julietakesoncomm380-blog

[julietakesoncomm380-blog]

*rhetoric to me*

           In COMM 380, Rhetorical Traditions, I learned a lot about rhetoric, especially because I knew nothing about rhetoric coming into this class. At the beginning of the term, I’m pretty sure I wrote down that the definition of rhetoric was “something that was bigger than what things seem to be”. Honestly, I was really making things up because I had not a single idea what rhetoric actually was, and I had never even heard of it in this way until this class. I think I was trying to get at that I thought it was symbolism somehow, or like, everything is a microcosm. I don’t know. Now that I have endured fourteen, fifteen, I don’t really know how many weeks of learning about rhetoric and all the people who have made it what it is, I have created my own definition. To me, rhetoric is communicating well and knowledgably influencing others in the process.

           I think one of the first building blocks of my definition of rhetoric was Isocrates. He has really made an impact on how I view rhetoric. This was largely thanks to my comparative essay for our midterm assignment. I felt that Isocrates would be the most successful campaign manager because many of our beliefs line up. Isocrates was one of the influential ancient Greeks and for good reason. Isocrates treated the public opinion much more logically, in my opinion, than some of our other ancient Greek friends. He doesn’t take it for what it is regardless, and he doesn’t completely overrule it either. He treats it much more conditionally and believes that focusing on the situation can help you figure out the truth at the time (Isocrates). This means that the truth can change, and it really can! No matter how much it seems like life in quarantine is the same day to day, it’s not, and each day, the truth has the ability to change. I believe that it’s really important for rhetoric to acknowledge this and for rhetoricians to incorporate this idea into their speeches when applicable. Stating something as fact that is not fact is wrong and unethical. Isocrates’ practice of truth works to prevent this unethical and wrong information from spreading, which is why I think Isocrates has influenced me so much. Isocrates also believed that rhetoric was rooted in practice, and I strongly believe that no matter how naturally gifted you are, you have to be taught and continue to practice practice how to correctly and effectively communicate. I think everybody could benefit from a public speaking class; I don’t care how many A’s you got on speeches prior to taking it.

           The idea of dissoi logoi has also influenced my definition of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a type of power, and I don’t think one person should have all that power. Dissoi logio and the idea that both sides of an argument should be debated is very important to my definition rhetoric (Gagarin). Being open to other views and new ideas is really important. Being stuck in your ways can let the world get ahead of you and cause your speech to be unethical and hurt its audience. However, I am not afraid to admit like the good parts of Dissoi logio while not enjoying the bad parts so much. I don’t like that in dissoi logio, there are only two sides to a story and that people will debate just to win and not to learn. But I think dissoi logio in combination with these other ideas and theories works well to highlight its advantages and minimize its disadvantages as much as possible. For example, I believe that counter publics work to debate the other side, which usually turn out to be many sides, and allows for discussion to bloom.

           Because of its ability to make people talk about what they don’t want to talk about, the idea of counter publics has helped me define rhetoric. Understanding publics, counter publics, and the relationship between the two of them is very important in conducting effective and ethical communication. Being aware that if you’re a part of the public as a speaker, you are part of a group that has more money, power, and resources than part of your audience helps try to limit exclusions and make interactions between publics and counter publics more productive (Squires). As a rhetorician, I think it’s very important to acknowledge these groups and legitimatize the experiences of them. In some sense, almost all of us are a part of some counter public and know what it is like to be in a minority. Rhetoricians should use both their personal experiences and concepts of moral actions and consequences to limit the tensions between publics and counter publics as much as possible and allow for productive discourse.

           Throughout the weeks, my brain has put together its own definition of rhetoric, that it is communicating well and knowledgably influencing others in the process. My brain didn’t come up with it all on its own though. Major influences to the definition were most definitely Isocrates, dissoi logoi, and the relationship between publics and counter publics.

Gagarin, M. and Woodruff, P. (Eds.) (1995). Dissoi Logoi. Early Greek political thought from Homer to the Sophists.

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

Squires, C. (2001). The Black press and the State. In R. Asen and D. Brouwer (Eds.), Counterpublics and the State (pp. 111-136). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

[julietakesoncomm380-blog]

*Gender norms*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What gender/sexuality norm is constructed or undone in this artifact, how is it rhetorically done, and/or how does it promote a dominant ideology over a marginalized group or push back against the ideology or gender norm? is it productive/unproductive (ethical/unethical)?

To investigate these questions, I will look at these two baby onesies. The one on the left is pink, has the Superman logo, and states “I only date heroes.” The one on the right is black, again bearing the Superman logo, this time stating, “Future man of steel.” These onesies were found at Target in 2014, and they just happened to be the best side-by-side comparison of sexist clothing for babies I could find. By continuing the create baby clothes with such sexist messages on them, little girls will grow up believing they cannot be independent and superheroes themselves. These onesies, and I’m sure other baby clothes, promote gender and sexuality norms that minimize a girl’s potential while harming all involved.

In her book Undoing Gender, Judith Butler explains how complex gender is. We often think that each person has a gender and they choose that gender, and everything is pretty simple. Butler argues that gender is something “outside oneself, beyond oneself in a sociality that has no single author,” meaning that gender is not something chosen and enacted by the person in question and only them, but instead by many people (Butler 1). Gender is something much bigger. It is made up of all these ideas from society around you, and it “requires and institutes its own distinctive regulatory and disciplinary regime” (Butler 41). Gender and what the different genders mean has been under construction for years and years. And as we discussed in class, rhetoric creates reality, and creates gender as well.

Literally from birth, girls are taught that they cannot be independent and instead need to rely on boys simply because they are girls. These baby onesies are a great example of the message society is sending literal babies. Now of course, the babies wearing these outfits cannot understand what their clothing means, but parents who dress their children in these clothes will likely continue to tell their children these messages, and adults who see babies wearing these clothes will likely treat them accordingly. As they get older and begin to understand what they mean, these messages will begin to influence how a girl treats herself and other people. According to these onesies, only boys can become superheroes, and the best a girl can do is date a superhero. For some reason a girl can’t become this make-believe thing.  To make it worse, for some reason, a girl has to depend on a boy to get things done. This already plants the ‘men are superior’ seed in children’s heads.

Furthermore, the idea that a girl, who is not a superhero, is going to date a superhero, a boy, continues the normalization of heterosexual couples being the only acceptable relationship. Creating the normalization of heterosexual relationships, even at such a young age, marginalizes LGBT+ relationships even more and may cause issues when that child grows up. Now, I’m not saying baby onesies need to claim that the kid wearing it is going to grow up gay, but I think the point is that they are babies. Their love life should not be anywhere near a current conversation.

Not to mention the fact that the onesie for the baby girl is pink and sparkly, while the boy’s onesie is black and grey. While much less harmful than the message they are telling girls on the onesie, forcing specific colors like pink and glitter onto girls can influence how little kids see something as simple as colors. If a little boy goes to school wearing pink, he may be made fun of, and if a girl prefers blue over pink, she’ll be labeled a tomboy. Why are these so influential and important to people? None of it means anything!

Telling girls from birth that they can’t be a superhero, however silly it sounds, is harmful and unproductive. For many, society has advanced a lot, so you would assume we would be teaching our young girls that they can be whatever they want. Even Barbie has had a variety of traditally male dominated jobs. Yet these onesies are telling girls to rely on boys to do the hard stuff. Young girls should not be told that they cannot be a superhero, and that they should be dating a superhero, young girls should be told that they can be heroes themselves. Raising young girls with the same restrictions as generations of young girls before them is harmful not only to the young girl herself, but to the entire world, because they’re missing out on what women can bring to the table (not the kitchen table – just the table).

According to “Gender is What You Look Like: Emerging Gender Identities in Young Children and Preoccupation with Appearance,” the authors state that between the ages of three and six is when children are learning about and making use of gender roles in their own lives. At some point, three quarters of three and four-year-old girls exhibited “appearance rigidity,” which is the insistence of wearing gender specific clothing. In a study done with three to five-year olds, when asked why being pretty/handsome was important, “16% alluded to social pressure or reinforcement” while 7% “explicitly mentioned gender or some kind of social norm” (460). At such a young age, kids are already feeling what it means to be a girl or what it means to be a boy. Seeing that children are influenced so early in their lives should make us question what we’re telling their moldable little brains. Girls will have to deal with so much sexism in their lives, they don’t need the clothing their parents dress them in to be a part of it. These pieces of clothing start a virtually endless cycle of sexism, and even when society does get better and the clothes girls wear change and they do become superheroes, the internalized sexism is still going to be there because of these repeated messages since birth.

In summary, the fact that as a society, we claim to have come so far in terms of what a woman can do, yet baby onesies still tell little girls that they can’t become superheroes. Baby clothes, even though they’re going on babies who cannot read or really think more than that they’re hungry, promote gender and sexuality norms that continue to marginalize girls and are ultimately harmful to all involved.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Halim, May Ling D., et al. “Gender Is What You Look Like: Emerging Gender Identities in Young Children and Preoccupation with Appearance.” Self & Identity, vol. 17, no. 4, July 2018, pp. 455-466. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1412344.

Perkel, Colin. “Hundreds Denounce Target for ‘Sexist’ Baby Onesies.” Thestar.com, 1 Oct. 2014, www.thestar.com/business/2014/10/01/hundreds_denounce_target_for_sexist_baby_onesies.html.

[julietakesoncomm380-blog]

*Ethos, Pathos, Logos*

In this essay, I will examine the critical questions: What is the main purpose of this artifact’s message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

To investigate these questions, I looked at a reading of Virginia Woolf’s “Shakespeare’s Sister”. This artifact uses ethos, pathos, and logos to make the point that the reality of being a woman is much different than that of a man in the writing world, and changes can be made. I believe Woolf remains ethical in all of her arguments.

Obviously, there isn’t video of Virginia Woolf actually giving this speech, so I found a transcript and a video of another woman giving the speech (which she did very well). This speech is a portion of Woolf’s extended essay A Room of One’s Own which is based on two lectures Woolf gave in 1928 at Newnham College and Girton College. These colleges were women’s colleges at Cambridge University. By this time in her life, Woolf had not only dealt with the death of her mother, father, and brother, lived through the first World War, but has also been dealing with mental illness and was institutionalized for a period of time. Beyond her family history and mental health, Woolf, at the time of giving these lectures, had worked as a teacher, had volunteered for the Women’s Suffrage movement, had published several shorter works including articles and short stories, as well as six novels. To take a look at the history involved here, the first women’s college in the United Kingdom had opened up in 1849, less then 80 years prior to Woolf’s visit, and it wasn’t until 1880 that the first women in the United Kingdom received a bachelor’s degree. Women in schools was still a new idea and it was even more of a privilege then than it is now to be a woman in higher education.

Herrick explains to us Aristotle’s Rhetoric, which include the three artistic proofs of ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos, as described by Aristotle, is the speaker’s credibility, which should be developed from what is said within the speech itself. Ethos is broken down into three parts: phronesis, or intelligence, areta, or virtue, and eunoia, or goodwill. This has the potential to be the most persuasive proof of the three. Pathos is how the speaker uses their words to affect the judgement of the audience. It’s important to Aristotle that pathos is used in an ethical way and that words are used to lead the audience to the correct judgement. Finally, there’s logos. According to Aristotle, logos is the way a speaker reasons with their audience. It refers to the arguments being made in decision making. These arguments are often made with syllogisms and enthymemes.

In this speech, Virginia Woolf immediately builds her ethos. I’m not sure if this was her intent, but it is what happens. The first line of her speech, “When you asked me to speak about women and fiction,” signals to me that Woolf has some kind of credibility. A college would not ask just anybody to speak to their students. They clearly felt comfortable enough that Virginia Woolf had enough knowledge on the subjects of women and fiction to invite her to speak to their students. Without telling her audience her entire experience with those topics, Woolf is telling us she is well-educated and has knowledge to give. Woolf then moves on and shares a story with the audience. This story is a narrative of Woolf’s day when she attempted to enter the library at a (men’s) college I am assuming and was stopped by a college officer. “I found myself walking with extreme rapidity across a grass plot. Instantly a man’s figure rose to intercept me. His face expressed horror and indignation. Instinct rather than reason came to my help; he was a beadle, I was a woman. This was the turf; there was the path. Only the fellows and scholars are allowed here; the grave is the place for me.” She did not belong there, only intelligent men were allowed in, not women. She then continues her story to when she eventually does get into a library and talks about her personal experience looking for women on the shelves of that library, where she’s disappointed to find that they do not exist outside of men, and they do not exist in good light at all. “I went, therefore, to the shelf where the histories stand. I looked up ‘Women’, found ‘position of’ and turned to the pages indicated. ‘Wife-beating,’ I read…”  Although this story is a smaller part of her speech and is using it to make a larger point in her speech, it still helps to build Woolf’s ethos. Woolf is credible because she has experienced an issue she is speaking about. Not only is she highly educated on the topic, but she has lived through the experiences which she is talking about, and that gives the speaker quite a bit of credibility.

In this speech, Woolf uses pathos to both allow her audience to be upset about their situation, as well as inspire them to partake in changing that situation. She first uses pathos to help her audience realize they should feel upset about their situation in the world. She compares her “sudden conglomeration of an idea” to a fish, and when the fish tugs, she pulls it up, and she’s disappointed in “how small, how insignificant” her idea looked. So, she put it back. And that happens sometimes, yet as she encounters the beadle in yard, she claims “no very great harm was done. The only charge I could bring against the fellows and scholars of whatever the college might happen to be was that, in protection of their turf, they had sent my little fish into hiding.” This is a story I’m sure many women can relate to, especially those in Woolf’s audience. I think part of the reason Woolf brings it up is to validate that experience, and to ignite an anger in her audience. It’s not fair that women are brought down by not being allowed in libraries. It’s not fair that men scare their ideas away. Woolf wants her audience to recognize this, to be unhappy about it, and to want to change it. Woolf then moves on to compare works of fiction to spiderwebs. Fiction written by men “seem to hang there complete by themselves.” But when a web is somehow broken “one remembers that these webs are not spun in mid-air by incorporeal creatures, but are the work of suffering human beings, and are attached to grossly material things, like health and money and the houses we live in.” By pointing these ideas out, Woolf is encouraging her audience members to be upset by the fact that work by men is often valued much higher because men are often able to separate themselves from the material things of their world – especially their houses and often their children. Women, on the other hand, were unable to afford this luxury. They were surrounded by housework and children and things that needed to be done. Because of that, their work is somehow less. Woolf points out this comparison in hopes of angering her audience and them becoming aware of, and upset by, these unfair conditions. In the creation of Judith Shakespeare, she points out that when Shakespeare’s sister would have a chance to read or write, it wouldn’t be for long and it would often be interrupted by housework. Her parents, who would marry her off, would not allow her access to the same types of skill building as her brother got. According to Woolf’s narrative, “at last the manager took pity on her; she found herself with child by that gentleman and so – who shall measure the heat and violence of the poet’s heart when caught and tangled in a woman’s body? – killed herself one winter’s night and lies buried at some crossroads where the omnibuses now stop outside the Elephant and the Castle.” Not only is Woolf trying to show that these circumstances are something to be upset about, but she’s trying to show her audience that that could have been any one of them.

The story of Shakespeare’s sister doesn’t end there for Woolf though. Woolf moves to inspiring her audience by stating, “Now my belief is that this poet who never wrote a word and was buried at the crossroads still lives. She lives in you and in me, and in many other women who are not here tonight, for they are washing up the dishes and putting the children to bed. But she lives, for great poets do not die; they are continuing presences; they need only the opportunity to walk among us in the flesh.” Instead of sparking anger in the audience, here Woolf tries to inspire her audience, maybe still with a hint of anger. Her audience is supposed to feel like it is their responsibility to continue writing, to honor Shakespeare’s sister. And I think they’re also supposed to be a little angry that not everyone who needs to hear this is able to, because of the same responsibilities Judith Shakespeare would have had. This lack of change is also a good way to get people inspired to change something. Woolf’s final use of pathos is in the last sentence of her speech: “But I maintain that she would come if we work for her, and that so to work, even in poverty and obscurity, is worthwhile.” Again, Woolf uses this instance of pathos to inspire and encourage her audience. She is recognizing that it is not easy to continue to write when it feels impossible to do so. But if she and her audience members and women in general continue to write, they will allow for a future where it isn’t so difficult for women to write.

Logos is used in this speech when Woolf describes what would happen to Shakespeare’s sister if she were as talented as Shakespeare and tried to get the experiences he did. His sister would have “no chance of learning grammar and logic, let alone of reading Horace and Virgil,” nor would she be accepted if she did have the chance to participate in theater, “Men laughed in her face. The manager – a fat, loose lipped man – guffawed. He bellowed something about poodles dancing and women acting – no woman, he said, could possibly be an actress. He hinted – you can imagine what. She could get no training in her craft.” Since, even then, Shakespeare lived a long time ago, it’s easy to look back at history and confirm this would have been true. It’s also easy for the audience to look at their own lives and recognize bits and pieces of this kind of treatment still surrounding them. Another instance of logos in this speech is when Woolf talks about what can be done to improve the situation all women writers are living. Woolf believes “if we live another century or so – I am talking of the common life which is the real life and not of the little separate lives which we live as individuals – and have each of us rooms of our own; if we have the habit of freedom and the courage to write exactly what we think;…, then the opportunity will come and the dead poet who was Shakespeare’s sister will put on the body which she has so often laid down.” It makes sense that in order to achieve something others are opposed to you must take baby steps. You need to continue what you’re doing and you cannot stop.

I believe the way Woolf uses ethos, pathos, and logos is ethical. Believing women should be equal and have equal opportunity to achieve success is trying to make the world more ethical. I think pathos is often used in unethical ways by speakers, but Woolf keeps her use of pathos ethical. She doesn’t manipulate her audience into thinking a certain way, I think she allows her audience to feel that they can feel angry and upset, almost some kind of validation. She gives them examples of women being held back and this allows them look around in their own lives to recognize scenarios that reflect those examples. She also inspires them to continue what they’re doing. I don’t think anything she is doing is unethical. She’s simply stating the reality they live in, allowing her audience to feel angry towards it, and gives them inspiration to make a change.

In summary, Woolf uses ethos to build her credibility as a speaker, pathos to encourage her audience to feel upset about their situation while also feeling inspired, and logos to persuade her audience that there is truth behind what she’s saying. Woolf remains ethical in her uses of these strategies and even gives her audience suggestions as to how to make changes.

Herrick, James A. “Aristotle on Rhetoric.” The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 5th ed., Routledge, 2013, pp. 69-81.

“Shakespeare’s Sister: Virginia Woolf.” Figures of Speech, www.speech.almeida.co.uk/virginia-woolf.

[julietakesoncomm380-blog]

*February 13*

In this essay, I will examine the critical questions: What is a narrative that is important to me or U.S. culture? What truths does it promote? What truths does it limit or ignore? What are the societal/ethical advantages and the disadvantages of this narrative?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed season 5 episode 9 (“99”) and 10 (“Game Night”) of Brooklyn 99. By combining tone with word choice, as well as chronicling the events following Rosa’s coming out, the two episodes of Brooklyn 99 share a narrative that coming out with regard to sexuality can be scary. Overall, this narrative is productive for society because it shows the complication of the process and does not paint a potentially harmful and inaccurate picture by showing either all acceptance or all rejection.   

Brooklyn 99 is a comedy about a fictional New York City police precinct. It follows the work of the precinct, as well as the relationships between the detectives themselves as well as with their captain inside and outside of work. Jake is the funny one, Amy is the nerdy one, Charles is the pathetically adorable friend to all, Terry is the big teddy bear who can also lift a thousand pounds, Rosa is a private, tough, Latina, and Captain Holt is the all business, homosexual, African American captain. In “99”, the squad attempts to get Captain Holt back to New York from LA in time for a job with the commissioner. Charles gets a little nosy and Rosa ultimately comes out to him. In “Game Night”, Rosa Diaz comes outs to the rest of the squad and her family, which is the storyline I have chosen to follow.

Palczewski explains that narratives are everywhere, and often times, they do a lot of things. Narratives often teach cultural values or lessons that are widely accepted in that culture. This idea goes hand in hand with the concept of social truth. Social truth is “beliefs and values that do not refer to some objective reality, but to social reality – those beliefs about what is right that people have arrived at together,” (133). Narratives are also interesting and enjoyable to the audience, but while being that, they can educate their audience and allow for new perspectives to be seen. Narratives include events that then in turn cause other events, or at the very least are related to one another.

One of the narratives evident in these episodes of Brooklyn 99 is that coming out can be scary. When Rosa actually comes out, her word choice and tone tell us this narrative. When Rosa hesitantly comes out to Charles, she tells him quietly and almost ashamedly, “I didn’t say anything about being bi because I didn’t think it was anyone’s business and I also didn’t want anything to change,” and in that case, she had nothing to be scared of, as Charles was supportive. Her word choice tells us she was hiding this part of herself and not necessarily looking forward to any consequences that came with telling people. Another instance in which these episodes promotes the truth that coming out is frightening using word choice and tone is when Rosa comes out to her parents. She takes Jake out to dinner and invites her parents without telling him, hurriedly and panickily insisting to Jake that “This is happening and I need you to be here with me and maybe just step in and do it for me,” which is later followed up by a defeated “I thought I was ready to do this but I’m not.” Rosa’s word choice clearly shows that she is uncomfortable and anxious about coming out to her parents, and though a friend’s support would help, it ultimately does not end up making it any easier. Her tone reflects her uneasiness and eventual change of mind in regard to her coming out. Combined, her word choice and tone make it clear that she is not having an easy time doing this and she is concerned about the consequences.

In “Game Night”, the events following Rosa coming out to the squad are shown and these events continue the narrative that coming out can be terrifying. After coming out to her coworkers, Rosa fields numerous questions, including: How long have you known? What made you decide to tell us now? Are you seeing anyone now? And one so “not tasteful” it was not even asked. Questioning Rosa’s personal life is something the squad somehow feels entitled to despite Rosa never being a very open person before. Becoming more open and vulnerable to people whom were usually left in the dark can be terrifying. Rosa responds with short answers and still tries to keep as much private as possible. There is also the possibility that things would not have gone as smoothly as they did for Rosa. Captain Holt says, “I must say, this is going considerably better than when I came out to my colleagues.” This instance also shows the truth that coming out can be scary. Captain Holt’s coworkers were “not, as the kids say, awake” and it showed, because they seemingly did not accept him. The portrayal of both stories here is important and both still continue the narrative that coming out can be scary. Coming out, you kind of never know how people are going to react. There will likely be a barrage of questions that you really do not feel like answering, and then there is also the fact that people could act negatively, sometimes to the point of violence, and you do not know if that is going to happen.

While showing the squad’s reaction, “Game Night” also show Rosa’s family’s reaction to her coming out and follow the events that come afterwards, again continuing the narrative that coming out can be scary. At Rosa’s following family game night, her father tells her “no matter what you call yourself, you still like men. So, you can still get married and have a child.” When Rosa replies she can do that with either a man or a woman, he replies “Yes, but it will be a man because this is just a phase,” and later tells her “There’s no such thing as being bisexual.” This narrative that coming out can be scary continues because Rosa’s parents, the people who created her, are denying that a part of their child exists. And while a person’s sexuality is not all they are, it is still a part of them and for Rosa’s parents to tell her that she is wrong in that or deny that part of her exists proves how scary coming out can be. It is just one more part of your identity, but it is a part of your identity that can completely change how people feel about you. This event has shown things changing, and change is always frightening. Another event that perpetrates this truth is when Rosa’s father comes to talk with her after she has come out to her parents. While her father accepts her, “Mom needs a little more time,” and he feels it would be best to “put game night on hold for a little while.” Rosa revealing a part of her identity has changed her family drastically. Coming out also means facing those changes that you cannot control, yet still happen. This ties into the idea of social truths. For some, especially more recently, it has become a social truth that being a part of the LGBTQ+ community is normal and acceptable. For others, such as Rosa’s traditional and conservative parents, it is a social truth that being a part of that community is wrong. Social truths depend on your audience. Rosa knows this, and that is in part why she is a little less anxious to come out to her coworkers than she is coming out to her parents.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to this narrative that coming out is scary. It is beneficial to those who may not be out to see the reality of what could happen. After Rosa’s family cancels family game night, the squad stands in, creates a comforting community for Rosa, and has their own family game night. I think it is really important to show that some people could need some time and may not react as well as you would like, while others will act as if nothing has changed. Portraying an audience that all received the news well could be creating a false image for viewers of the show which could then lead to a harsh reality shock, so it is beneficial that there is some negative response to Rosa’s coming out. It is also helpful to those who are already out to possibly see their story portrayed in a television show to create a sense of validation. A possible disadvantage is that it does not show what happens if neither your friends nor family accept you, although many people who can control their coming out chose to do so when they feel safe. I do think overall, its largely beneficial to society because it does show both extremes of reality and shows that while some may not accept you, there are many who will. Besides all of this, it is showing that being LGBTQ+ is real and okay. For some reason, having an LGBTQ+ character on a show is still rare, so any normalization of being part of that community is a great thing for the community. There is a community of people that have both accepted and chosen to love Rosa the way she is. Rosa is not portrayed as a bad character or by using stereotypes. They have added another identity to her character, but she is the same Rosa as she was in season one.

Valentine further explains how narratives, particularly for the LGBTQ+ community, work in practice. For a community that has been so excluded and marginalized, a collection of public narratives is so important. Before LGBTQ+ people were telling their stories, there were people who did not know how to tell their stories because they did not have the correct language for it, they did not have the community. That has changed through the production of narratives in the LGBTQ+ community. There are new stories, and new ways of telling those stories. Most basic is the oral history, but it ranges from dramatic monologues to comics to portraits to music. But the presence of all these other types of storytelling is all thanks to the oral history. It created a community that developed in so many ways. Rosa is contributing her story to this community. She is making LGBTQ+ storytelling for other a little bit easier by telling her own story. Captain Holt tells Rosa, “Every time someone steps up and says who they are, the world becomes a better, more interesting place. So, thank you.” Telling her story not only makes the world a better place, but it allows for that to continue. Her story will help others express their stories, continuously making the world a better and more interesting place. It is thanks to people before Rosa coming out that she had the ability to tell and share her story, so it will be thanks to Rosa, as well as people before her, that people will continue to do so. These narratives, especially on television, allow for these stories to not only be given and listened to within the LGBTQ+ community, but with the world. The values and ideas these stories portray are becoming more and more wide-reaching and more and more accepted.

In summary, the two episodes of Brooklyn 99 following Rosa’s coming out share a narrative that coming out can be frightening. Word choice and tone make this obvious in her actual coming out, while the events following make it clear later on. They show both realities of the consequences to coming out while creating a strong sense of community and overall benefit the audience in this way.

“Game Night.” Brooklyn 99: Season 5, written by Justin Noble and Carly Hallam Tosh, directed by Tristram Shapeero, FOX, 2017.

Palczewski, Catherine Helen, et al. Rhetoric in Civic Life. Strata Publishing, 2012.

Valentine, James. “Narrative Acts: Telling Tales of Life and Love with the Wrong Gender.” Forum Qualitative Social Research, vol. 9, no. 2, 2008, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewFile/412/896

“99.” Brooklyn 99: Season 5, written by Andy Bobrow, directed by Payman Benz, FOX, 2017.