benjamingrafe19

[benjamingrafe19]

*The Feminine Style*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI4ueUtkRQ0&ab_channel=C-SPAN

In this entry, I will be examining the critical questions: How do you see the feminine style at play in this artifact - public or interpersonal? In which ways is it empowering and/or limiting? Overall, is it more empowering or limiting?

To examine these questions, I looked at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on July 23rd, 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez uses many traditional elements of the feminine style, which helps her relate to and empower other women with similar experiences to hers. Overall, the cultural expectation for women to use the feminine style is limiting because the feminine style is less accepted in the public sphere. 

On Monday, July 20th, 2020 Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York was walking up the steps of the United States Capitol when she was confronted by Rep. Yoho of Florida. Yoho made some disrespectful remarks to the Congresswoman and then started to walk away. Following the confrontation, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez went into the Capitol building to cast her vote and walked back out. She ran into Rep. Yoho again and, in front of members of the press, was called a “fucking bitch.” After this was reported in the media, Rep. Yoho gave a speech on the House Floor in response to the criticism he was receiving. After Yoho’s speech, Ocasio-Cortez was still frustrated by the incident and Yoho’s speech, so the next day, she spoke on the House Floor. 

Dow and Bor Tonn (1993) apply Karlyn Campbell’s theory of the feminine style to the public speaking of former Texas Governor Ann Richards. The authors look at Campbell’s definition of the feminine rhetorical style as different qualities and speaking techniques that have traditionally been used by women. Some examples of these are “a personal tone, uses personal experiences, anecdotes and examples as evidence, exhibits inductive structure, emphasizes audience participation and encourages identification between speaker and audience” (287). Dow and Bor Tonn argue that the feminine style stems from traditional cultural expectations of women as homemakers and caretakers. This, coupled with the historical resistance of men to listen to female speakers has caused the development of the feminine style which can still be seen today.

One example Rep. Ocasio-Cortez using the feminine style is her reliance on personal experience with verbal abuse from men. Not only does Ocasio-Cortez talk about the experience with Rep. Yoho, but she also talks about other verbal abuse she has received from other members of the Republican party, as well as in her life before serving as a Congresswoman. She says. “I have walked the streets in New York City, and this kind of language is not new. I have encountered words uttered by Mr. Yoho and men uttering the same words as Mr. Yoho while I was being harassed in restaurants. I have tossed men out of bars that have used language like Mr. Yoho’s.” Towards the beginning of the speech, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez heavily relies on her personal experience of violent, disrespectful language coming from men. Not only did she describe the incident in question with Ted Yoho but talks about other experiences she has had, both within the political realm and outside it. Her citing of experiences within restaurants, bars and on the streets and subway of New York City are particularly important for Ocasio-Cortez to relate to women everywhere. While getting called a “f***ing b*tch” on the steps of the Capitol Building in front of reporters isn’t a relatable experience, receiving that type of insult in a bar or on the subway is much more relatable. Not only does this help women relate to her, but sharing these personal experiences serves to help empower women. By mentioning the disrespectful comments that she received before being elected to Congress, Ocasio-Cortez shows that she didn’t let those comments define who she was or doubt herself. She is a representation of someone who has taken those foul insults time and time again but has risen above them and has become successful, which is empowering for women.

Another factor of the feminine style that Ocasio-Cortez uses is inductive reasoning. She started her speech describing the incident involving Rep. Yoho, then describing her different experiences while living and working in New York City. It wasn’t until after she presented that evidence that she came to the conclusion that violence and violent language towards women is a cultural problem in the United States. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez states, “This is not new, and that is the problem. Mr. Yoho was not alone. He was walking shoulder to shoulder with Representative Roger Williams, and that’s when we start to see that this issue is not about one incident. It is cultural. It is a culture of lack of impunity, of accepting of violence and violent language against women, and an entire structure of power that supports that.” The use of inductive reasoning in the feminine style allows for people to start listening to the evidence presented and then after all the evidence has been stated, then come to the conclusion and Ocasio-Cortez does just that. By using inductive reasoning anyone who has a similar experience to the evidence she stated will then come to the same conclusion. This then validates the experiences of all women who have the same or similar experiences to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. By using inductive reasoning and coming to this conclusion, Ocasio-Cortez validates the experiences of women who have experienced violent language towards them. It takes away any potential blame or self-doubt, instead placing the blame on the culture that has been created and perpetuated.

A final element of the feminine style used by Representative Ocasio-Cortez is creating identification between the speaker and the audience. Ocasio-Cortez helps all women relate to her through their shared experiences of having men use violent language against them. She says, “These were the words that Representative Yoho levied against a congresswoman. The congresswoman that not only represents New York’s 14th Congressional District, but every congresswoman and every woman in this country. Because all of us have had to deal with this in some form, some way, some shape, at some point in our lives.” Through this, all women are able to relate more closely with Representative Ocasio-Cortez through their shared experiences of rude language and comments from men being used against them. Not only does this help women related to Ocasio-Cortez and her experiences, but it also serves as empowerment. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez sends the message that no woman has to let the rude things a man says define them or limit them in any way. It serves as an empowering message that women won’t be limited or torn down by violent comments by men, but will continue to act as themselves and do great things.

Jamieson (1995) writes about the double bind that women, especially women in politics, face. Jamieson’s argument about the double bond is based on normative gender expectations and expectations of traditionally masculine qualities in politicians and leaders. When women gain leadership positions, cultural gender expectations are at odds with the expectations of being leaders, which value masculine qualities. This puts women in an impossible position. If they exhibit traditionally feminine qualities, they will be criticized for not exhibiting the necessary leadership qualities, but if they exhibit more traditionally masculine qualities to fulfill the cultural expectations of a leader, they will be criticized for not exhibiting traditionally feminine traits. In this scenario with Representative Ocasio-Cortez, and all situations where violent language is used towards women, they are put in a double bind. If they speak up and point out the obvious problem with men making rude, derogatory comments towards women, then they will be criticized for making a big deal out of something that happens all the time. While there are inherent ethical flaws within that critique, it will be used. On the other hand, if Ocasio-Cortez had just ignored the incident and moved on, like so many women do, she would have been criticized for allowing comments like this to happen in society. 

While Ocasio-Cortez was able to utilize the feminine style in this floor speech in a way that validated and empowered women, the feminine style as a whole is limiting. Through sharing her own personal experiences, Ocasio-Cortez helps women relate to her and other women, validating their experiences. She also serves to empower women by not letting men’s comments tear them down and demonstrating that you can have these violent comments hurled at you and not just let it happen. While the feminine style was empowering in this situation and is empowering in all feminist rhetoric, it is limiting in other situations. Cultural expectations, assumptions, and stereotypes of women often force them to act a certain way, as well as speak a certain way, in the feminine style. The usage of the feminine style can often lead to criticism and places women in the double bind, which is limiting.

Overall, Ocasio-Cortez used elements of the feminine style in her floor speech on July 23rd, 2020, which allowed her to validate the experiences of many other women and empower them. While the feminine style is empowering in this speech and throughout all feminist rhetoric, it is limiting overall in society because it sets expectations of how women should speak and often puts them in a double bind.

Works Cited

Dow, B. and Bor Tonn, M. (1993). “Feminine Style” and Political Judgement in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech 79, 286-302.

Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the Double Bind: Women in Leadership. Oxford University Press

Ocasio-Cortez. (2020). Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Responds to Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI4ueUtkRQ0&ab_channel=C-SPAN

[benjamingrafe19]

*Burke: Rhetoric as Division*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlmaKdbC6ZM&ab_channel=ABCNews

In this entry, I will be examining the critical questions, How is Burke’s notion of the unification device present in this artifact? How are each of the components at play? How is this unproductive/unethical for society?

To investigate these questions, I looked at former President Donald Trump’s speech on November 4, 2020, Election Night of the 2020 presidential election. In an attempt to declare victory in the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump uses oversimplification to employ the unification device. Overall, this is unproductive and unethical because it continued to build upon the mistrust in our democratic elections and further divide America.

The 2020 presidential election was a very contentious election between former president Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. Following a controversial four years as president, Donald Trump was up for re-election, and with unusually low approval numbers for a president, re-election was far from a guarantee for Trump. In the months leading up to the election, President Trump had claimed that the only way he could lose was by fraud. Trump backed this claim by inciting the fear of potential large scale voter fraud with a large amount of vote by mail ballots due to the ongoing pandemic. On election day, election returns determined the race too close to call and no winner was declared by any news organizations, prompting President Trump to give this speech.

Burke (1941) looks at how Adolf Hitler used rhetoric in his book Mein Kampf. One of the major elements that Burke explains that Hitler used was the unification device, a four part strategy to unite the majority of society against a common enemy. The first part is inborn dignity, which highlights the idea that there are certain people or groups that are naturally superior to others. The second part is called the projection device, in which a specific subgroup of the population is blamed and scapegoated for a problem. The third part of the unification device is symbolic rebirth, which points to a brighter future for the followers of the speaker. The final part is commercial use, in which the speaker has something that they are trying to sell. This isn’t something that has to be bought with money, but an idea that his followers needed to buy in to. 

Trump doesn’t use the concept of inborn dignity on individual people or groups, but on a state by state basis, which oversimplifies the diversity and differences within different state populations. In his speech, Trump states, “The gentleman that called it [Arizona, for Biden], I watched tonight. He said, ‘Well, we think it’s fairly unlikely that he could catch.’ Well, fairly unlikely? And we don’t even need it. We don’t need that. That was just a state that if we would have gotten it, it would have been nice.” In Trump’s eyes, states are only as important and worthy if they can benefit him. Throughout the speech, Trump mentions and praises states that have a clear republican lean and that cast their electoral votes for him in the election such as Texas, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina. Yet, when talking about a state that had a democratic lead at the time of the speech, Trump automatically talks about the insignificance of the state to him and his electoral goals. While this statement is just about the electoral benefits to President Trump, the underlying theme resonates loud and clear, which is that states that consistently vote Republican are inherently superior. Trump’s philosophy of red states being inherently superior and more important is all based on oversimplification because there is so much more diversity and difference in a state than if it casts its vote for Democrats or Republicans. In addition, Trump uses plural language throughout the speech, reinforcing the idea of a group of republican leaning states that are inherently superior to states that lean democratic.

Trump uses the projection device by oversimplifying and automatically blaming a potential election loss on fraud committed by the democrats, while ignoring all of the context of his presidency and the election that could have led to his loss. Trump says, “Millions and millions of people voted for us tonight. And a very sad group of people is trying to disenfranchise that group of people and we won’t stand for it. We will not stand for it.” Trump oversimplifies the context of the election, completely disregarding the context of his controversial presidency as potential reasoning for his loss. Instead, Trump immediately scapegoats and blames others. Not only does he blame others for his loss, but frames it in a way that they are intentionally acting malevolently to harm Trump and his followers. While he doesn’t directly say it, blaming the “very sad group” is actually blaming democrats. This, coupled with the continual usage of plural subjects, such as “us” or “we,” further divides the country between the well-intentioned republican voters and the malicious, angry democrats.

Trump uses the idea of symbolic rebirth by laying out an oversimplified plan for a better future for his supporters. Towards the end of his speech, Trump says, “To me this [fraud] is a very sad moment. And, we will win this, and as far as I’m concerned, we have already won it. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the US Supreme Court.” Trump lays out an oversimplified plan of action that shows a bright future. To start this oversimplified plan, he blatantly says that he is the winner of the election, although the race was yet to be called. Yet to continue this oversimplified plan, Trump claims that he will go to the Supreme Court, implying that will punish those who tried to take the election away from him and ensure a future with no voter fraud. These claims point to a much brighter future for Trump supporters than the alternative, a Biden presidency, yet the oversimplification is problematic. President Trump had no clear way to ensure his victory or reach the Supreme Court, yet his claims were enough to show his followers the path to a brighter future. 

Trump fulfils the idea of commercial use by backing up his claims with oversimplified, incomplete data to sell his followers on the idea of a clear, overwhelming Trump win in the election. He states, “Think of this. We’re up 690,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 690,000. These aren’t even close. This is not like, ‘Oh, it’s close…’ With 64% of the vote in, it’s going to be almost impossible to catch. And we’re coming into good Pennsylvania areas where they happen to like your president. I mean, it’s very good. So we’ll probably expand that.” Later in the speech, Trump says, “We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list.” When talking about state results that he is optimistic about, Trump provides incomplete, oversimplified and sometimes blatantly incorrect data to his listeners about Pennsylvania returns to sell the case of his victory. He oversimplifies the results by only looking at the margin of his lead with the amount of votes that were already counted, which pulls that data out of context of the rest of the Pennsylvania returns. Additionally he claimed that the remaining votes to be tallied were going to come from Trump leaning areas, which was factually incorrect, as the votes that took longest to count were from the Philadelphia area, which had a heavy democratic lean. Despite this, Trump states that his lead in Pennsylvania should get larger, selling his followers on the idea that anything other than that would be fraud. He continues his trend of oversimplification by saying that he doesn’t want ballots found at 4 am, sewing distrust into later reports of vote counts, which were projected to be leaning heavily democratic. Through providing incomplete, oversimplified and sometimes incorrect information, President Trump was able to sell his followers on the idea that any changes to the vote tally that favored then Vice President Biden would be a direct result of voter fraud. 

Trump’s usage of the unification device is entirely unproductive and unethical because of the mistrust and division that he incites. Trump’s consistent claims of his own victory and election fraud sewed mistrust into our democracy and democratic proceedings. This is entirely unproductive because it creates a portion of the population that will no longer trust the election system in our country that relies on citizen support for democracy. This also strengthens the political division in our country. Even before the 2020 presidential election, politics were more divisive than ever in the United States, and claims about fraud in the most basic foundations of our democracy, elections, only served to make the political divide wider in our country. In addition to being unproductive to our society and democracy, Trump’s oversimplification was unethical. As the leader of a country, it is important to be honest to the citizenry as opposed to appealing to your own supporters. In this speech, Trump solely appealed to his base by continuing claims of election fraud and his victory. Instead, the ethical route would have been to ensure faith in the United States’ electoral process and wait to see the results of the election once all the ballots are counted. 

Rowland (2019) writes about President Trump’s national populist appeal during his campaign for the 2016 presidential election. Rowland argues that as a candidate in the 2016 election, Trump took the role of a charismatic outsider, appealing to the working class who was struggling economically. In addition, Rowland argues that Trump’s clear, divisive departure from the stereotypical presidential candidate was embraced by his working class base because they viewed it as an expression of their anger, frustration and struggle. Rowland continues to say that Trump’s divisive nature as a politician and president only strengthen his support within his own base, with his oversimplification creating a clear ingroup and outgroup. This foundational support for Donald Trump and his divisiveness only made it easier for Trump to use the unification device, as he already had a base that supported him and his ideas, both as a candidate and a president.

In summary, former President Trump utilized oversimplification to use the unification device in this speech. His words and actions in this speech were entirely unethical and unproductive for the United States, as he encouraged distrust in our democracy for his own personal gain.

References

Burke, K. (1941). Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle. C. R. Burgchardt (Ed.), Readings in Rhetorical Criticism, (3rd ed., pp. 188-202). Strata Publishing.

Rowland, R. C. (2019). The Populist and Nationalist Roots of Trump’s Rhetoric. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 22(3), 343–388. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.22.3.0343Trump. (2020). 

President Trump’s Election Night Remarks. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlmaKdbC6ZM&ab_channel=ABCNews

[benjamingrafe19]

*Aristotle: Ethos and Logos and Pathos*

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/algore2000concessionspeech.html

In this entry, I will be examining 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 to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

To investigate these questions, I examined Al Gore’s presidential concession speech on December 12, 2000. Gore uses ethos, pathos and logos by sharing the core values of patriotism and unity which helps move the country past a turbulent election. Overall, this speech is ethical because Gore looks out for the best interest of the country rather than continuing to fight for personal gain.

In the year 2000, then Vice President Al Gore was the Democratic nominee for President and ran against Republican George W. Bush, the son of former President George H.W. Bush. The election of 2000 all came down to the state of Florida, with the state too close to be called on election night. The final vote total was so close, it met Florida’s threshold for an automatic machine recount of votes, which found Bush in the lead by a very slim margin. Following the recount was a month long legal battle that ended up in the Supreme Court. On December 12th, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that effectively ended the recount, which secured Bush’s victory in Florida by 537 votes. 

Herrick (2013) explains Aristotle’s view of rhetoric as an art with the intention to persuade the audience. Aristotle believed that rhetoricians had a heavy burden of attempting to persuade when they spoke, but Aristotle also expected rhetoricians to be of high character with good morals that used their ability to persuade in the proper way. Aristotle had three major artistic proofs, or different ways for a rhetorician to persuade their audience. The first was ethos, which relied on the credibility of the speaker. For a speaker to be persuasive, their audience must see them as credible. The next artistic proof was pathos, or emotions. Aristotle believed that the emotional state of the audience mattered in terms of what judgement they made, which is why pathos is important to Aristotle. The final artistic proof is logos, known as logic. With logos, the rhetorician uses sound reasoning or facts to make their argument.

Gore builds his ethos by comparing himself to other gracious losers of controversial elections, which demonstrates that unity and patriotism can help America move past divisive elections. In his speech, Gore says, “Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, ‘Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.’ Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country.” If Gore had solely mentioned Stephen Douglass as a former presidential candidate, most of America wouldn’t know who he was, let alone the context surrounding his election. Referencing his opponent, Abraham Lincoln, automatically connects people to the context, however basic, of the election of 1860. The simple act of mentioning Lincoln comes with reminding the audience of slavery and the Civil War. Knowing the broad context of the election of 1860 allows people to better understand the importance of Douglass’ comments. In comparing himself to Douglass’ values of patriotism and unity after a tumultuous and controversial election, Gore strengthens his ethos. Gore doubles down and shares his own message to then President-elect Bush emphasizing unity and Bush’s legitimacy as president.

Gore uses a pathos appeal to inspire patriotism amidst disappointment, which helps heal the nation. Gore says, “I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.” Throughout the 2000 election, there was major controversy and since the election was resolved through the court system, American citizens looked at evidence in different ways. Additionally, with such a close decision in the Supreme Court, many American citizens were bound to be disappointed with the outcome of the election. Gore uses his speech to acknowledge the disappointment, but pushes the American people to move beyond their disappointment and inspire patriotism. Gore looks to harness the underlying patriotism amongst the American citizenry to push people away from partisan disappointment and towards patriotic unification.

Gore uses a logos appeal to clearly accept defeat in the election, which ensures unity and a peaceful transition of power. In the speech, Gore states, “Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.” Despite his own disagreement with the Supreme Court decision, Gore unequivocally states that he lost the election and reaffirms the legitimacy of President Bush’s victory. Gore logically affirms that since the Supreme Court issued a final ruling, he will not be president. Through this, Gore is unifying the country under one clear leader, despite him not winning the election. Gore uses clear, undeniable logic to unify the country under one leader.

Gore’s speech was ethical as he was focused on uniting the country through patriotism as opposed to dividing the country after a controversial election. Gore’s speech fit the archetype of a standard concession speech, but his speech added extra emphasis on unification of the country. After such a controversial and divisive election, Gore focused on unifying the country through the shared value of patriotism. Gore’s use of this speech as unifying as opposed to self aggrandizing embodies the ethical nature of this speech. Time and time again, Gore recognizes that he lost the election to unite the country as opposed to continuing to fight for his own interest and further divide the country.

Overall, Al Gore’s 2000 concession speech used ethos, pathos and logos to promote the communal values of unity and patriotism to help the country get past a controversial election. His decision to promote a unified country moving forward and looking for the country's best interest as opposed to acting for himself was ethical.

Works Cited

Gore. (2000). 2000 Presidential Concession Speech. Retrieved from https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/algore2000concessionspeech.html

Herrick, J. A. (2013). The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction (5th ed.). New York, New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

[benjamingrafe19]

*Rhetoric as Narrative*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTKmjhJ1__o&ab_channel=ChrisTognin

In this entry, I will be exploring the critical questions: What central narrative(s) does this artifact tell through its rhetorical elements? In doing so, what values does it promote and ignore (who does it include and exclude)? In which ways is this narrative (ethically) productive for society, in which ways is it limiting, and is it more productive or limiting?

To examine these questions, I looked at the song Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Fly by Aaron Tippin. This song uses symbolism to share the central narrative of American exceptionalism because of the core values of freedom, opportunity and patriotism. Overall, this is ultimately unproductive as it perpetuates the dominant narrative of American exceptionalism, which is faulty and oversimplified. 

Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Fly was released by Aaron Tippin, an established country music artist, on September 17, 2001, less than a week after the September 11th terrorist attacks. The song was written following the attack and Tippin recorded it two days later on September 13th. The song was written and sold as a fundraiser, with all proceeds being donated to the Red Cross. 

Palczewski, Ice and Fritch (2012) explain that narratives are stories that are everywhere in our society, both public and private. More specifically, the authors discuss how narratives are used to help people remember what happened and convey public values. They continue to argue that narratives are often used to shape public memory. American exceptionalism is one narrative that has been pervasive throughout the United States. The narrative of American exceptionalism pulls on American history and development to become one of the most powerful nations in the world. Additionally, the narrative of American exceptionalism contains the idea that America is superior to all other countries because of American values. This narrative is a story that is consistently told that helps people remember a version of American history and shape public memory and values.

Tippin uses symbolism of traditional American monuments to represent freedom and its importance to American exceptionalism. In this song, Tippin sings, “There's a lady that stands in a harbor / For what we believe / And there's a bell that still echoes the price / That it costs to be free.” This verse uses the Statue of Liberty and Freedom Bell as symbols for freedom in the United States. Invoking these two monuments are clear representations of freedom, with them being two of the most well known monuments within the United States. Additionally, this verse is repeated later in the song, functioning almost as a chorus. This repetition symbolizes the centrality of freedom in the narrative that is American exceptionalism. 

Symbolism of the American dream is also used to represent how opportunity plays into the American dream. Tippin sings a verse about opportunity in the United States, saying, “It's a big old land with countless dreams / Happiness ain't out of reach / Hard work pays off the way it should / Yeah, I've seen enough to know that we've got it good.” In this verse, Tippin talks about America as a “land with countless dreams,” which is a direct reference to the American dream. Citing the American dream in this song is a direct reference to American exceptionalism, as the ability for anyone to put in hard work, pull themselves up by their bootstraps and reap the benefits is part of the narrative of American exceptionalism.

The American flag is also used as a symbol to represent patriotism and how it contributes to American exceptionalism. In the song, Tippin sings, “I pledge allegiance to this flag / And if that bothers you well that's too bad / But if you got pride and you're proud you do / Hey we could use some more like me and you.” In addition to the lyrics about the American flag, images of the American flag are constant throughout the music video. In almost every single shot, the American flag is present, whether it be on the uniforms of first responders, attire of everyday citizens, flags flying from houses or the large projection of the American flag behind Tippin as he sings. Throughout the song and this music video, the omnipresence of the American flag symbols the importance of the flag, which serves as a representation of the United States as a whole. 

This artifact is ultimately unproductive due to the long term impacts of perpetuating the standard narrative of American exceptionalism. Upon release, this song was a well intentioned attempt to strengthen American pride and morale after a national tragedy. This song, perpetuating the narrative of American exceptionalism, was productive in time of release, in an effort to ensure patriotism throughout the United States. Despite that, the long term impacts of this artifact outweigh the short term benefits. This song depicts the standard narrative of American exceptionalism, that the United States is the best country in the world because of its freedom, opportunity and patriotism. This song continues that narrative which is flawed and limiting. The narrative of American exceptionalism omits any painful, disgraceful or damning elements of American history and instead celebrates the strength and development of white America. Additionally, this common narrative of American exceptionalism limits the future for America. America stands nowhere near the top in worldwide rankings of education, healthcare, or even happiness, but the myth of American exceptionalism makes it impossible for people to accept the shortcomings and room for growth. While the song was appropriate in the short term at the time of release, the long term impacts and perpetuation of American exceptionalism causes the artifact to be unproductive. 

In a study regarding the impact of American exceptionalist messaging on public opinion, Jason Gilmore (2015) found that public messages of American exceptionalism have a strong impact on public opinion, impacting both individual foreign policy opinions and overall sentiment of American superiority. This study focused on both explicit and implicit messages of American exceptionalism and both proved to increase public sentiment of American superiority. Gilmore’s research shows that messages of American exceptionalism clearly influence public opinion and reinforce the sentiment of American superiority. Songs, like Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Fly, are great examples of implicit messaging of American exceptionalism, which increases public sentiment of American superiority and American exceptionalism.

Overall, Aaron Tippin’s song uses traditional symbols in the United States to perpetuate the standard narrative of American exceptionalism, which had unproductive long term impacts. Tippin used symbols of famous US monuments, the American dream and the American flag to represent three major values in the narrative of American exceptionalism, freedom, opportunity and patriotism. 

Works Cited

Aaron Tippin - Where The Stars & Stripes & The Eagle Fly [Video file]. (2007, September 12). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTKmjhJ1__o&ab_channel=ChrisTognin

Gilmore, J. (2015). American Exceptionalism in the American Mind: Presidential Discourse, National Identity, and U.S. Public Opinion. Communication Studies, 66(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2014.991044

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