lamella320 - Tumblr blog

[lamella320]

*Counterpublics and Microsoft*

In this entry the critical questions being answered are: Why/how is this artifact a counterpublic? What is its rhetorical message? How might it be empowering? How might it be limiting?

The artifact chosen to help further unpack these critical questions is a short Microsoft commercial that premiered during the Super Bowl. The video is called “Microsoft Super Bowl Commercial 2019: We All Win (Extended Version)”. Microsoft uses their technology to create an accessible and inclusive remote for people with physical disabilities, sending a positive, empowering, and heartfelt rhetorical message that is overall extremely productive for society because it acknowledges and works to address a counterpublic in society.

Before addressing how this artifact displays a counterpublic, a public/public sphere must first be defined. According to Jurgen Habermas in his article The Public Sphere: an Encyclopedia Article, he states that a public sphere is a place where public opinion can be formed, it is a representation of the people, and “transmits needs of bourgeois society to state.” (1964) To further explain this definition, the “bourgeois” that was mentioned above also needs to be defined. The bourgeois are private, intelligent individuals who are all a part of society and represent the majority (Habermas 1964). This information will now help build a definition of counterpublics.

To help explain what a counterpublic is, the ideas of Rita Feliski will be addressed. I her book Beyond Feminist Aesthetics, she defines a counterpublic as an “oppositional discursive space.” (1989) She continues by saying counterpublics to not concern themselves with universal ideologies, and instead concern themselves with the liberation of specific and marginalized ideologies (Feliski 1989). To summarize, a counterpublic is a group of underrepresented people, who do not have the same ideas or life as the public. Again, the public sphere is a group who is typically wealthier and hold more power in society than those who are a part of counterpublics. These ideas can now be used to further unpack the artifact chosen.

As stated earlier, the artifact being discussed is a Microsoft commercial called “We All Win”. During the commercial, the stories and perspectives of children with physical disabilities are told, specifically focusing on their abilities to play videogames. Most of the children shown are only able to use one arm/hand, or have difficulty with their entire body. The commercial shows how current remotes hinder their ability to play. They are slower or not as good as children with full mobility because the technology now does not allow them to be as successful because remotes use multiple joysticks and buttons, and for people with disabilities, they are difficult to use and master. These children have been living with these disabilities and have accepted the fact that they may not be as good as those without disabilities, but they continue to play because video games make them feel connected. The parents of the children shown are also brought on camera saying that video games provide their kids with a sense of belonging; “It’s his was of interacting with his friends when he can’t physically otherwise do it” as one parent says. Then, Microsoft’s adaptive controller is introduced. Owen, one of the children in the video, says “What I like about the adaptive controller is now, everyone can play.” With the new controller, these children are now just as fast and just as skilled as people who lack disabilities. These children feel included and feel just like any child their age should. Now everyone can play, and as Microsoft concludes their commercial “When everybody plays, we all win.”

The Microsoft commercial is a great example of a counterpublic, because in this case, the counterpublic is people with physical disabilities. The reason they are a counterpublic is because they are an underrepresented group of people who is often times not considered to be a part of the entire public. People with disabilities do not have the luxuries of those who are fully able, and since the majority of the public lacks disabilities, often times those with disabilities are underrepresented or forgotten about. Not all stores, restaurants, houses, and technology are accessible for the disabled, they are mainly tailored to those who are not disabled. Because people with physical disabilities do not fit into the typical public sphere, which represents the majority of society, they have become and created their own counterpublic. However, Microsoft addresses and supports the counterpublic of people with disabilities. They are able to liberate and bring inclusivity from the physically disabled counterpublic into the general public sphere through their adaptive controller.

The rhetorical message of the Microsoft commercial is very evident, especially through their closing words of “When everybody plays, we all win”. However, if this tagline were not stated in the commercial, the message still would have been conveyed and understood. Microsoft was able to tell a story from multiple perspectives, showing how people with physical disabilities are forgotten about among the general public and cannot play the same way as those without disabilities. They outline their struggles, the worry of all parents on whether their child will fit in, and introduce their inclusive product. With their adaptive controller, the kids can be a “regular” kid, play just as fast, and beat anyone they set their mind to. Their parents are also more at ease because their child is happy and included, which is all any parent wants. Overall, this is a very productive message for society because is shows the importance of inclusion and sends an empowering message to those who struggle to fit into the general public sphere. It shows that if you have a disability, you are not limited, especially with this controller. When other children and adults see this commercial, they know that they can and are like everyone else. They are not different and there is nothing holding them back or getting in the way. It also empowers those without disabilities to become more aware. This commercial opens up a whole new view that people may not even realized. When you are not affected by a disability, or do not know people with disabilities, it becomes easy to forget their lives and struggles. Through this commercial, everyone is able to see where technology and people lack inclusivity, but then it continues to highlight how we can change and become more aware to include all people regardless of their differences. The rhetorical message of “When everybody plays, we all win” is not limiting in any areas, and the commercial as a whole is not limiting. It diversifies how individuals may view people with disabilities and helps rid of any stigmas that they are lesser than or unable to do certain tasks. The only issue they can be seen as limiting is the controller/commercial does not include those with vision or hearing disabilities, so not all disabilities are included. However, this commercial still breaks those limits and stigmas regarding many disabilities and starts with a focus on one problem. It continues to show how technology can be inclusive and diverse for a variety of physical disabilities and people.

Aside from Feliski’s ideas of counterpublics, a reading called Disability in the Digital Age written by Faye Ginsburg, helps further explain the artifact by highlighting how technology does not take into account those with disabilities and continues to segregate them from the majority of society. Ginsburg states “... inequalities in access to digital technologies raise questions regarding how the very design of digital interactivity can ‘disable’ potential users who may have any of a range of impairments from vision or hearing loss to difficulty with fine motor coordination to many other atypical circumstances of mind or body. While the question of accessible design is less frequently discussed than are issues of representation on the screen, work on accessibility in terms of the design of digital media demonstrates how the very materiality of digital media builds in assumptions about embodiment, personhood, and even citizenship.” (2013) Ginsburg addressed the problem Microsoft is trying to solve. Although in this commercial Microsoft only focused on those with motor or physical disabilities, they are taking steps in the right direction by thinking about how accessible or inaccessible their products are. It is one thing to include and represent those with disabilities in media and on the screen, but all aspects of inclusivity are not thought about. People do not realize that although technology can be unifying, it can segregate as well if it is not accessible to everyone. Microsoft recognized this issue and created an adaptable controlled for those with many, if not all, types of physical disabilities due to its customizable nature.

In conclusion, Microsoft addresses a counterpublic, those with physical disabilities, and highlights how they are excluded and continue to struggle through the lack of technological diversity. Microsoft brings in their own solution by selling an adaptable remote and creating a positive, empowering commercial. The commercial works to heighten awareness to the general public as well as include the physically disabled counterpublic, sending an overall productive rhetorical message.

Works Cited

Feliski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Ginsburg, F. (2013). Disability in the Digital Age. In Digital Anthropology (pp. 101-115). A&C Black.

Habermas, J. (1964). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. In New German Critique (3rd ed., pp. 49-55). New German Critique.

Microsoft. (2019, January 31). Microsoft Super Bowl Commercial 2019: We All Win (Extended Version). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YISTzpLXCY

[lamella320]

*What is Rhetoric to Me?*

This past term, I had the pleasure of taking Comm 320, Rhetorical Traditions. During this class we had the opportunity to discuss many theories and forms of rhetoric. This entry will discuss the evolution of my thoughts on rhetoric from the beginning of the course to now. At the start of the term, I honestly had no idea what rhetoric really was. I had not heard the term since senior year of High School, so it was an extremely unfamiliar idea to me. As I stated on the first day of class, rhetoric to me was “...the underlying meaning of what the author writes”. Now, I believe rhetoric to be much more complex and meaningful. Although it is hard to encapsulate all that I have learned and believe about rhetoric into one definition, I would define it as “The way we use words and language to construct social norms and arguments”.

I have always been fascinated about how words have so much meaning, and based off of their construction and tone, it impacts the message. The readings by Gorgias, Fisher, Burke, and Dow and Tonn really helped to explain these ideas and further construct my definition of rhetoric. I won't go into extreme detail on every single writer, but as I have said, each have provided very influential words and have shaped how I view rhetoric.

I will start with Gorgias. The reading by Gorgias was the Encomium of Helen. The overall purpose of this reading was to exemplify Gogias’ power of rhetoric, give his definition of rhetoric, and he wrote it just because he could. The reason I identified so strongly with his ideas of rhetoric is because he shows just how much power our rhetoric holds, as well as the idea of seeing multiple perspectives. Through Gorgias’ rhetoric he was able to show multiple sides of a story and prove Helen’s innocence. When I read this and learned about Gorgias’ rhetoric I was so interested by his concept. He defined just how powerful rhetoric can be and showed how it is used to create and alter different arguments. This is an idea that has stayed with me throughout the entire class, and helped to create my definition as it is today.

Another idea and theorist that really stuck with me was Fisher and his idea of narratives. Fisher discusses narrative and rational paradigms and defines a narrative paradigm as people being storytellers who create/control their own framework. Rational paradigm is the idea that people are rational, make arguments based off of data, and look at different perspectives. Fisher’s ideas helped to construct my current definition of rhetoric by providing me a framework to view social constructs. Narratives are the basis for social constructs because it is how society and groups create ideas, discuss, and later accept them as truth. Without narratives being used and analyzed through a rhetorical lense, we would lack different perspectives and their origin. This again, adds to my definition about how we use words and ideas to construct norms and arguments.

Later in class, we were introduced to Burke. Although I was warned his writing and ideas could become confusing or difficult, I found his ideas to be some of the most insightful. We had two readings by Burke: On Symbols and Society and Burke’s Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle. Although I found Burke’s Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle to help add to how powerful rhetoric is and how it can go undetected, I drew more of my definition from On Symbols and Society. A quote that had a lot of impact on my understanding of rhetoric was “There is an implied sense of negativity in the ability to use words at all. For to use them properly, we must know that they are not the things they stand for.” This quote gives great perspective on how we use words and know their meaning. Through dissecting this quote further, we can learn that when we choose to use certain words, we use them intentionally and with the purpose of also knowing what they do not mean. There is direct motive when choosing specific words. For example- when we use love, we not only understand what love means and what it is trying to convey but also what it does not mean. We know love does not mean hate, or disgust, or even like or indifferent. When placing words into a more analytic and purposeful perspective, it makes you realize even more how important and impactful word choice is. Burke’s idea helped me to see the significance of one word, which is another reason why I included the phrase “The way we use words and language..” in my definition.

One of the last readings I want to address is Feminine Style by Dow and Tonn. The overall article discusses what feminine rhetoric is, and defines it as more than just rhetoric used by females, but instead a legitimate rhetorical strategy. The main ideas I acquired from this article helped create the last portion of my definition which was the “constructing social norms”. Dow and Tonn were able to use speeches from politician Ann Richards as well as their own ideas to show how feminine rhetoric is nontraditional, uses personal anecdotes, family values, self-awareness, and introspection. They also define masculine rhetoric and how it is not strictly just for males, as well as how feminine rhetoric is not strictly for females. This is where the concept of constructing social norms comes into play, and why it was added to my definition. I felt like the ideas of feminine style really helped demonstrate how people are so quick to define someone as male or female, and then correlate how they talk to only being “for” one gender. But that is not the case, we have just been raised in a society that creates divisions and easily categorizes. However, if we were to analyze how genders/people speak as just a rhetorical tool and one unrelated to gender, we would have a completely different perspective. This goes to show how rhetoric is used to “construct social norms” which is something I thought was very important to include in my own definition.

After constructing my own definition of rhetoric, I have been able to apply it to my own rhetorical artifact as well. My definition of rhetoric can be seen through a picture I took in Florence, Italy. It is one of my favorite pictures I have taken because of the near perfect reflection of the bridge and buildings on the water. This picture shows my definition of rhetoric (“The way we use words and language to construct social norms and arguments”) because I think that the reflection on the water is the overall product/argument created based off of the words and language we use, which is the non-reflected image of the buildings. We use our language and rhetoric to create these reflections of our own reality. Another thing to note is that there are minor differences in the reflection, but if you were to turn this photo upside down, it is hard to tell what the original direction is. This applies to the idea of constructing social norms because a lot of times we don’t even realize where our constructs originate from, and what is really “true” or original. Overall, I believe my definition properly addressed the rhetorical artifact I chose because the reflection as well as what composes/creates the reflection shows how rhetoric and word choice can create/reflect our reality and social norms.

By the end of Comm 320 and this post, I have been able to reflect on what I have learned and my most important rhetorical values. Through most of our readings, but more specifically Gorgias, Fisher, Burke, and Dow and Tonn, I was able to construct my own definition of rhetoric that is much more specific than just “...the underlying meaning of what the author writes”. Now, I can confidently and proudly define rhetoric as “The way we use words and language to construct social norms and arguments”, with proper evidence and examples to support it. This is truly what rhetoric means to me in its best, and most purest from.  

Works Cited 

Gorgias, MacDowell, D. M. (1982). Encomium of Helen. Bristol [Gloucestershire: Bristol Classical].

Burke, K. (2005). The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle". In Readings in Rhetorical Criticism (3rd ed.). State College, Pennsylvania: Strata Publishing.

Dow, B. J., & Tonn, M. B. (1993). "Feminine Style" and Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 286-302.

Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1-22

[lamella320]

*Unilateral Arguments in the Peanuts*

In this entry I will be discussing the critical questions: 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?

The artifact I chose to help further unpack this question is a short Peanuts comic. In the Peanuts comic I chose, Lucy displays a unilateral argument when talking to Charlie Brown through her abrupt response which immediately stops the conversation. This leads to many negative implications on how people perceive discussions about mental health/depression. Through Lucy altering her rhetoric and taking a bilateral approach to this discussion, Charlie Brown would have received more help in regards to his mental health.

Before analyzing the artifact, some background needs to be addressed. In case the Peanuts are unfamiliar, it is an American comic strip written by Charles M. Schultz and is composed of many influential characters. A few of the main characters are Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Lucy, Woodstock, and Linus. The overall storyline of the Peanuts tell the stories and interactions between these young children where parents are never really around or thought of as important. The two characters shown in the artifact I chose are Charlie Brown and Lucy. Throughout the series of comics we learn that Charlie Brown lacks confidence, is nervous, and rarely succeeds, but despite all odds he continues to try his best. Lucy, on the other hand, is seen as a very bossy and opinionated character throughout the entire comic series.

The overall story of the artifact I chose, which is shown above, is that Lucy has opened a small psychiatric stand where she charges five cents for every piece of advice she gives. Charlie Brown then comes up to her, says he has deep feelings of depression, and seeks her advice on the matter. Lucy’s only response is “Snap out of it! Five cents, please.”

Through Lucy’s rhetoric in her response, it can be said that she displays a unilateral argument and not a bilateral argument. The definitions of a unilateral and bilateral argument can be found in an article called Introduction to Rhetorical Theory by Gerard A Hauser. Hauser states that a bilateral argument is “an argument that avoids tricks, deception, and falsehoods”, uses data to support their argument, and provides the opportunity to question and refute (1986). He then defines a unilateral argument as an argument that “attempts to elude critical inspection” uses “role specific communication, such as directives from superiors to subordinates” and “denies the other party equal opportunity for response” (1986). The reason Lucy’s response exhibits unilateral communication, as opposed to bilateral, is because she is so blatant with her response and demands immediate payment. She provides no chance for Charlie Brown to ask questions or further discuss her decision, which I’m sure provided him with no insight. Another reason that shows Lucy used unilateral communication is the fact that she also eludes critical inspection due to her quick and immediate response of payment. Lucy was so demanding, so it can become overwhelming for someone to continue to argue or question further. When someone has such a strong and demanding personality, like Lucy’s, people tend to become more reserved, especially Charlie Brown. He is often nervous and lacks confidence, and when it comes to strong personalities he tends to avoid conflict and give in. So, with the combination of Lucy’s strong response, and her knowledge of how timid Charlie Brown is, she purposely leaves minimal room for critical inspection or response to her decision. There is also no proof or evidence for the reasoning of “Snap out of it”, which is another factor of unilateral arguments. This response of “Snap out of it” provides nothing beneficial to Charlie Brown, especially because mental health and depression are not easily fixed by just changing your mindset in five minutes. Mental health is much more complicated and Charlie Brown was inquiring for some serious help. Although going to a fellow child, who is nowhere near an expert, is not the best person to seek help from, Lucy is still given an opportunity to aid Charlie Brown even if it is just listen to what he is experiencing.

If Lucy were to have used bilateral communication in her interaction with Charlie Brown, the conversation would have been much more productive. As stated above, bilateral arguments use facts to support their claims and provide the opportunity for discussion. If these tools were utilized between Lucy and Charlie Brown, more opinions and thoughts would have been mentioned and as a result, Charlie Brown may have been provided some relief for his depressive thoughts. Again, by making this conversation more bilateral, Charlie Brown would have more time to fully explain his feelings and receive more honest and developed feedback from Lucy if she were to more understanding and open (even if the feedback would be from an inexperienced child).

The rhetoric of this artifact can be improved through more than just a bilateral argument. By altering their word choice and establishing ethos, patients are more willing to discuss their issues with doctors and have a conversation. These points are discussed in an article written by Susan L. Popham titled Hybrid Disciplinary: Metis and Ethos in Juvenile Mental Health Electronic Records. Through her article, Popham discusses how doctors can alter their rhetoric and use ethos to either establish an observing, scientific persona or someone who shifts blame on the patient or their surroundings. Popham describes scientific ethos as “rhetorically constructed to ascribe to an appeal to a collective authority, an authority based in logic and empiricism.” (2014) Medical professionals are able to establish their ethos, or credibility, by appealing to other credible sources/audiences. Their credibility is further established through their use of logical and empirical values that can be proven. By doing this, patients, and other medical professionals, are more likely to trust them and further build relationships. Popham also states that through medical professional’s observations and word choice, they are able to control their rhetoric and better understand the client. “.... the counselor/authors partially construct their identities as objective, neutral, and removed observers of facts and evidence. They seem to refrain from making judgments about the clients’ or family members’ psyches, despite their training and partial workplace identity as psychotherapists. Moreover, they use empirical evidence from the client meeting to help them make the most basic of claims about their clients’ thoughts and emotions.” (2014) This idea goes hand in hand with creating ethos, and is basically another method of how ethos is further established. Although it is easy to make judgements about patients based off of their family or personal life, medical professionals (if they want to be as unbiased and helpful as possible), will not only use this information, but conduct and gather empirical values as well. By collecting such information, a decision about someone's mental health, or health in general, is sure to be thorough and well discussed.

Based off of the current interaction displayed between Lucy and Charlie Brown, the information previously discussed can be used to help create a more productive conversation. A proper conversation would be a bilateral argument, that established credibility through logic, reasoning and facts, and the diagnosis or advice is mutually understood and determined with evidence. Because Lucy is not an established medical professional, and in fact has no medical background at all, it is understandable why she responded to Charlie Brown so bluntly and unilaterally. However, you don’t necessarily have to be a medical professional to properly address issues regarding mental health. Lucy could have improved her rhetoric by creating a more reciprocative environment. Instead of initially stating “Snap out of it!” and demanding immediate payment, she could have questioned him further with why he feels that way, how often, and even conduct tests to help as well. Not only that, but she could establish her credibility by telling Charlie Brown her qualifications. If she were to admit she were not qualified, it would further their discussion of having Charlie Brown possibly seek more professional help. All of these factors would create a bilateral discussion, and lead to a more productive result regarding mental health and how it should/shouldn’t be addressed to better the situation.

In conclusion, the artifact discussed is an example of a unilateral argument. Lucy is very direct and gives Charlie Brown no room for discussion or questions. However, if Lucy were to create a bilateral argument, establish ethos, and ask proper questions to come to a proper conclusion; the overall rhetoric of the artifact would be improved.

Works Cited

Hauser, G. A. (1986). Introduction to Rhetorical Theory.New York: Harper & Row.

Popham, S. L. (2014). Hybrid Disciplinarity: Métis and Ethos in Juvenile Mental Health Electronic Records. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.44.3.f

Schultz, C. M. (n.d.). Peanuts [Cartoon]. In Https://www.lifebrander.nl/blog/tips/praten-helpt/.

[lamella320]

*The Rhetoric of John Mulaney*

In this entry I will be discussing the critical questions: What is an example of an artifact that fits Isocrates’ criteria of good rhetoric (Kairos, appropriateness, originality)? Is this example of “good rhetoric” ethical/productive for democracy/society?

The artifact I chose to analyze to help further unpack the critical questions above was a short comedy monologue by John Mulaney on Saturday Night Live. The video can be found online, and is called “John Mulaney Stand-Up Monologue- SNL”. John Mulaney is a well known comedian who is an example of “good rhetoric” (in the eyes of Isocrates) and is a positive influence on society because he uses appropriate examples and original jokes throughout his introduction of Saturday Night Live.

To give a short overview, Saturday Night Live (SNL) is a show on NBC that has celebrities who host each episode. Each episode includes comedy sketches, satirical news and digital shorts (Saturday Night Live, 2017). John Mulaney is a stand up comedian, actor, and writer who has worked on SNL in the past and has produced multiple comedy specials. For my artifact, John Mulaney is now hosting an SNL episode, and as a host he has to do an introduction. Since Mulaney is a comedian, he decided to perform a short comedy set to kick off the show.

Before Mulaney’s set can be analyzed, it needs to be addressed how it will be analyzed. This week the ideas of Isocrates will be used, specifically those found in Against the Sophists. Throughout Against the Sophists, Isocrates criticizes Philosophers and Sophists and identifies his own opinion on how rhetoric should be used as well as taught. Isocrates’ main teaching philosophy was to teach experiences, invest in a educational program as opposed to a persuasive program, and to also teach people how to be political leaders. This leads into what Isocrates also views as “good rhetoric” and those criteria are: “reflect the circumstances (kairoi), propriety (to prepon), and originality” (Mirhady & Too, 2000). In other words, they need to have good timing, appropriateness, and originality. If a speaker or speech uses all three of these correctly, then they are considered to have used good rhetoric.

In order to determine if John Mulaney’s SNL monologue was good rhetoric, we need to compare it to Isocrates’ standards as mentioned above. The first characteristic to discuss will be kairoi, which is speaking in a timely fashion or in the right circumstances. Overall, Mulaney’s timing is very appropriate. His comedy skit is a great way to introduce the show and it is not out of place, especially considering SNL is largely a comedy show as well. He does not interrupt anyone, he politely accepts the microphone, and properly ends his speech. Mulaney does not take too much time, his introduction is only about seven and a half minutes, and overall his kairos was accomplished very well.

Another form of good rhetoric is if the monologue has propriety, or if it is appropriate for the audience and for the event. Throughout John Mulaney’s set, he never uses any inappropriate language or dirty jokes. The worst thing he says is “Fourteen years ago I smoked cocaine the day before my college graduation” (Saturday Night Live, 2018). Although SNL does include foul language, the show does not tolerate the “F” word and a few other profane words. The fact that Mulaney respects the rules of SNL by not saying anything extremely inappropriate and also maintains his own composure with his jokes is very appropriate. He says respectful but also funny skits that the audience enjoys. Again, because he is on a comedy show, the fact that he is making jokes also fits well with the show as a whole. Mulaney’s first joke is also very appropriate for the event because it ties in an introduction, as well as SNL. This was the joke about Salt-N-Pepa: “Thank you, it is great to be here hosting Saturday Night Live. That is a very weird thing to say, I was a writer here… and to be hosting here is just surreal... I get to introduce the musical guest, the best intro by the way, I ever saw by an SNL host with a musical guest was Sir Patrick Stewart.. And this is how he did it ‘Ladies and Gentlemen, Salt and PEPA!’”(Saturday Night Live, 2018). Mulaney continues the joke a little further, and that was his first way to break the ice on the show. It was a very appropriate way, because as stated above, it brought everything full circle from giving a monologue on SNL, introducing a musical guest, and bringing up his past at SNL.

According to Isocrates, the last requirement for good rhetoric is originality. Overall Mulaney’s content was very original based off of the laughter he received by the audience and overall subject matter. It was clear that the audience enjoyed the show because they were consistently laughing at and with Mulaney. Laughter is always a sign of a good and original comedian because it shows the audience is enjoying the show. A specific joke that displays his originality and enjoyment of the audience was about a gazebo and he says: “There was a plaque on the gazebo and it said ‘This gazebo was made in 1863’. That’s in the middle of the civil war, and they built a gazebo?!” (Saturday Night Live, 2018). He continues the joke by referencing an imaginary man name Josiah and his proposition to create this gazebo. It’s a great narrative Mulaney is able to tell all based off of his one experience in this gazebo. Not many people would make a gazebo such an experience, many people would have overlooked it. But, again, Mulaney creates a very original take on something as simple as a gazebo. All of his jokes are very relatable, but not typical or overused which makes them very unique and original to hear.

Through this analysis of John Mulaney’s monologue, it can be confidently stated that in the eyes of Isocrates, he would have been seen as using “good rhetoric”. Although this may seem like an insignificant monologue on a typical American comedy show, it is still a productive message for society. He shows the bright sides of life and highlights the quirks of humanity, but also accepts the fact that we are not perfect and have our flaws. Even with our flaws, we can still find a way to make each other laugh and learn to accept them. Society needs to have an outlook more like that of Mulaney because we would live an overall more joyous and carefree life full of laughing at our quirks and accepting ourselves. He teaches a valuable lesson about the realities of life and relates it to things we all have dealt with or will deal with at some points in our lives. Not only that, but Mulaney is a very intelligent man who thinks through his jokes. He plans them so each are appropriate and very few of his jokes teach a negative lesson. It is an example of how comedians can be appropriate for all ages and be an overall positive influence on society and the public, which is why Mulaney’s monologue is a productive message for society.

Isocrates is not the only person with an idea of good rhetoric. There are also ways for comedians specifically to show good rhetoric through their relationship with the audience and the challenges they face without a strict script. Steve Granelli addresses this idea in his article about stand-up comedy and how narratives and connections are built throughout a performance. Granelli suggests that a strong relationship is built with the audience based off of narratives “The ability to recreate experiences through narrative with relatable circumstances infuses the storyteller with the power to establish resonance with audiences” (2017).  Through Granelli's ideas, it can also be said that a comedian has and uses good rhetoric if they are able to connect to the audience using narratives. Narratives are also a form of powerful and strong rhetoric, which is evident in John Mulaney’s monologue on SNL. Not only is his whole monologue a narrative, but each joke is a narrative within itself. Bringing it back to what Granelli said, which was that comedians “recreate experiences through narrative with relatable circumstances”, there is one specific joke of Mulaney’s that strong emphasizes this point. The joke is his second of the monologue: “I don’t like any new songs because every new song is about how tonight's the night, and how we only have tonight…. That’s some nineteen year old garbage. I want to write songs for people in their thirties called ‘Tonight’s no good how about Wednesday? Oh you’re in Houston on Wednesday, oh okay well how about we don’t see each other for six months and it doesn't matter at all’”(Saturday Night Live, 2018). This joke is extremely relatable because everyone experiences this as they get older. Plans fall through and it’s difficult, but it’s something we all go through and he creates a great narrative to go along with it. Using Granelli’s ideas of comedians being able to create a strong and relatable narrative is another example as to why John Mulaney has good rhetoric.

In summary, John Mulaney’s SNL monologue was filled with great rhetoric by many different definitions. In the eyes of Isocrates he would’ve used good rhetoric because he had great timing, and appropriate and original jokes. He can also be considered to have used good rhetoric because he told a strong and relatable narrative through his entire monologue. Through all of his good rhetoric, it can confidently be said that John Mulaney is a positive and productive influence on society, especially in his SNL monologue.

Works Cited

Granelli, S. (2017). “This Is Totally Inappropriate”: Louis C.K.’s Use of Narrative to Build Dialogic Connections. Kaleidoscope: A Graduate Journal of Qualitative Communication Research, 16, 61–70. Retrieved from http://fulla.augustana.edu:2056/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=126156429&site=ehost-live

Mirhady, D., & Too, Y. L. (Trans.). (2000, January). Isocrates I. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Saturday Night Live. (2017, November 02). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Saturday-Night-Live

Saturday Night Live. (2018, April 14). John Mulaney Stand-Up Monologue - SNL. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5_JrcSTcU

[lamella320]

*Rhetoric as a Narrative*

In this entry I will be discussing the critical questions: What narrative(s) does this artifact tell about me or U.S culture or a certain group of people? What truths does it promote and what truths does it limit or ignore (who does it include and exclude)? Overall, is this narrative positive or negative for society?

The artifact I decided to analyze to further discuss the critical questions above is a YouTube video from the channel Cut. The video is called Divide Us Into Democrats & Republicans | Lineup | Cut. Here is a direct link to the video, which is also cited below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMsuvEGnvPw .This video tells the narrative of a typical American and their political views based off of stereotypes as well as personal opinions. Although this video exemplifies stereotypes Americans hold towards other Americans and their political views, it ultimately tells a positive narrative of how we can’t judge someone based off of minimal information and regardless of our political views we are just people.

Cut is a YouTube channel whose tagline and purpose is “Small questions have powerful effects when they go viral. Cut spreads stories for fun, for serious, and for real- bringing the internet together one awkward moment at a time” (2018). Their videos have various content and structure, but their most common series is one that deals with 5-6 individuals (which I will reference as categorizers), categorizing or matching people to certain ideas or things. For example, some videos are about matching the owner to their dog, or who does drag, or who is the best kisser? In the video I chose for my artifact, the creators asked four categorizers to guess if nine strangers were either Democrats or Republicans.Throughout the video each categorizer talks for a few minute to each stranger and based off of observations and small conversation, they are then categorized into Democrats or Republicans. By the end of the video, each stranger then reveals their true political stance, and gets a chance to talk about who they are and why they are apart of each party, as well as why people may have categorized them correctly or incorrectly.

There are many narratives riddled through the Cut video, as well as the video in its entirety being a narrative. To start off, narrative needs to be defined. Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch (2012) define a narrative as something that describes an event, often implies causation, and engages the interest of an audience. Narratives also contain stories, characters, themes, and cause and effect. The Cut video, “Divide Us Into Democrats & Republicans | Lineup | Cut”, is a narrative within itself. The overall narrative of the video is the idea that we are not defined by stereotypes, and we are constantly categorized by people. This is shown through the development of the strangers as well as how the viewpoints of the categorizers were changing. By the end of the video, each of the categorizers found themselves to have learned a lot and even if they did not necessarily agree with different viewpoints, they still learned from it. As Karlos said, who was one of the categorizers, “You don’t have to agree but you have to respect each other”. Not only is this his specific narrative for the video, and his point of view, but it also outlines the whole video very well. It creates a unifying narrative, told by one of the characters themselves.

There was also the narrative of how people are categorized, which was mentioned shortly above. Throughout the video, all of the categorizers were making assumptions based off of just a few short sentences or even solely based off of attire. The categorizers filled in their own narratives based off of their experiences with Republicans and Democrats and typically based their decision off of that. Some quotes or moments that stood out as telling a narrative was when Dae grouped someone as a Republican largely just because of their shoes, or their opinion about Taylor Swift. Something even as simple as age when Bjork asked a young woman how old she was, and she responded with 18, her first answer was Democrat. In the case of Bjork, she had created her own narrative based off of age and that’s all she needed to fill in the rest of her story. A negative narrative also could be told against Democrats as displayed by this video. At the end of the video, Bjork says “I need a drink after this.. If you guys want to come you’re invited”. When she extends the invitation, she only turns around to the group of Democrats to her right. Now this could be on the account of Cut and how they edited the video. Maybe they cut out Bjork looking at the Republicans as well, or maybe she really did just extend the invitation to the Democrats, who she identifies with. Regardless, the narrative was framed/ created so it may seem as Democrats can be very exclusive. It can also show that American parties in general are very exclusive towards one another, and typically stay within their own party. This is solely just one example, but it explains how one person can create a stereotype or a negative viewpoint on an entire group. This can be viewed as a negative narrative for society. Many people I do not want America to be viewed as excluding others, especially other Americans, just because of their political party or general point of view. Although this was only one example, a lot of what was said during the video could paint American parties in a negative light, and give negatives impacts on both political parties. After this video, Democrats can be seen as judgemental and one sided, however, the narrative was also created that way. They had no categorizers who were Republican, so we did not get to see how Republicans would question or categorize people. This decision was up to Cut, and they decided how they wanted to tell their narrative.

There were some positives that came from this narrative as well. Some positives would be that it informed the public about different parties in America, and also the idea that although someone is a Republican or a Democrat, does not mean they fully agree with each side. The video showed that some people were Democratic and still believed in gun control and that people can always change their political party based off of current politics. I feel like these are positive narratives to tell about American politics because it shows we are constantly changing and don’t always fit with what is thought of as the “norm”. This also brings it back to the idea that we are more than just Americans, but human. The whole point of these videos is not just to educate us on politics, but to educate us about human nature. Because of this point, I do think that overall this artifact tells a positive narrative about the importance of understanding our stereotypes and judgements, but still being able to learn from them and become a better person as a result.

An article by Fisher can help further describe narratives and dissect the artifact. One of the main topics Fisher brings up is the idea of narrative paradigm, specifically narrative world paradigm. Fisher explains the narrative world paradigm as: “..human being beings as storytellers indicates the general form of all symbol composition; it hold that symbols are created and communicated ultimately as stories meant to give order to human experience” (1984). To summarize, narrative world paradigm creates people as storytellers and they interpret their own meaning from their own framework. When first watching the video made by Cut, it was unclear if this artifact displayed a narrative world paradigm. Initially it could be seen as a rational world paradigm, which is where people are more rational and make arguments based off of data. However, the more of the video that is seen, you realize there is much more bias involved and the categorizers in the video were not very rational. As mentioned above, Dae based one decision off of the shoes the man was wearing. That was not rational at all, and used no real logic. Instead it was based off of a symbol, stereotype, and/or personal experience, which is very much an example of a narrative world paradigm. This may seem like a negative narrative to obtain from the article, but the end result and final story told by the artifact is ultimately a positive narrative that should be told.

In summary, the artifact discussed did enforce stereotypes and enforced a narrative of Republicans and Democrats, but overall had a positive narrative. It told an overarching narrative of how although we may use stereotypes to categorize people, once we go beneath the surface of looks and simple questions we discover a lot more about who people are, as well as ourselves.

Works Cited

Cut. (2018, November 6). Divide Us Into Democrats & Republicans | Lineup | Cut [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMsuvEGnvPw&t=31s

Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1-22.

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