crocodiledundee-jr-blog

[crocodiledundee-jr-blog]

*What is Rhetoric to Me? (Then and Now)*

Through taking Comm 320, Rhetorical Traditions, my perception and definition of rhetoric has evolved, due to many influences seeding from the numerous theories of rhetoric that were examined. This essay focuses on how my definition of rhetoric evolved from the beginning of the course, through to the end of the course.

At the beginning of the course I stated that rhetoric is dynamic and encompasses many different forms of communication, including written, oral, and visual. Whilst this definition is perhaps not a bad starting point, it leaves a lot unsaid. My initial definition focuses almost explicitly on the forms that rhetoric may take, and says nothing about what rhetoric may be used for, or how it is shaped, its influences, ethics and so on; there is much that is left unsaid in my initial definition.

Throughout the course there were many theories and ideas that left an impression on me; some of the theories I was familiar with, and some were entirely new. There is a great diversity of rhetorical forms and theories, and this was evident through the dynamic range of course material that was studied. One of the most profound and interesting concepts that was presented to me is credited to Michel Foucault, and his conception of power structures, and discursive formations, and the ways in which they influence our lives, but also shape the rhetoric that we use (Foss). Another important theory that contributed to my opinion is due to the sophists and The Encomium of Helen. In many ways I found myself disagreeing with the sophist point of view that opinion and knowledge are no different from one another. Gorgias argues in the Encomium of Helen that he can shape the truth through his use of rhetoric and win any argument; this idea to me is completely unethical. Another idea I drew from was the idea of counterpublics, and pushing against dominant narratives. Squires describes counterpublics as an occurrence “where members of a marginalized public systematically project their previously enclaves ideas toward the state and wider publics” (Squires 112). All of these ideas, and many more that are not listed here, worked to influence and shape my definition of rhetoric formed at the end of the course.

For my definition of rhetoric at the end of the course I made a written statement. Like my old definition, I believe that rhetoric still encompasses many forms of communication, and thus I included this in my statement. The second part of my statement is that rhetoric is a tool that can be used, although not described above, influence for this idea drew from Aristotle’s Artistic Proofs and enthymeme, outlined in an article by J. A. Herrick. This idea carries over to the next part of my statement, as I position myself as against the sophists and the manner in which they treat and use rhetoric. Unlike the sophists, I do think that there are universal truths, and that rhetoric used in anyway shape or form to simply persuade people is unethical. The Fourth part of my statement focuses on the relationship of the individual to rhetoric, and power structures and rhetoric. The inspiration for this section comes from Foucault. Foucault really highlighted how rhetoric shapes and influences our lives as individuals, to describe it as a push and pull relationship between the individual and rhetoric is an oversimplification, however it does begin to conceptualize what this relationship looks and ties into the idea of the counterpublic. My statement on rhetoric concludes that although innate power structures in our society may shape large parts of our lives, we still have the ability to challenge, and push back against, the dominant narratives.

My definition of rhetoric at the beginning of the course was not a bad starting point, and was in fact included in my final definition. Despite this, through taking Rhetorical Traditions, my conception of rhetoric has changed and developed dramatically. My statement explores how rhetoric is so much more than simply forms of communication; it explores rhetoric as a tool, and how rhetoric is influenced as well.

Works Cited 

 Foss, Sonja K, and Gill, A. “Michel Foucault’s theory of rhetoric as epistemic.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 51, no. 4, 1987, pp. 384-401. 

Gorgias. “Encomium of Helen.” Early Greek political thought from Homer to the Sophists. Edited by M. Garagin and P. Woodruff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995, pp. 190-195. 

Herrick, J. A. “Aristotle on Rhetoric.” The history and theory of rhetoric: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. 2005, pp. 69-81. 

Squires, C. “The Black press and the State.” Counterpublics and the State. Edited by R. Asen and D. Brouwer. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 2001, pp. 111-136.

[crocodiledundee-jr-blog]

*Foucault: Rhetoric as Power*

For this post I will be discussing the critical question, what is an example of a discursive formation and its elements? How does the discursive formation evoke a certain sense of power, and how is this power productive, and /or unproductive? To answer this critical question I will analyze the discursive formation created by the fictional technology The Circle, based on the novel by Dave Eggers and recently released motion picture The Circle. The Circle is a fictional company that is supposed to represent a conglomeration of tech giants, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, and parallels may also be seen with Apple (Nazaryan). Dave Eggers’ narrative is critical of the large technology companies that subvert our lives, and the social media focused society and the push to be ever more “connected.” This analysis will begin with outlining how The Circle is a discursive formation using the criteria outlined by Sonja K. Foss as a guide. The discussion will then continue to assess the power that this discursive formation evokes and the productivity of it with support from excerpts of Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault.

The Circle acts as an example of a discursive formation as it fulfills it provides evidence supporting the subunits of a discursive formation of discursive practices, rules, roles, power, and knowledge. Foss writes that a discursive practice is something and specific to a certain culture, and may include architecture or use of space (Foss 387). The discursive practices of The Circle are particularly evident in the use of space and the social relations in the company. For example the company utilizes open offices, there are no barriers or cubicles separating employees from one another, which implies a sense of openness and shared space between the employees. This concept of openness carries on to the social relations of employees (The Circle). It is expected that employees are “open” with one another and they should share endless information about their lives on social media, to the extent that it seems that it is wrong to keep anything from the online community (The Circle). The major discursive practice conveyed in The Circle is the strong sense of “openness.”

The second unit of the discursive formation is rules; these include the “principles and procedures” of the discursive formation, and may determine who is allowed to speak or who is listened to (Foss 388). The rules of The Circle determine who should be listened to. The main character, Mae Holland, is able to gain status and a greater “voice” by sharing content online and receiving positive ratings from other uses (The Circle). Due to the status that Mae builds, she gains a greater audience. In other words, “sharing” can help determine your status within the circle community, which in turn determines who is listened to in the community.

Although The Circle is a technology company, they portray themselves as a vibrant community. For example, the headquarters for the company, where many of the employee's work, is referred to as a campus, where many events and “outside of work activities” occur, despite being determined by the company (The Circle). As an employee of The Circle, it is expected that you take on the role of a “circler;” in other words you are more than simply an employee, but instead a member of The Circle community (The Circle). Foss states that people take roles by following the required rules to hold that position (389). To be a circler it is necessary that one completes their social media profile and share content online, it is essential that employees become part of the “community,” however virtual it may be.

The fourth unit discussed by Foss is that of power, which is described as a “network of force relationships spread through the entire power formation” (Foss 389). The sense of power that The Circle evokes is in fact very important and far reaching. The Circle creates the impression that you are always being watched, in fact the founder of The Circle, Eamon Bailey, goes as far to ask Mae if she behaves better when she feels that she is being watched (The Circle). The ideas of power expressed in the film and book The Circle are uncomfortably close to the ideas discussed by Michel Foucault on Panopticism. The sense of power evoked in this discursive formation will be analyzed further later in the discussion.

The fifth and final unit of the discursive formation is knowledge. “Knowledge is whatever is considered to be truth in a discursive formation” (Foss 390). The “truth” that evoked by The Circle first and foremost is that the company and its community is very “open” or transparent. In the film this is pushed to the extent that the company wishes to install small, portable surveillance cameras all over the world in an effort to act as a “watchdog,” when instead there is a great potential for abuse of power by The Circle.

As mentioned earlier, The Circle elicits a strong sense of power, particularly, that he is constantly under surveillance. Michel Foucault discusses the idea of panopticism as instilling discipline through the idea of constant surveillance. Foucault describes discipline itself as a type of power (Foucault 206). This concept of discipline and power are embodied by the panopticon, which is a structure allowing for the constant surveillance of its occupants. Interestingly enough, The Circle “campus” is shaped as a large ring, with campus grounds in the center, and offices making up the ring itself (The Circle). The design of the company’s headquarters are effectively a panopticon in unto itself as it allows all to see what is happening on the campus and what others are doing. Aside from this physical panopticon, the company The Circle very much creates a virtual panopticon as well. Through constant surveillance, invasive social media, and various other technologies gathered by the company, they are able to create the impression that you are being constantly watched, which lends itself to the idea of discipline, and people behaving better when they are under the impression that they are being watched. This idea itself is unnerving enough, but perhaps what is more unnerving, are the direct parallels between the company depicted in this fictional story and real world companies such as Facebook, and Google; companies which sell their user’s information and allow it to be used for surveillance purposes, which may have benefits and drawbacks.

The impression that people are being watched and the ability to do surveillance on people may be productive, or unproductive. These may be productive in the sense that people might behave better according to Foucault’s idea regarding discipline, as they are under the impression that they are being watched. Also, the ability to do surveillance on people in express or high threat situations could also be useful in subduing risks or threats. Despite these potential benefits, the sense of power that is evoked by The Circle is unproductive in many ways. First, is the issue of privacy. Some may argue that we should remind our privacy for the sake of security, however, where is the line drawn, how much, or little privacy is enough? Should everyday citizens be constructed as the new prisoner of the panopticon, before even committing a crime? Another issue is the illusion of safety that the virtual panopticon creates. There may be the perception of safety due to surveillance, but due to the overwhelming amount of information that is being gathered it is difficult to see how all this information could actually be processed to help prevent potential threats. The power evoked thus appears limiting, invasive, and ultimately unproductive.

The fictional company The Circle acts as a strong example of a discursive formation, with examples falling under the subunit categories outlined by Foss, including discursive practices, rules, roles, power, and knowledge. Ultimately, The Circle evokes a strong sense of power and surveillance; the power evoked ties closely to the ideas discussed by Foucault in regards to the panopticon, as the surveillance by The Circle creates a virtual panopticon. Finally, the sense of power evoked is ultimately unproductive as it invades the privacy of users, and creates a false sense of security.

Works Cited

The Circle. Dir. James Ponsoldt. Perf. Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, and John Boyega. Europa Corp., 2017. Film.

Foucault, Michel,Rabinow, Paul.The Foucault Reader. New York : Pantheon Books, 1984. Print.

Foss, Sonja K, and Gill, A. “Michel Foucault’s theory of rhetoric as epistemic.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 51, no. 4, 1987, pp. 384-401.

Nazaryan, Alexander. "Digital Dystopia: On Dave Eggers's 'The Circle'." Newsweek Global, vol. 161, no. 38, 25 Oct. 2013, pp. 1-5. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=92697599&site=ehost-live.

[crocodiledundee-jr-blog]

Rhetoric and Multiculturalism For this post I will be discussing the critical question, where does the rhetoric of this artifact position the “right” balance between the collective and the individual in the situation? Between “sameness” and “difference”? How is this “spot” productive or unproductive? To answer this question I will analyze the Redfern speech delivered by Paul Keating, the Prime Minister of Australia in 1992. As Australia shifted towards reconciliation efforts with the indigenous population Paul Keating sought to push back against the dominant “white” Australia metanarrative in a productive, and essential, first step towards reconciliation and alliance if ethnic groups in Australia. This speech is significant because it recognizes some of the atrocities that occurred under European settlement of Australia. This speech was given at an event to celebrate the beginning of the Year of the World’s Indigenous People. The speech is also important because the Australian Aboriginals were subject to many injustices since the first settlers came to Australia, and a formal institution, the Australian government, made a move towards recognizing, and hopefully correcting, some of these injustices. The Redfern speech presents the ideology and idea that white/European Australia, the dominant ideology in colonized Australia, committed certain atrocities against the Aboriginal population. Keating challenges the idea that Australia has always been a welcoming, thriving, multicultural society. There are several occasions in the speech that this occurs, one such example is as follows: “It comes at a time when we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which so far we have always failed” (Keating). In this case Keating is referring to the fact that Australia,as a nation, has continually failed to include its indigenous people, and form a multicultural society. Another example that invites the audience to be critical of the dominate ideology, “We non-Aboriginal Australians should perhaps remind ourselves that Australia once reached out to us.” In this example, Keating is bringing attention to the fact that the Australians of European descent, the ones that form the dominant ideology in Australia, were in fact not the first Australians, Australia was instead their refuge. From my experience in Australia, there have been time that Australia claims to be a multicultural nation, but at times falls short. According to Goldzwig multiculturalism is the forming of alliances between various societal groups (275). There are several ways that Goldzwig believes multicultural society can be achieved, or at least supported. One of these ways is through “giving voice” to previously unheard groups and by “re-focusing” the center (278, 279). This is achieved in multiple ways in the Redfern speech. First of all, Keating notes on the voice that the previously voiceless have been granted as he describes multiple councils and commissions that have been formed that focus on self-determination and reconciliation. Another interesting point on the subject of refocusing the center is that Goldzwig notes the importance of pedagogy and counternarratives, and this is exactly one of the things that Keating highlights has not been offered; “Imagine if non-Aboriginal Australians had served their country in peace and war and were then ignored in the history books.” This is an interesting point because it not only highlights the lack of recognition Australian Aboriginals have received, but it also alludes to the fact that counternarratives, concerning Aboriginals, have not been common in Australian pedagogical practices. In the process of remarking on how things could be different in Australia, Keating uses ethnic appeals in the interest of reconciliation. Keating clearly pushes against the dominant ideology of the time and seeks to re-center as described by Goldzwig. To achieve this Keating uses ethnic appeals on several occasions in a step toward reconciliation. Gadjanova describes in her article the types of ethnic appeals made in political rhetoric, their major themes and the characteristics of appeals towards certain goals, such as reconciliation, grievance, reclamation, and others. Before giving examples of ethnic appeals used by Keating, Gadjanova defines an ethnic appeal as an invitation from politicians to an individual to identify with a particular group narrative (310). In the Redfern speech there are pushes towards reconciliation, and this is achieved by fulfilling three criteria, first by reference to ancestry, values, values and traditions of a group, secondly through a claim about past violence or discrimination, and thirdly through appeals for multiculturalism, reconciliation, and minority rights (Gadjanova 315). Keating in fact fulfills all three of these criteria, he references the Aboriginals culture as the oldest in the world, helping fulfill the cultural reference, he highlights past violence, “We committed the murders. We took the children from their mother’s. We practiced discrimination and exclusion” which fulfills the second criteria, and finally Keating appeals to partnerships and multiculturalism through the description of various commissions and councils. It is through Keating's efforts to include Aboriginal Australian’s that he pushes back against the dominant ideology. In ways it is difficult to tell if Keating’s speech was really effective or not, particularly because the Australian Aboriginal population is still subject to a degree of injustice and social inequality. However, regardless of the effectiveness of the speech, I do believe that it was productive. The Redfern speech was important because it helped to recognize, and acknowledge the injustices that the Aboriginals have been subject too. What is perhaps unfortunate, is that it took another fifteen years before an official apology was offered to the Aboriginal people by the Australian government for the atrocities that had occurred, particularly that of the Stolen Generation. It has been slow progress forward at times, but I believe that Keating’s Redfern speech and Kevin Rudd’s Apology speech have been steps in the right direction. In summary, Keating is productive in his push back against the dominant ideology in Australia. He criticizes past atrocities, recenter, and reconcile with the indigenous population in an effort to build alliances and partnerships between what was the dominant ideology and the Aboriginal people. Keating efforts were productive, but twenty five years on, there are still efforts that need to be made to maintain the alliances that have been formed and nurtured in past years. Works Cited Gadjanova, Elena. "What Is an Ethnic Appeal? Policies as Metonymies for Ethnicity in the Political Rhetoric of Group Identity." Ethnopolitics, vol. 12, no. 3, Sept. 2013, pp. 307-330. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/17449057.2012.730261. Goldzwig, S R. “Multiculturalism, Rhetoric and the Twenty-First Century.” Southern Communication Journal, vol. 63, no. 4, 1998, pp. 273–290. Keating, Paul. “Prime Minister Paul Keating - Launch of International Year of the World's Indigenous Peoples, 1993.” YouTube, 20 Apr. 2012, youtu.be/x1S4F1euzTw.

[crocodiledundee-jr-blog]

The purpose of this discussion will be to explore Aristotle’s artistic proofs of ethos, logos, and pathos, and the use of enthymemes. I will respond to the critical question of how are ethos, logos, and pathos used to convey a certain message and how is enthymeme used simultaneously to convey this message? The advertisement by Skins uses ethos, logos,and pathos appeals along with enthymeme to persuade the audience that they need Skins to fulfill their potential as an athlete. As alluded to in the thesis, to explore these concepts and ideas I will be analyzing an advertisement by the sportswear brand Skins. Skins is an Australian based sportswear brand that specializes in compression garments, the benefits of which has been supported in numerous independently peer reviewed medical journals. Skins provide reduced muscle fatigue, increased muscle oxygenation, and increased muscle recovery to name a few of the benefits. The advertisement analyzed for this discussion features the athlete Andrew Papadopoulos participating in a wide variety of exercises, including running, functional exercises, weight lifting, and more. I will first discuss Aristotle’s artistic proofs of ethos, logos, and pathos, leading into a discussion of the use of enthymeme, and a short discussion on the productivity of the advertisement in the way it utilizes these concepts. A.J. Herrick highlights in Aristotle’s Rhetoric ethos relates to the character of the speaker, and whether or not they may be considered credible (Herrick 80). In other words, ethos determines if the audience should even listen to what the speaker has to say, and allows for the audience to develop a sense of trust for the speaker. In this advertisement both the brand Skins, and Andrew “Pap” are able to develop ethos, however I will focus on how Pap develops ethos as a “speaker” in the ad. Through the exercises Pap performs and the opening text of the ad, Pap is able to develop a strong ethos focused on his credibility as a speaker or, rather, as an athlete. This ad has very little text, however the beginning of the video features “Andrew Papadopoulos: Skins Elite Endurance Athlete” and then continues to depict Pap participating in a range of intense exercises, such as weightlifting and sprinting up sand dunes (Skins). Opening with the statement of “Elite Endurance Athlete” begins to build the ethos of Pap before you even see him performing any exercises. It is implied that as an elite athlete Pap puts himself under strenuous conditions for his training. The evidence for this idea is provided by the plethora of activities that Pap is involved in throughout the ad. Developing a strong sense of ethos is important so that the audience may be receptive to being persuaded to purchase Skins compression garments. Logos appeals revolve around the use of logic in an argument or speech leading to practical decision making from the audience (Herrick 80). The Skins ad makes utilizes the logos appeal by implying that Skins are a practical investment, and imply that they can help make you an athlete. The primary way that the ad is able to do this is through one of the company’s slogans which is featured at the end of the ad “Skins: It’s equipment, not clothing” (Skins). This is a logos appeal because it allows the audience to justify to themselves that purchasing Skins is logical and practical because it is not simply sports clothing, it is sports equipment so that you can perform better as an athlete. Pap wearing Skins throughout the ad also lends to a logos appeal on the basis that he wears Skins and performs at an elite level, therefore if you wear wear Skins, you can also perform at an elite level. What is interesting is that none of this is actually “said” it is largely implied, which I will discuss further on the subject if enthymeme. The Skins ad makes strong ethos and logos appeals, but it also makes use of pathos. Pathos includes emotional appeals, and as Aristotle described helps to put the audience in the right “frame of mind” for persuasion (Herrick 79). The primary pathos appeal is that of motivation. The ad motivates and implicitly encourages the audience to get up and start working out. This feeling is achieved as the ad depicts Pap getting up before sunrise, heading down to the beach to begin his day with an intense workout. It also shows him progressing through the day doing different workouts and putting in a lot of effort which can be seen by his sweat and the intensity of his exercise. Making the audience feel motivated is incredibly important in this ad specifically because Skins is a sportswear brand. Skins needs to motivate its audience to get up and exercise, because if it does not, there will be no use for their product to the wider market, and it will remain a garment only worn by truly elite athletes. Finally, the ad also utilizes enthymeme to persuade the audience that they need Skins. An enthymeme is essentially a form of syllogism, consisting of a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion, however a premise or the conclusion will be omitted, and is left to be filled in by the audience (Herrick 74). Lloyd F. Bitzer helps define what. An enthymeme is describing it as follows, “Rhetorical syllogisms, or enthymemes, are those in which premises are asked for in order to achieve persuasion” opposed to the premises being given to the audience (Bitzer 405). In other words, an enthymeme requires, and asks the audience to complete the syllogism by putting in their own premise/idea. As the premises are asked for they vary upon interpretation, however the syllogism I was able to deduct from the ad is as follows; athletes wear Skins, I am/want to be an athlete, therefore I should wear Skins. In this scenario both the minor premise and conclusion are left up to the audience completely, the first however is a logical major premise as Pap is shown wearing Skins throughout the entirety of the ad. The enthymeme is truly based on the whole idea that athletes are the ones to wear Skins. The a establishes this idea by simply stating that Pap is an elite athlete and then depicting him in Skins throughout the ad, the rest is asked of the audience to complete the enthymeme. Enthymemes can be effective in advertising because the main idea, which in this case is that as an athlete you should, or need to wear Skins to perform at an elite level is largely generated by the audience and only implied in the ad. If the audience generates this idea it is likely to be stronger and be more successful as the idea is generated from a trustworthy source, rather than some brand you may not be fully aware of. From my analysis of the ad I believe that it is effective in its management of appeals and enthymeme as a means of persuading the audience to purchase Skins. Despite the effectivity, this ad, and many others, may not be considered wholly productive. Ads are supposed to inform consumers of products so that the consumer can make a rational decision. The skins ad provides very limited rational information and no facts about the benefits of its garments, considering this I argue this ad is not very productive rhetoric as it capitalizes on ethos and pathos appeals rather than providing information to the consumer so that they can make an informed and rational decision. On the other hand, products have become more than simply an item for purchase, certain products carry an attached meaning as the result of branding, and sometimes consumers will lean towards certain brands due to the associated image. In this case the Skins ad does provide effective branding and provides information to the consumer to make a rational decision about the branding of the product. Does this mean that the consumer will always get the “best” product? Certainly not, however we live in a culture in which attach meaning to many types of items, and it is in these situations that ads providing a “brand image” may actually be helpful to the consumer. In summary, this Skins ad Featuring Pap makes extensive and effective use of ethos, pathos, logos, and enthymeme to persuade the audience that they should purchase Skins compression garments. Despite the effectiveness of these appeals this is not the most productive form of rhetoric in encouraging consumers to make rational decisions about the products they buy. However, in our culture as we attach meaning to products and associate brands with those meanings the ad may be considered productive in informing the consumer of the image of that comes with the brand. Works Cited Bitzer, Lloyd F. "Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 45, no. 4, Dec. 1959, p. 399. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9650126&site=ehost-live. Herrick, J. A. “Aristotle on Rhetoric.” The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2005. Print. Skins, skinscompression. “SKINS OR NOTHING with Andrew Papadopoulos.” YouTube, YouTube, 25 Feb. 2016, m.youtube.com/watch?v=i1bhazozXWc.

[crocodiledundee-jr-blog]

To explore how rhetoric is used to constitute “the people” I will be analyzing the speech given by Winston Churchill after the Dunkirk evacuation. Also known as operation Dynamo, the evacuation of British and French troops from the beaches of Dunkirk was due to the overwhelming advance of the Third Reich. Although the massive military retreat may look like an utter defeat on the surface, Churchill remarked on the great success of the operation and framed the soldiers and people of the United Kingdom as brave, dutiful, and resilient.This article will explore the ways that Churchill constituted “the people” with supporting evidence from Michael C. McGee, Mary E. Stuckey, and Karen S. Hoffman whose writings explore the connection between rhetoric and established qualities of “the people.”

McGee focuses on how rhetoric is used to develop, and define “the people” and the process of collectivization, which in turn is tied to political myths. This will be useful as Churchill’s positive spin on  the Dunkirk evacuation is essentially a type of political myth which relied on his definition of “the people.”

First and foremost it is suggested that to form a collective “people” the people must share a popular will (McGee 240). Churchill implies popular will, not explicitly, but through language choice. For example Churchill uses inclusive language and citing a common goal, or will; “we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home” (Churchill). In this example Churchill uses inclusive language to put everyone in the same category, thus popular, then defines the objective “to defend our island home,” thus the will, and hence the will of the people is defined, fulfilling the first step of constituting “the people.” The will of the people was able to be defined as he had primed his audience through the declaration of bravery and duty of the British forces. Specifically Churchill notes how the British came to the aid of Belgium even at the last moment, despite the risks but that they also kept to their duty, “our men carried on, with little or no rest, for days and nights.” Through these narratives Churchill was able to create a positive image of duty, and thus make his audience more receptive, allowing him to define the will of the people.

McGee highlights that collectivization and political myth go hand in hand with one another “The heart of the collectivization process is a political myth” (243). This is important because Churchill creates a political myth through his re-definition of the evacuation of Dunkirk. Political myth is critical to collectivization because it defines the purpose of the people (McGee 243). In Churchill’s speech he defines the purpose of the people as defending “the Island home” and continuing the resistance against the Axis powers. The idea of resistance and the evacuation as a success is achieved in the speech by likening the British forces to the Knights of the Round Table, and crusaders, or the seemingly insurmountable odds that they face, but the strongest example can be found in the following quote “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

Stuckey and Hoffman’s article focuses on how rhetoric is used by leaders to mold identity, although their research explored rhetoric of US presidents it is in fact applicable to the speech that is the focus of this discussion. The leader can be seen to be of utmost importance in defining “the people” in Stucky and Hoffman’s article, however they also note the consequence of rhetorically creating “a people,” the effect of which will be demonstrated in Churchill’s speech.

Stuckey and Hoffman state that the leader must “rely on their own vision” of national identity (71). This is particularly interesting because of Churchill’s redefining of Dunkirk. It is clear that in Churchill’s version the British have done their utmost, they have fought hard, refused to surrender, and will continue to fight into the future. Previous examples given from the speech demonstrate Churchill’s version but another example includes the valor of the Royal Air Force, Churchill remarks how pilots were often faced against larger enemy numbers, but they still inflicted far greater losses. Yet another way that Churchill can be seen presenting his version is his decision to emphasize the number of troops evacuated framing it as a success, rather than the losses that were sustained, “and the Navy, using 1,000 ships of all kinds, carried over 335,000 men, French and British, out of the jaws of death.” Through the creation of an “alternate reality” Churchill is able to unify the people and refocus them on the task at hand, for he has defined them as being resilient and fighting to the end in Churchill's vision, rather than framing it as a loss and disaster.

Constituting the people in this way can be both productive and limiting in some ways. Perhaps what is most obvious is the way that this narrative can be productive for the British, by redefining the Dunkirk evacuation as a large success it is able to give hope to the people. Churchill is also able to encourage the British to stay strong and fighting by his statement that they will never give up, they will face their enemy to the end, and even if they were to fail, the rest of the Empire would continue the fight against their enemies. Once again, this is productive in keeping the British forces fighting against their enemy. The narrative created may also be limiting, because as Stuckey and Hoffman highlighted “the invention of an ‘us’ requires the creation of a ‘them.’” This is arguably limiting because it does not allow one to see the other side of the story, it creates a type of situation that disallows any positive interaction or discussion between the two forces. On the contrary, this could in fact be considered productive from the perspective of propaganda or anyone trying to maintain the fight against the enemy.

It can be seen that Churchill is able to constitute “the people” by defining their popular will, creating collectivism through political myth, and presenting his own vision to help make sense of the situation. This obviously an have productive and limiting outcomes, as it encourages resistance by the British, but it discourages productive discussion between the warring parties. Ultimately, it is the redefinition of Dunkirk through which Churchill is able to praise and constitute “the people.”

Works Cited

Churchill, Winston. “We Shall Fight on the Beaches.” The International Churchill Society, The International Churchill Society, 13 Apr. 2017.

McGee, Michael C. “In Search of 'The People': A Rhetorical Alternative.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 61, ser. 3, Oct. 1975, pp. 235–249. 3.

Stuckey, Mary E. and Karen S. Hoffman. "Constituting "The People": National Identity under William H. Taft and Richard M. Nixon." Congress & the Presidency, vol. 33, no. 2, Sept. 2006, pp. 69-94. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=24840323&site=ehost-live.