paulyc43-blog1

[paulyc43-blog1]

*Tumblr 4*

Aristotle on rhetoric. In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.) (pp. 69-81). New York: Routledge.

In Comm 380 Rhetorical Traditions, I learned many different theories of rhetoric, in this entry I will explain how my definition of rhetoric shifted from the beginning of the course to the end of the course.

At the beginning of the course we were given the opportunity to free write about what we thought rhetoric was. I remember when I was called on to share my thoughts, I said something along the lines of “it was a tool writers use to to be able to communicate their ideas.” However, now I think rhetoric is a number of different tools that rhetoricians use to communicate their messages. 

After studying all these different rhetoricians and the way that they define and use rhetoric, I don’t think I can define rhetoric as just a single tool that they use, since many times different parts of rhetoric can be seen in single artifacts. However, I think when you use rhetoric, there is a message or a narrative that wants to be conveyed and there is a purpose behind those. I think Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch (2012) explain this best as: “[creating] culture and community by teaching cultural values, explaining causality, and entertaining.” When you create a culture, it can be almost like a point of view, and those can vary, however, usually it shares the point of view of the author, which makes it their message. Causality is the relationship between cause and effect, basically what has led up to this message to cause it and what affects the author wants it to have, what is its purpose. They have a reason on why they are speaking, usually the messages are after something has happened, or because the author wants something to happen. Finally, for entertaining, the speaker's message must be engaging enough to be able to grab the attention of the audience, otherwise it falls on deaf ears and holds no weight. These are all things I think the author or rhetor intentionally and unintentionally look at while giving their messages. Authors might sometimes intentionally look at how entertaining their message is, but may not know entirely that it is their culture that they want to spread, it is likely a subconscious effort to spread culture, it just happens.

 Now, to define the actual content and rhetoric of the message, I agreed most with Isocrates with his three criteria of good rhetoric : Kairos, appropriateness, and originality. Kairos is basically the ability to speak on something in a timely fashion, appropriateness is whether propriety/decorum, community traditions, and community values are taken into account, and originality is whether not this was done in a creative or innovative way. Kairos is important to my definition because speaking, especially as a reaction to an event, causality, as mentioned earlier, is important because doing it in a timely fashion holds much more weight to an audience than addressing. Sometimes things need to be addressed preemptively, other times they need to be addressed after the fact within an appropriate time frame, which isn’t always clearly defined. An author's ability to do this is important to their rhetoric and message. I also think the idea of appropriateness defined by Isocrates is good and goes hand in hand with creating culture as mentioned earlier. Creating culture does not always mean that cultures align, maybe a speaker has to adapt to the culture that they are speaking to, and creating a culture that it is okay to be different from others. I think this is good too because it can help a speaker make conscious efforts to remain ethical and not directly impede on other people’s culture and values. Finally, originality goes hand in hand with being entertaining. This gives the rhetorician the opportunity to do things that haven’t been done before, which can make it be entertaining. Whether it is creative in a good way, or a bad way, regardless, being memorable is often important for rhetoricians to be able to effectively get their messages across. 

Finally, I think another theory we learned about that can tie in with all of this is Aristotle's view of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, which are widely accepted in the definition of rhetoric, however I think they are more interwoven with the definition than just provide a solid definition. I also think it is something that is more often than not subconscious and only defined while analyzing the rhetoric of authors and artifacts. Ethos is the author's credibility of character,Pathos is appealing to the audiences emotions, and logos is the author using logic. Ethos is important but I think it is too broad, bringing in things like being able to speak in an appropriate fashion and being able to actively show taking others into account. However, I do think it does leave room to be able to fit in things such as education and past experiences, which are important to an author's credibility, and not mentioned previously in my definition. Pathos can be used in hand with appropriateness, however, I think appropriateness helps keep things keep things more ethical, it is a conscious effort to take into account others ideals, and pathos is just an attempt to appeal to those emotions and ideals. I think just trying to appeal to someone's emotions can be exploited and have malice intentions if other ideals are not fully taken into consideration. Finally, Logos I think is important because it covers something not really covered by the previous parts of definition, facts. I think it is important to be able to support some messages and narratives with facts when they are necessary. I do not think that they can always be spread by just senseless fact spewing, however they can often compliment these messages well and also provide credibility for the author. 

Finally, I now believe that rhetoric is; Messages and narratives that teach cultural values, and take in existing ideas and values in as appropriateness, explaining causality in a timely fashion, and are provided by credible authors or rhetoricians that create and teach cultural values in an original and entertaining fashion.

Work Cited

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

Isocrates. (2000). Against the sophists. (D.C. Mirhady and Y. Lee Too, Trans.) (pp. 61-66). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in c. 390 B.C.E.)

[paulyc43-blog1]

*Gender and Rhetoric

In this entry I will examine the critical questions: What gender/sexuality norm is constructed or undone in this artifact, how is it rhetorically done, 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)? 

To investigate these questions, I am exploring Luke Bryan’s song “Country Girl (Shake it for Me)”. This song and the music video that accompanies it, creates the gender norm that women are to dance for country songs and for men by creating that idea through its lyrics about women and the visuals in the music video that accompany the lyrics depicting women in sexualized ways. Overall, it is unproductive by creating a sexualized gender norm towards women.

This song was released in 2011 and is accompanied by a music video that starts off with monologues from a few women about being country, riding their horses to Burger King, and they also talk about their career as dancers. The video itself shows shots of Luke Bryan and his band performing the song inside a studio setting as well as shots of girls dancing in a dance studio, and then eventually joining the band on the studio stage. There are short quotes from the women throughout the video of their testimonies about coming to Los Angeles to become professional dancers. 

Gender “norms” have been around just around as long as humankind has been, and quite frankly they are all created by us as a society. Some stereotypical gender norm examples include things like women working in the house, taking care of the children, cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry, while men are seen as the providers, working outside the home to provide food, safety, shelter, and money to the household. Butler takes a look at undoing these norms by exploring how dependent we all are on these norms saying: “the matter is made more complex by the fact that the viability of our individual personhood is fundamentally dependent on these social norms (Butler 2)”. He basically says that without some sort of norms and recognizability as people, we are unable to live our lives, but we must also work to try and undo some of these norms. Butler himself mentions that his works are “efforts to relate the problematics of gender and sexuality to the tasks of persistence and survival.” Basically, he’s saying that there is a certain element to social norms that help keep us alive and relevant, but there are social norms that are not good and can be toxic to individuals within society.

In Luke Bryant’s song Country Girl (Shake It for Me), it reinforces gender stereotypes and society norms towards women as sexual objects with the lyrics and the visuals in their music video. The first line of the song is “hey girl, go on, you know you’ve got everybody looking” which he says in a fairly seductive tone, like that is all she’s there for, to make everyone look at her to be attractive. The lyrics also say “girl I can't wait to watch you do your thing” like that is all she is supposed to do, “her thing”, for an audience. Although the women in the music video are practicing to be dancers as a career, in which case, dancing would be their “thing” to do, however, for the rest of women, that likely isn’t their only purpose or job in life. Many women will do other careers, such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, farmers, electricians, welders, and so on, and not simply to entertain people, specifically men. Luke sings “Shake it for the young bucks sittin’ in the honky tonks” which means that women should shake it for the young men in the bars, and then keeps listing things for women to shake it to; the birds and bees, catfish swimming down deep in the creek, the crickets, critters, and squirrels, the moon, and then finally, shake it for me. This then brings the question, of are you really a country girl, if you don’t shake it, if you don’t dance? Butler says “If I am someone who cannot be without doing, then the conditions of my doing are, in part, the conditions of my existence”(Butler 3). In other words, unless women who enjoy country music, fit the societal norms that this song set, are they not able to be country girls? When I think of a typical country guy figure, I think of someone that is tough and rough, but if I think of a country girl, and I am supposed to think of someone that is just submissive to the roles of country music, and not see them as also rough and tough?

Visually, these women are also objectified in the music video as well throughout the song. The scene is set as these are women that are trying out to be professional dancers, they want to dance as a career. They show visuals of the women putting their makeup on in the dressing rooms and then have clips of them practicing their dancing throughout the music video. However, the visuals they chose to show include clips of the dancers flipping their hair around, shaking their hips around and they make sure to slow down those clips and add a dimension of sexy to them, where the clips of the band are not slowed down or modified to create any more sort of sex appeal. Would the women even be in the music video if they didn’t conform to the the sex appeal of the song? It feels as if they’re only there to compliment the sex appeal of the song and not to fill any other role in the production.The clips also often are zoomed in on the women’s chests in tops that show some skin, their hips as they dance, and their butt, and this was clearly done intentionally, as the clips are only shots of those. However, the guys in the band are dressed up in t-shirts and jeans and they don’t show any clips of their hips or in anything revealing. It seems to me that the women we’re only incorporated in the visuals to add to sex appeal and used the narrative of want-to-be dancers to accompany the blantant sex appeal that is wanted by the song lyrics for the music video.

Luke Bryan’s song is overall unproductive, however it doesn’t seem unethical. There is so much more value to women than just to be shaking it for men, they have so many options for things to do in life, and quite frankly, women don’t owe men anything. This song was designed to be more of a pop song to get women to get to dance to the song, however, the sexual references and the constant lyrics that women are shaking it for someone or something, rather than themselves is unproductive because it creates a reliance that women need someone or something to shake it to to be able to dance. As for being unethical, I specifically thought of the music video itself, because the women in the video are openly trying out to be professional dancers. They did not include women that did not sign up for this, the women are dancing because they want to. The scenes aren’t from random women in the crowd in the concert, or unidentified, this is something that they are doing on their own free will and that they want to do. With the song lyrics themselves, although they might be frowned upon when critiqued lyrically, they don’t have any blatant attacks against women, or even have any curse words in them, therefore I believe the lyrics as a whole are ethical as well.

Janelle Wilson did a study of country music videos and they suggested that the country music industry did offer a space for contemporary female artists to visually openly challenge the traditional confining gender roles that dominate American and country music culture. Although she looked at both men and women artists, a few lines stuck out to me. She says that songs about love as articulated by women, these themes are apt to be less traditional and less desperate and perhaps more assertive and more realistic (Wilson 301). By saying this Wilson suggests that men in country music depict love and women in negative and unrealistic lights and women artists in country music are finally able to start dismantling these social norms of women in country music by creating a more realistic view of women. Wilson goes on to reinforce this point by saying “It would be overly sanguine to suggest that country music has created the liberated woman, but it does seem fair to suggest that country music is an element of popular culture in which we can see women’s resistance to submissive roles.” In other words, it is not news that women have been oppressed and objectified in country music, but that they are actually resisting these roles, through women artists in the industry. As Butler says “terms by which we are recognized as humans are socially articulated and changeable” which is something that women artists in country music.

Work Cited

Bryan, Luke, director. Luke Bryan - Country Girl (Shake It For Me) (Official Music Video). YouTube, 23 May 2011, youtube.com/watch?v=7HX4SfnVlP4.

Butler, J. (2004). “Introduction: Acting in concert.” In Undoing Gender (pp. 1-4). New York. Routledge. 

Wilson, Janelle. ETC: A Review of General Semantics. Fall2000, Vol. 57 Issue 3, p290. 14p

[paulyc43-blog1]

*Tumblr Essay 2*

In this entry I will examine the critical question: How does or doesn’t this artifact fit Isocrates’ criteria of good rhetoric (Kairos, appropriateness, originality)? Is this example of rhetoric ethical/productive for democracy and/or limiting to society?

To investigate these questions, I am exploring President Obama’s public update regarding the H1N1 flu: Remain Vigilant Against H1N1 Flu. President Obama’s speech fulfills Isocrates criteria for good rhetoric of Kairos by responding to this pandemic in an appropriate timeline, appropriateness, by speaking to the American people in a way that respects our values, and originality, by facing this issue in a way previous presidents have not, and is productive for democracy. 

This speech from April 29th, 2009, was a brief update from President Obama, posted by the Associated Press, regarding the H1N1 flu virus that was spreading throughout the country. He updates us on what the government is doing for the virus including his requested immediate $1.5B in emergency funding to support the tracking and monitoring of this virus, as well as for supplies for it. He also includes warning schools and businesses impacted by this to “strongly consider” temporarily closing, and to think of contingency plans in case of closures. He also provides advice for everyone, such as hand washing, covering of the mouth, and to stay home if you are sick. He ends by saying “this government is prepared to do whatever it takes to control the impact of this virus.” 

According to Isocrates, speeches cannot be good unless they reflect the circumstances of kairoi, propriety, and originality. While propriety (appropriateness) and originality will be addressed later, kairoi, or Kairos, means the correct, critical, or opportune moment. In the context of modern political speeches such as Obama’s regarding the H1N1 flu virus, it basically means to speak in a timely fashion in regards to the situation. President Obama’s short speech regarding the H1N1 flu virus fulfills Isocrates criteria of Kairos by responding to the issue in a timely fashion. According to the CDC’s timeline article regarding the H1N1 flu, the first cases of the virus were detected on April 17th, 2009 and publicly reported it the 21st. President Obama and the United States government declared it a public health emergency on the 26th, and this short update from President Obama was given on April 29th, 2009, only 12 days after the first cases were detected. In less than the span of two full weeks, President Obama had declared the public health emergency to release the necessary antiviral drugs to help assist with the crisis and was giving updates by the 29th. That is a short time span in the sense of a pandemic situation, considering the pandemic wasn’t officially declared until nearly 6 weeks after the original public health emergency declaration. With these early words, it could be argued that President Obama wasn’t timely, because some saw him going public too early, which can cause unnecessary public panic. However, when the pandemic scenario was declared 4 weeks after this update, it is hard to see that claim through. 

The next criteria in Isocrates Against the Sophist work, is the criteria of  propriety, or, appropriateness. This criteria explores whether or not the speaker takes into account propriety/decorum, community traditions, and community values. This short public announcement was given to the entire United States public, therefore should align with its citizens values. He does this by saying “I’ve asked every American to take the same steps you would to prevent any other flu.” With these quotes, President Obama is gathering a sense of community with citizens, using words like “every American” to let us all know that this is a collective effort and we are all in this together. Being collective is undoubtedly an American value, considering we are the United States of America, being together as one, is in our name. Also, considering that this was a virus, who has no prejudices against anyone, it could possibly affect everyone. Another quote from President Obama is “everyone should be rest assured that this government is prepared to do whatever it takes to control the impact of this virus.” This quote is significant to our values because it resembles the American people and our hardworking and deterministic nature. Being prepared to “do whatever it takes” is often heard in America, we have a drive to accomplish what we want to, by any means necessary. This is often prevalent in military functions, but this can also be seen as a sort of battle against an invisible enemy.

Isocrates final criteria is the criteria of originality. Originality is basically looking at whether or not the rhetorician gives their speech in a creative or innovative way. Not only can this apply to the presentation, but also the content of what the speaker is presenting on. For President Obama’s update, the style itself fails to fit the criteria of originality. Him, pasted against a nice background, with a suit and tie at a pedestal, speaking directly into the camera, is far from original in the sense of American Presidents addressing the public in modern times. However, a modern President addressing a potential pandemic situation is something that is new in modern times. Yes, there have been previous pandemics that have threatened and attacked the United States and the world, but that was before modern medicine had made the leaps and bounds it has in the last 50 years, and before the healthcare system in the United States was capitalized on as much as it is now. According to an article done by the Daily Beast, titled “How President Handle Pandemics”, some of these pandemics happened before it was a widely accepted idea by political elites that Presidents should do anything about them, such as the Spanish Flu and Woodrow Wilson. When Polio ravaged the country, president Eisenhower was able to escape blame because he was elected more or less to navigate us through the cold war, not a pandemic, which he was seen as successful. However, when the AIDS crisis was happening, President Reagan was criticized as being late to the issue and was able to escape blame when his surgeon general spoke up regarding how to fight it with sex education. So, in other words, President Obama’s reaction to the H1N1 virus completely fits Isocrates criteria of originality, because this was unprecedented in how presidents reacted to pandemics. Not only did President Obama address it in a timely manner, he addressed the American people with helpful information, and used his power to be able start helping the American people with the release of funds and medical supplies to combat the issue.

Isocrates’ three criteria of Kairos, appropriateness, and originality, together, are useful in determining whether what was said was ethical, unethical, or productive to society or not. When analyzing President Obama’s short update to the public, it was ethical and productive in all three criteria. For Kairos, with this statement being made less than two weeks after the initial cases, which answers this in a timely fashion, with a time critical situation such as pandemic. President Obama reacted in good timing to the issue and made everyone aware to be able to combat this. His appropriateness towards the subject was also ethical, he talked to the American people in a stern but down to earth tone, letting us know that he is doing everything that he can to help control the issue, which is important as a leader. It is also appropriate because this is an issue that could potentially impact the American people, and that is the sign of a good leader to be transparent in such an event. His originality also is important because this is something not many other presidents have had to face head on, but he reacted in a proper fashion, even though it was not something that was modeled for him by his predecessors. Doing all of this is productive for democracy as well, because pandemics can have major impacts on people's lives, people's ways of life, and the economy.

To summarize, President Obama’s short public update titled “Remain Vigilant Against H1N1 Flu” fulfills Isocrates’ three criteria of Kairos because he was able to address this issue in a timely manner, appropriateness, by respecting our views as Americans and originality because this is something other presidents have not had to face. He also does this in an ethical manner that was productive for democracy.  

Work Cited

“2009 H1N1 Pandemic Timeline.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 8 May 2019, www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-pandemic-timeline.html.

Associated Press, director. Obama: Remain Vigilant Against H1N1 Flu. YouTube, 29 Apr. 2009, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imi5M38n4pc.

Clift, Eleanor. “How Presidents Handle Pandemics.” The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast Company, 16 Oct. 2014, www.thedailybeast.com/how-presidents-handle-pandemics?ref=scroll.

[paulyc43-blog1]

*Rhetoric As Narrative*

In this entry I will examine the critical questions: what is a narrative that is important to U.S. culture, exploring it through its rhetorical elements, what values it promotes and ignores, and who it includes and excludes. I will also be exploring in which ways this narrative is ethically productive for society, in which ways it is limiting, and if it is more productive or limiting. 

To investigate these questions I am exploring the music video to Brooks and Dunn’s Only in America. It uses narratives of American Exceptionalism as a way to build and reinforce a sense of community in the United States doing so by ethically creating song lyrics and a music video that are inclusive and representative of the majority of Americans. 

This music video begins with the words “Somewhere in America” while the song lyrics begin by mentioning a woman driving a school bus full of children. This song was released in June of 2001 as the second single from their Steers & Stripes album and offers an optimistic message to Americans. This song became even more essential after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centers and even became #1 on the billboards during the week of Oct 27th, 2001 (Cmt.com Staff). It’s lyrics tell the story of working class Americans; a bus driver, a welder, a banker's daughter, all folks that are living their version of the American Dream. The music video accompanies the lyrics with similar visuals to those of the words, as well as other visuals of American people, as well as clips of Brooks and Dunn performing this song in conert. 

Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch (2012) explain that narratives “create culture and community by teaching cultural values, explaining causality, and entertaining”. When a narrative creates culture, especially in the realm of American Exceptionalism, it explains what it means to be an American and helps people learn values and form beliefs through the dramatic telling of social lessons. Explaining causality, as stated by Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch, if one event in the story did not cause another, then at least the events are related in such a way that they listen to the story. Often in the video it alludes to events that are the source of  the message that they are trying to get at. Also, the narratives are also interesting and enjoyable, even when they are about painful events. They also explain that these stories help develop imagination and provide new perspectives while enlightening and educating listeners. Music videos are often enjoyable to watch and listen to, even when the content of them are not necessarily not enjoyable. 

One of the narratives evident in Dunn’s Only in America are the lyrics “We all get a chance, Everybody gets to dance, Only in America.”  These lyrics promote the narrative of creating culture, that only in America, we are all able to get the possibility to live the American Dream. It promotes the narrative that the American Dream gives everyone an equal opportunity to be able to succeed in the United States, and that the United States is the only place that you will find this opportunity. This is inclusive because it just mentions “we” which is able to include anybody that is a United States citizen, regardless of race, creed, origin, or any other factor that defines us as a person, it includes all of us. Everybody gets to dance, we are all able to enjoy that opportunity to succeed. Our culture is built on the idea that we are all equal in our opportunity to make ourselves better in the United States. 

Another part of the narrative of American Exceptionalism evident in the video for Only in America is the visuals of working people in the video that help promote the help explain causality of this narrative. In the video there are visuals of working class people, people working in a market, someone working in a restaurant, a hat shop, at a construction site, and a farm. These visuals show that they are all living the American Dream by working hard. It doesn’t show them as rich or famous, but they appear content with their lives, and they are hardworking individuals. Most of us are not rich and famous and work jobs similar to those that are shown in the video and therefore are representative and inclusive of a vast majority of the United States population. Their hard work, or the hard work of their predecessors, was what makes them Americans and is what makes all of us Americans. The woman that held up the picture of likely someone else in her family that started the hat business, is symbolic of somebody that took their opportunity before, and that made something out of themselves for the next person. 

Finally Brooks and Dunn’s song and video promote the last part of Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch narrative, the entertaining figure. It promotes the entertaining aspect of narratives with the upbeat and fun sound of the song and in the music video accented with the visuals of the band performing the song in front of large crowds that they have gathered and clips of fireworks and confetti cannons at their show. It is important to have a fun song and visuals to be able to communicate the message of community in a positive and fun way. This also helps because this song became popular after the attacks on September 11, 2001 because it was able to build community in a positive way and people could relate to the lyrics of the song. Many people often turn towards music as a way to find comfort or entertainment to distract them after a horrific event, and this song and video provides that. Concerts also show a sense of community as well, people of all different backgrounds come together to share a similar love for the music before them.

The Brooks and Dunn song and music video is productive because the music video is inclusive to an array of different people that are found in America. While the kids are on the school bus, there are clips of boys and girls alike, as well as children of different ethnic backgrounds. The lyrics and the visuals also mention a female bus driver “starin’ at the faces in her rearview mirror” which implies she is a female, which could be argued isn’t a typical job for women. It also shows clips of people of asian descent and people of color working, one in a market and the other in an office. However, Brooks and Dunn’s song and music video are limiting because they place stereotypes on the people they choose to depict in the song. They chose to place a person of Asian descent in a fish market and a person of color in a hat shop, which can be seen as stereotyping them. It is also limiting because they only show them a few times and they decided to only depict people of color while they are working in this music video. All the clips of the lovers, the people enjoying themselves at a picnic, and the people in the bands audience are all white. The lyrics “Only in America where we can dream as big as we want to, we all get a chance” are attempting to convey that as long as you’re an American, you can dream to be anything you want to be, and that we all have a chance to make ourselves better. It seems that if you’re a person of color, you have to keep working and that the white people have already made it and have time for their runs in the park, picnics, and love. However, this is more productive than unproductive, because without the music video and with just the lyrics, this song is able to represent us better and does it’s job of being able to unify Americans like it has historically before. The song does not have poor intentions with representation, it wants to be able to include us all and the lyrics themselves are inclusive with the words “we” and “everybody”. 

Milojevich and Beattie further explains the narrative of American Exceptionalism in their study of humanitarian Interventionism, they did a study examining the effects of how media frames and people political values on their people’s choice of resolution in the context of American issues. They describe the narrative of American Exceptionalism as “a belief that the American political system is unique in its form, and that the American people have an exceptional commitment to liberty and democracy.” This explanation of American Exceptionalism is slightly different than that of Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch because it builds community in a different way, that we are all united due to our commitment of liberty and our democratic system. This could partially fall under the former definition as being a part of our values, which aligns with  Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch’s definition, but is more specific. Applying this to the lyrics of Only in America, the lyrics “Lookin’ at the promise of the Promised Land” and “Dreamin’ in red white and blue” are symbolic of our liberty and democracy in the United States. Some often refer to the United States as the Promised Land because of our ‘god given’ right to liberty and democracy. Red, White, and Blue is also symbolic of our liberty and democracy because they are the colors of our flag, which is also highly praised by the people. However, there are more than ideas and values that make us Americans than just our ideas of liberty and our democracy. 

In summary, Brooks and Dunn’s song and music video Only in America build a sense of community in the United States by creating a song that is representative of the majority of Americans. Although it is slightly unproductive, it is more productive in creating community by creating cultural values, explaining causality, and being entertaining. It is inclusive and representative with it’s song lyrics and depictions of Americans within the music video. 

Brooks & Dunn, director. Brooks & Dunn - Only In America (Official Video). Youtube.com, 2 Oct. 2009, www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN1iI-DaJNw.

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

Milojevich, Jovan, and Peter Beattie. “The Pull of Humanitarian Interventionism: Examining the Effects of Media Frames and Political Values on People’s Choice of Resolution.” International Journal of Communication (19328036), vol. 12, Jan. 2018, pp. 831–855. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=139171439&site=ehost-live.

Staff, CMT.com. “State of the Union: Brooks & Dunn's ‘Only in America.’” CMT News, Country Music Television, Inc, 23 Jan. 2015, www.cmt.com/news/1748492/state-of-the-union-brooks-dunns-only-in-america/.