were memories brought into question, but pieces of U.S. history were used as examples to exhibit how rhetorical tools are used in different situations and forms. The story of Jackie Robinson becoming an extremely successful African American athlete was portrayed various ways by the media.  In some articles pathos was used to pity him based on the names he was called, and the hardships he oftentimes faced.  While other articles referred to him as an average baseball player, who only was popular because of his color. In both ways, his hardships are mentioned, but regarder in two very different senses.  Reporters oftentimes have a way of utilizing their rhetoric to get readers to see a situation very one sided.

Throughout U.S culture, this artifact is an example of not only how narratives can be portrayed differently by people with different beliefs, but it also forms an ideology around the culture of the U.S through sports. To investigate further, I watched a YouTube highlight of Jackie Robinson’s critics post game and thoroughly analyzed the “Rhetorical Criticism” artifact. To my surprise, it seemed as if both reporters praised Robinson for his positive contributions to his team, while also using degrading rhetoric to categorize him. It seemed as if they were claiming him as an accomplished American sports player, but also grouping him as a lower class citizen.

The YouTube video I decided to include as my artifact, was a scene where Ben Chapman- another MLB player, was highlighted for antagonizing Jackie Robinson throughout the game. The follow up game comments included the disrespectful rhetoric Chapman used to address Robinson, and the reports seemingly concluded their showtime with a mixed attitude of embarrassment but a sense of them not being shocked. In “Rhetorical Criticism”, Foss states that to achieve the American dream one will have to endure “hard work [that] will lead to success regardless of a person’s origin” (Foss, 117). This ideology supports my thoughts on why Ben Chapman accepted Robinson as an accomplished player, but still degraded him. Chapman congratulated his hard work and success regardless of his origin, but still treated him as an outsider.

The narrative told by the reporters deemed that Jackie Robinson was exceptional in the game against the Dodgers, while having to deal with the norms of the society he lived in. Norms including being called degrading names and having to accept the fact that he could not fight against any of the white players. The narrative told by Ben Chapman however would be different. Ben Chapman spoke about how he acted as anyone would and should towards the Negro player, as he still congradulated Robinson on his stellar performace. Chapman had no sense of wrongdoing, as this was a time where everyone accepted Robinson as competition, but not as a person.

In regards to the speech Geraldine Ferraro voiced, she regarded the American dream as a saying that included all people, all races. She made the “promise [that] the rules are fair” throughout the U.S, and through the American dream “our faith can shape a better future” (Ferraro, 117). Instead of speaking on where our country was morally, she decided that in light of her potentially winning the Democratic nomination for vice presidency, it would be best to overlook the reality. The advantages to her grouping all Americans as one would essentially make her seem far and righteous in the name of America. The rhetoric used was to make all feel as though they were welcome. She included the ideology of the American dream because that’s what American’s strived to immulate. Through her tactics, people like Ben Chapman would have either wanted to vote for her to work towards achieving that dream, or saw through the unity she was trying to speak on.

As stated in “The Power in a Political Narrative”, written by Henry Tolchart explains that “when narratives are in conflict, their importance is amplified” (Tolchart). The conflict in America when Geraldine Ferraro was running for office was between African American and White Americans. She seemingly excluded the present narrative at the time, and skipped to the conclusion. The importance of segregation at the time was at a high, and she used the American dream to bring both parties together.

In conclusion, narratives are told by everyone, and oftentimes utilized to sway a conflict. Convincing rhetoric within the narrative is important in changing mindset. Narrative is also different based on different experiences. For example, Jackie Robinson would have a different narrative of how he was treated while achieving history as opposed to Ben Chapman. Different viewpoints always start the beginnings of the same story told in different ways.