jennahartman16 - Tumblr blog

[jennahartman16]

*Rhetorical Commitments* 

In this entry, I will be examining the critical question: How does this rhetorical artifact display unilateral or bilateral arguments or both and what are the implications? Could the rhetoric be improved by taking a bilateral approach?

To examine these questions I decided to use a video of Kaitlin Bennett interviewing Trump protestors as my artifact. This video is set in 2018 at a Trump rally in West Virginia and Kaitlin Bennett is known for being a huge advocate for gun rights and for the Republican party as a whole, especially Donald Trump. Throughout all of the different interviews in the video, it just shows people yelling opinions at one another, displaying a very unilateral argument that is very unproductive for society.

Kaitlin Bennett has made her political stance very obvious for most people, whether they support her opinions or not. She is known for having very republican points of views and for being a very big Trump supporter and gun advocate. She is most widely known for her graduation photos with a AR-10 assault rifle that basically went viral overnight. Bennett also has been more recently known for her less than ideal way of interviewing voters at various rallys for the President. This particular video, titled “Trump Protesters Are Idiots”, is unproductive from the very start. It shows her speaking to the camera in the first couple seconds of the video saying, “...today we’re here at the Trump rally in West Virginia interviewing protestors to see exactly what they don’t like about Trump or America!”. Right from the start, she is framing the protestors in an unfavorable and unpatriotic light before she has even spoken to them. Throughout the interviews she will listen to their response and then make rude comments to the camera or try her best to get under the skin of the protestors.

Hauser defines bilateral communication as something that, “...uses a language and appeals that explicitly welcome reflection on the message and the possibilities for its revision to express a sound and shared opinion” (50). In other words, bilateral communication occurs when both parties are actively listening to each other and trying to understand their different points of view, rather than just trying to win the argument and make it one sided. Consequently, unilateral communication is defined by Hauser as something that “...does not invite reflection on the validity of its premises, it avoids the evocation consciousness and confrontation with the self. It represses self-aware action, encouraging compliant behavior” (50). From the very beginning when Bennett implies that all of the protestors at the Trump rally hate America, she is shutting off the opportunity for other opinions and setting the tone for the rest of the video. While she is the main face of the video, the protestors that she interviews are unproductive with their approach as well. Everybody that speaks in the video is very closed off, closed minded, and defensive when speaking about their stance. They allow very little, to no, opportunity to have a productive interview or a productive discussion. While this may have not been the most appropriate time to have a full blown discussion, this particular video was not productive in any way for the rally itself or society as a whole.

For example, the first man that she interviews and asks what he is doing at the rally responds in a very sarcastic tone with, “You don’t understand what’s happening? Trump is speaking here and we don’t like Trump, so we’re here to yell at you guys! Where’s your gun at by the way?”. While this is an unproductive and unilateral way to respond to Bennett’s question, she responds with an equally unproductive response. Similarly, she speaks to a Black Lives Matter protestor and asks, “So gimme a fact that you’re here…” and she interrupts her with, “Black lives matter, that’s my fact”. This theme of constantly interrupting each other is present throughout the whole video to the point where you find yourself wondering what the exact point of the production actually was. Nothing productive or useful can be made by people yelling and interrupting each other every sentence, which is exactly what this video shows. Most questions or comments made by Bennett and the responses of the protestors leave no room for bilateral communication.

As stated before, while a Trump rally may not be the most appropriate time to have a full bilateral discussion, there are better and more productive ways that everybody involved could have gotten their message across. For one, Bennett is known for being very unilateral in general as she shuts down every comment or opinion that does not exactly line up with her own beliefs. If the title of the video tells you anything, it’s that she is not interested in truly hearing anything that the Trump protestors have to say. Similarly, the Trump protestors have no real reason to communicate effectively with her either as everybody knows what kinds of videos she produces and what kind of stances she takes on very controversial topics. In general, topics such as gun rights, women rights, and black lives rights come across as very controversial and very personal for a lot of people. People protesting, especially at presidential rallies, are already upset and mad, so revving them up with questions that you know will further their anger and then being offended when they respond a certain way is not productive at all. Having conversations like the ones that are shown in this video furthers the separation of the political parties and lessens the chances of actually understanding why a certain person has that opinion and trying to come to a mutual understanding of some sort. To better produce this video and have more effective and productive content, Bennett could have simply asked protestors their opinions about certain subjects and remained respectful and non bias, as interviewers should.

In an article named “Bilateral communication and Hard Evidence” by Mehdi Ayouni, the author discusses more of what unilateral and bilateral communication looks like. The author explains that unilateral communication frameworks shows, “...the agent (sender) presents information to the principal (receiver) by sending a message containing certiable information before the principal chooses an outcome” (Ayouni, 2017).  As for bilateral communication, this is explained as “...one where both the agent and the principal are active in the communication phase, exchanging messages sequentially” (Ayouni, 2017). This video by Kaitlin Bennett does not, however, represent bilateral communication with an equal exchange of messages due to the overwhelming amount of straight arguing that is shown throughout the interviews.

In summary, there was nothing productive or ethical about this video as it only represented unilateral arguments. Both sides being willing to listen and fully understand the other person’s point of view and not just arguing or making rude comments would have made this content more productive for society to see.

References:

Ayouni, Medhi. (2017, February 21). Bilateral communication and Hard evidence. Retrieved from: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/conf/2017/ADRES/medhi_ayouni.pdf

Hauser, Gerard, A. (1986). Making Commitments Through Rhetoric. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. New York: Harper and Row.

Liberty Hangout. (2018). Trump Protestors Are Idiots. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQv7hEDFMvY

[jennahartman16]

*What is Rhetoric to Me?*

In Comm 320, Rhetorical Traditions, I learned about many theories of rhetoric. This essay highlights how my definition of rhetoric shifted from the beginning to the end of the course. In the first class, I wrote that “Rhetoric is persuasive ways that a person talks or writes. They use literary devices to help get their message across and they typically are wanting to convince their audience to think or act in a certain way. For example, politicians use a certain rhetoric to convince people that they are the best choice for the job. Certain phrases are used, etc”. While I still believe some rhetoric to be used as a way to convince people of something, throughout the course I learned that it isn’t quite as simple or black and white as that. Now I view rhetoric as something people use as a way to create groups and identities. Whether rhetoric is being used to exclude or include, what you understand, what you believe, and what you choose to not understand reflects who you are and what you become. Rhetoric shapes not only how we view other people but also ourselves.

An article that really made an impact on me was the short introduction by Judith Butler, “Acting in Concert”. This is her introduction to a larger piece of writing named Undoing Gender. Reading this made me realize how much rhetoric plays a role in our social groups and norms. In this introduction she explains, “The human is understood differently depending on its race, the legibility of that race, its morphology, the recognizability of that morphology, its sex, the perceptual verifiability of that sex, its ethnicity, the categorical understanding of that ethnicity” (Butler, 2004). Rhetoric has formed these social groups and ideas that are sometimes very detrimental. Rhetoric shapes how we view people and how we understand them. It shapes our social norms and it shapes our image of how the world is. In this section she also says, “The norms that govern idealized human anatomy thus work to produce a differential sense of who is human and who is not, which lives are livable, and which are not” (Butler, 2004). This particular sentence stood out to me the most as even though this was written in 2004, it is still very much relevant today. This particular piece of writing made me think about how much rhetoric has the ability to shift how people see things. Even with our current political situation, there has been more harmful rhetoric that shifts and/or encourages a divide in humans and the creation of “out” groups.

Another article that helped me form my new definition of rhetoric was “‘Feminine Style’ and Political Judgement in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards” written by Bonnie J. Dow and Mari Boor Tonn. Within this article, the authors explain that “the goals of rhetors studied have been to gain equity for women within existing political systems” (Dow and Tonn, 1993). This article helped me even more with the idea that rhetoric can hold certain people within formed social groups and whether you stay within those groups or question them, constructs part of your personal identity and what values are important to you. On page 288, the authors explain, “...women are encouraged to exhibit communicative patterns that correspond to the tasks that women are expected to perform in the private sphere, just as men’s communication reflects their primary roles in public life” (Dow and Tonn, 1993). This connects with the previous articles idea of the “idealised human” and other social groups deciding which human lives are livable and which ones are not.

My definition can be symbolized through a photo I took of a client. In the photo, you can see half of her face but the focus is on her eye and the reflections within it. Eyes are said to be the window to the soul and some say that you can tell what kind of person someone is by their eyes. This photo represents my definition of rhetoric because rhetoric is reflective of who you are as a person. I believe that rhetoric is how people see the world, so what better way to represent that than with a photo of an eye!

These articles helped me shape my definition that rhetoric reflects, constructs, and creates the identity that you put on other people and yourself. What you believe, what you choose to listen to or learn, and what you choose to understand reflects who you are as a person and what is important to you. Rhetoric is how people see things.

Work Cited

Butler, Judith. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge. 1-4.

Dow, Bonnie J. and Tonn, Mari Boor. (1993). “Feminine Style” and Political Judgement in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 286-302.

[jennahartman16]

*The “Feminine” Style*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: What gender norm is constructed or undone in this artifact? How does it promote a dominant ideology over a marginalized group? Is it unproductive or productive?

To investigate these questions, I am analyzing a commercial ad for Mr. Clean from 2017. This commercial begins with a woman cleaning as a very sexualized, Mr. Clean, comes into frame. Mr. Clean starts to dance around this woman with the song in the background singing, “Got what you want, got what you need...I’ll be your fantasy”. The woman is shown being completely captivated by Mr. Clean and as he is mopping she is staring at him and following his every move. Then Mr. Clean, who turns out to be just an illusion (surprise, surprise), turns back into this woman’s significant other and she runs into his arms and starts kissing him. As the commercial is coming to an end, the words “You gotta love a man who cleans”, pop up across the screen.

This commercial promotes the gender norm that women are the only ones who clean and when a man does, he should be rewarded. Mr. Clean also takes over the cleaning that the woman was doing, almost to save her and do it right as if she wasn’t going to. It’s also strange that they sexualized Mr. Clean, who is an animated character that was made to sell sponges and other cleaning material. The fact that Mr. Clean was so “irresistible” to the woman also promotes the idea that women are captivated by men and cannot hold themselves back. Not to mention the fact that she runs into her husband's arms just because he was mopping the floor. This commercial presents the idea that it is not typical for men to clean and when they do, you should have sex with them to “reward” them. Ultimately, because of the implications that his commercial makes it is unproductive for society as a whole.

As discussed in class, feminist rhetorical theory is concerned with “the dominance of a gender or gender construction (often in the form of patriarchal ideas, institutions, and structures)”. In this particular artifact, the male gender is shown dominant and the woman is the traditional cleaner who is eternally grateful for the man who is cluelessly cleaning. Near the end of the commercial he even asks, “Clean enough?”, as if he has no idea how it is supposed to be done or how it is supposed to look. This portrayal falls under many patriarchal ideas that women are the naturally domestic gender and that they are better at household duties, such as cleaning. In class we also touched on the concepts of womanhood in the 19th century, with one of the concepts being submission. This is shown through the commercial as Mr. Clean steps in and takes over what she was doing,  the woman can’t contain herself and is constantly staring at him in a sexualized way, and then eventually jumps into her husband's arms. All of this pointing to the same message, promoting stereotypical gender norms.

In an article called, “Firearm Hunting Ads and the Erection of Identity for Males Who Hunt: A Rhetorical Feminist Analysis”, the author speaks about hunting ads that feature only Caucasian, middle aged, men. An interesting point that this article brings up is that by the age of three, children are able to recognize different traits and whether they are considered to be masculine and feminine (Suddoth, 2008). With this Mr. Clean video being a commercial, it’s messages are  widely spread. Advertisements, such as this one, are seen by thousands of children that are in front of televisions. This message that women are the natural cleaners and that men should be rewarded when they take over and clean instead is unethical in that this message will stick with children who are still learning who they are and how they fit into society.

In summary, advertisements that spread patriarchal messages and promote stereotypical gender norms are unethical for society and the children that are growing up within it. Cleaning isn’t a task that should be assigned to a specific gender and the way that the woman in this particular Mr. Clean commercial is shown, supports the idea that men are the dominant gender and should be praised for helping with domestic duties.

References:

Suddoth, H. (2008). Firearm Hunting Ads and the Erection of Identity for Males Who Hunt: A Rhetorical Feminist Analysis. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=44853176&site=ehost-live

[jennahartman16]

*ETHOS, PATHOS, LOGOS, & WILL SMITH* 

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: How are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to convey a certain message? Is this message effective for the target audience? Is it ethical?

To investigate these questions, I examined an inspirational video that was made starring Will Smith as my rhetorical artifact. Within this video, Smith uses ethos, pathos, and logos to not only define self-discipline but encourage the audience to live a less fear-driven life. Throughout the entirety of the video, there a clips of people doing incredible things such as, jumping out of a plane and pushing themselves during a hard workout. There is inspiring music with a driving beat in the background of Smith giving advice to his audience combined with clips of himself speaking which makes the video feel for personal for each viewer, almost as if he is talking right to them.

In class we defined ethos as the credibility of the speaker. Smith defines his own as he is explaining how he has taken the same advice he is giving his audience. He explains, “I think

psychologically the advantage that gives me over a lot of people that I have been in competition with in different situations is it's difficult to take the first step when you look how big the task is… the definition of who I am is very clear to me and it also redefines who I want to be in that I know for a fact that I'm stronger than I thought I was”. By saying this as he is explaining to his audience that working hard everyday isn’t an option when you want to be great and you want to be the best at something and that fear is doing nothing but ruining your day, he is creating a sense of trust with his audience in that he knows what he is talking about and he has been in their shoes before. When talking more about redefining fear he explains, “I'm motivated by fear. I hate being scared to do something and I think what developed was the attitude that I started attacking things I was scared of”. By telling this personal story he creates more of a sense of trust and credibility by letting the audience know that he relates with their fear.

We defined pathos as encouraging the audience to feel a certain way within the artifact. The music alone during this video is similar to the music they play in an action movie. The fast tempo and the quick notes that are played are very exciting towards the audience and create a sense of determination. Similarly, beginning the video with the sentence, “99% of people are not willing to do what it takes to make their dreams come true”, pushes the audience to be in that 1% that does actually make their dreams come true. Hearing that right at the beginning, in combination with the music, sets the tone for a very inspiring video that has already captured the audience’s attention. He also pushes the audience to feel a personal push as he is explaining, “Why were you scared in your bed the night before? What do you need that fear for? Just don't go! Why are you scared in your bed 16 hours before you jump? Why are you scared in the car? Why could you not enjoy breakfast?”. This makes the audience feel not only related to, because we have all had anxieties that are not productive for our day, but also gives them a sense of bravery. By asking all of those questions to the audience, they are able to realize that there isn’t a sound reason for being scared most of the time and that bravery is something they are very capable of having.

Lastly, we defined logos as the logic that an argument contains. Smith uses many logical examples to help his audience follow along with his argument. He explains, “It don't matter whose fault it is that something is broken if it's your responsibility to fix it” and “We tend to base our self-esteem on what other people think and that's not really self-esteem”. Both of these examples are again, not only something that everybody can relate to, but things that are almost inevitably correct. The combination of ethos, pathos, and logos helps the audience to not only be inspired but to change their mindset on how they are living their lives.

There are many positives to this artifact and the way it uses ethos, pathos and logos to create it’s message. It is very real in the sense that Smith’s advice relates to everybody who listens to it. It is almost universal that people have pointless anxieties and that self-discipline shouldn’t be actual discipline but more along the lines of self love and self help. However, some could argue that Smith is ignoring other obstacles that people have for being scared or not being able to do something they dream of doing.

In the academic article, “The Roots of Research in (political) Persuasion: Ethos, Pathos, Logos and the Yale Studies of Persuasive Communications”, they describe pathos as “...the mood or tone of the speech that appealed to the passions or the will of the audience” (192). As mentioned before, with the tone of this speech being very passionate and frank, Smith’s advice could relate to his whole audience. Similarly, this article defined logos as not only the argument they are pursuing but also the need to …”dependent on the audience’s ability to process information in logical ways…” (192). This relates directly to Smith phrasing his advice in different ways for a majority of the video. Lastly, they describe ethos as “...the artistic proofs a persuader used along with his/her reputation and image…” (192). Will Smith has the reputation of being a great speaker and a powerful story teller. This reputation combined with his sound advice makes him a credible speaker.

In conclusion, this video as a whole was ethical in the grand scheme of things because it gave people a different lens to look at the world with. Smith uses ethos, pathos, and logos to help persuade his audience into living a less fear-driven life and to treat not only themselves with more respect but to also focus on other people as well. I thought the message that this video sends is very effective because it can relate to everybody and contains a very strong sentiment.

References 

Braet, A. C. (1992). Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle's Rhetoric: A re-examination. Argumentation, 6(3), 307-320.

Motiversity. (2018 July 11). SELF DISCIPLINE - Best Motivational Speech Video (Featuring Will Smith). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft_DXwgUXB0

[jennahartman16]

*Contextual Leadership and Exceptionalism*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: How does this artifact define what it means to be an exceptional nation? What does it mean that you/we/they are defining it that way? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this definition?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed Rihanna’s “American Oxygen” music video from 2015 as my rhetorical artifact. In this music video, Rihanna presents two different America’s: the “American Dream” and America’s reality. Through doing this she shows the past trauma and horrific events that have taken place, countered by a “new America” that is happier, more equal, and exceptional. While her video is productive for society as a whole, it overlooks much of what America has done in the past that was good and has helped our country grow in a positive way.

The music video begins with Rihanna placed in front of the American flag and clips rolling that represent what most people think of when they think of America. These symbols include the Statue of Liberty, the moon landing, soldiers, government buildings, oil, and factories. These are later replaced, or shown side by side, by tragedies and violent events that have occured within America’s history. A homeless veteran is shown sitting on the streets, clips of riots are played along with horrific police brutality beatings, as well as an African American boy shown selling drugs placed next to a clip of a prison.

American exceptionalism is generally defined as America being unique and admirable. American exceptionalism usually shows all of America’s strong points while ignoring everything else that is less positive and pretty. This idea focuses on the “American Dream” and encourages people to look at America’s past, present, and future, as something that is unique and better than the rest of the World’s. Seymour Martin Lipset explains American exceptionalism in his book “American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword”, as “...a double-edged concept. As I shall elaborate, we are the worst as well as the best, depending on which quality is being addressed” (Lipset). Which is exactly what Rihanna shows within this music video.

At the beginning of the video when the patriotic symbols are shown, Rihanna represents the great qualities of America. She is singing the words, “Every breath I breathe, chasing this American Dream. We sweat for a nickel and a dime, turn it into an empire…”, which implies that if you work hard, you can do and become anything you want. A sign is then shown saying “Nation of Immigrants”, symbolizing that everyone is able to have this “American Dream” and that America is welcoming to diversity. Rihanna also sings, “Young girl, hustlin’, on the other side of the ocean. You can be anything at all in America”. This all exemplifies the “American Dream”. However, shortly after these symbols are shown, the visuals change to the shocking reality of America which is full of wars, bombs exploding, police brutality, prison, homeless veterans, and racism. Rihanna creates two different American realities and ends her video by singing, “This is the new America. We are the new America” with visuals of young and diverse children and people coming together. Signs are shown saying, “Last chance for non-violence”, “We’re all in this together” and “We owe our children a just society”. New America is shown as an exceptional nation that includes immigration reform, equality, movements against police brutality and a brighter future for everybody. Rihanna is also shown with a parachute floating on her back at the beginning when showing the examples of the “American Dream”. When the clips switch to America’s reality, Rihanna is shown being dragged down by the parachute, as if she is being held down by the hatred that America carries.

By showing the violent clips from America’s past next to the symbols of the “American Dream” and lastly the “New America”, it could be argued that this music video ignores any good that this country has done up until now. Part of making a “New America” is not only learning from the mistakes and horrors that have been made in the past but also taking the good qualities and the positive events with us to the future, which this video mostly ignores. While this is a disadvantage to this music video, it also is very productive for society as a whole because it isn’t lying or sugar coating anything that has happened. It is a push to be better for the children that will one day run this country and a call to action to America as a whole.

In summary, this artifact portrays an exceptional nation as one that is not practiced in America today. The “New America”, which is exceptional, is shown as one with equality and opportunity for all. By defining it this way, it shows the “American Dream” as something that does not exist for everybody and that is outplayed by hatred and violence. While being upfront and honest about the realities of this country is something that should not be ignored and instead used as a way to grow, it does ignore most positive events within America’s history and chips away at the patriotism of the audience.

Works Cited:

Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. W.W. Norton, 1996.

Rihanna. “American Oxygen.” Westbury Road Entertainment, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8cGLIMtvg