marcatalano25-blog

[marcatalano25-blog]

*The Feminine Style*

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

To investigate these questions, I examined the Always #LikeAGirl commercial campaign as my rhetorical artifact. The commercial essentially “Rewrites the Rules” or undoes the gender norm that doing something “like a girl” correlates as a negative description. The Always #LikeAGirl campaign pushes back against the gender norm in a productive and ethical way as it persuades society that “like a girl” can mean something powerful and positive. 

The Always #LikeAGirl commercial was a campaign done in the summer of 2014 that depicted a narrative in which showed “like a girl” as a more encouraging and confident adjective rather than it’s usual negative connotation. For those who do not know, always is a brand of feminine hygiene products who has been around since 1983. They began this campaign and used the tagline of “Rewrite the Rules, always” in order to help with girls and women’s confidence levels throughout all of life, but especially during puberty. The brand says that using “like a girl” is insulting to adolescent-aged girls and needs to be stopped or at least made into a better thing, hence the “rewrite the rules” addition. 

Butler (2004) explains that gender has been used as a way to know what you can, cannot, should or should not do or be able to do and how these certain set of “rules” so to speak are used to recognize one’s identity. The author says specifically, “If my doing is dependent on what is done to me or, rather, the ways in which I am done by norms, then the possibility of my persistence as an “I” depends upon my being able to do something with what is done with me”(Butler 2004). The take away from this is that there are potential limits as to which a person lives with depending on their gender. In the commercial campaign, always tries to deconstruct or rewrite these. For example, in the video, a series of questions are asked that follow the suit of doing an activity followed by “...like a girl”. When first asked to run like a girl, people demonstrated a loose and un-athletic looking type run. This norm is done to the self and has been for so long that it has been instilled in society as a habit. Butler then goes on to say, “...the “I” that I am finds itself at once constituted by norms and dependent on them but also endeavors to live in ways that maintain a critical and transformative relation to them...” (Butler 2004). From this, it is clear that certain norms are a way of identifying which is crucial. The commercial campaign challenges this by pointing out the complications and consequences including a lack of confidence as a girl which then transforms the way people answer the question for a second time around. The rhetoric used within the artifact is framed as a more persuasive, yet positive combat to general gender norms when it comes to being a girl or women and doing activities that both genders take part in. This frame paints a more confident-based and impactful picture in which girls can look up to and transform because. 

That being said, there are both advantages and disadvantages to this. For advantages, it definitely tries to create an ethical and productive way of transforming the view on what it means to be a girl or women and do something in that nature. The campaign takes a somewhat hard time and makes it easier in a way by instilling higher confidence levels and such. The campaign description says, “...since the rest of puberty’s really no picnic either, it’s easy to see what a huge impact it can have on a girl’s self-confidence.” Meaning that erasing this stigma around being a girl can make this transition a lot easier on girls who are already trying to figure themselves out while going through this life change. The disadvantage of this could be viewed as taking the identity and self away from the saying even though it has been conducted in a negative contorting way. The article by Butler (2004) states, “with becoming undone altogether, when it no longer incorporates the norm in such a way that makes this “I” fully recognizable”. The correlation to this is that the gender norm being taken away or reconstructed can then confuse or make blurry the lines between genders. However, that being said, the blurred lines between what gender is which in this specific case is not unethical nor a negative thing. The thought behind girls not being able to do or perform in the greatness in which boys do is not only false, but harmful to confidence and stature. That is why the advantages of outweigh the possible disadvantage of blurring gender lines. 

Another source shows this outweighing first hand. Both male and female genders are victims to gender norms that could be harmful to someone’s livelihood as well. For example, James McDonald (2012) further explains how gender norms can put restrictions on a person to fulfill their career goals such as males becoming nurses. Within the study, McDonald says, “...male and female nursing students do gender by conforming to dominant gender norms, as well as undo gender by resisting these norms.” He further explains how this is a difficult task and has been for quite some time. The undoing of this norm has been a long and tough road, but progress is being made little by little. This relates to what Butler (2004) was saying in a way by somewhat comparing gender norms to just comfortable and habitual acts. This also ties into the rhetorical artifact chosen by changing the culture around a profession which is relatable to changing the culture around a saying. Both are transforming the view on a gender and their ability to do something that is originally said to be taboo or not up to the standards of the “original gender” who has been doing that action. 

In summary, the gender norm being undone within this commercial campaign artifact is both productive and ethical.  The Always #LikeAGirl campaign pushes against a certain gender norm that can be detrimental to society and girls specifically. The deconstructing of this norm is not a bad thing, rather, a good transformation into an even more effective confidence-building norm of “like a girl” being a positive and endearing adjective. Butler (2004) states that the undoing of a gender norm can be a positive thing when it transforms into something greater because if not, then we tend to look at who is worth it and who is not. Sometimes we even fall into who is human and who is not based on past revelations. It is also apparent in the article of ______. All in all, the rhetorical artifact chosen, Always #LikeAGirl campaign, is both ethical and productive in it’s mission to undo a gender norm harmful to society. 

References:

Butler, J. (2004). “Introduction: Acting in concert.” In Undoing gender (pp. 1-4). New York: Routledge.

Mcdonald, J. (2012). Conforming to and Resisting Dominant Gender Norms: How Male and Female Nursing Students Do and Undo Gender. Gender, Work & Organization,20(5), 561-579. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00604.x

Always. (2014, June 26). Retrieved February 10, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs 

[marcatalano25-blog]

*What is Rhetoric to Me?*

In Comm 320, Rhetorical Traditions, throughout the ten week term I learned about many theories of rhetoric from many different theorist. This essay demonstrates how my definition of rhetoric shifted from the beginning to the end of the course. “In the beginning of the term, I was not sure what to think about the term rhetoric in general. I did not know how to describe it or even begin think about using it with the only definition I knew being rhetoric is everything.” At first, I stated that rhetoric was simply the diction used within speeches or writings. Now, I believe rhetoric to be that, but so much more than that. “Rhetoric to me is now something that is used to effectively explain thoughts, persuade ideas or lead people on behalf of the information given with the use of certain diction, syntax or art that carries out opinions and messages.” 

The evolution of my definition of rhetoric took basically a total of ten weeks. Through all the different theorists we learned about, I developed a new version of my understanding of rhetoric; however, there are a few theorists and writers that stood out the most in terms of what rhetoric truly and ethically is. These theorists and pieces include Narratives written by Palczewski, Ice and Fritch, Making Commitments Through Rhetoric by Hauser, and Undoing Gender by Butler. There are specifics about each person and article that influenced my definition of what rhetoric is and the journey in which I took to get to this final point! 

In order to properly depict how my understanding of rhetoric has developed, I will follow a timeline regarding which articles were read in which order and how each one contributed. From using this method, we’ll start with Narratives which was written by Palczewski, Ice and Fritch. The authors of this piece showed us that rhetoric can be narratives where they form memories and feelings based on events and how they share them. The part that really influenced my understanding was when the authors brought up “public memory”. According to the article, “Public memory is a particular type of memory that combines the memory of the dominant culture and fragments of marginalized groups’ memories, and enables a public to make sense of the past, present, and future” (Palczewski et al 2012). This specific portion enabled me to add how rhetoric effectively persuades ideas or leads people on behalf of the information given and how to my overall definition of rhetoric. 

Another theorist that has given me more insight into what truly is rhetoric is Hauser who wrote the Making Commitments Through Rhetoric. Throughout this piece, Hauser discusses the “self”, what forms it can take and what it can add to the meaning and usage of rhetoric. Hauser goes more in depth and discusses the four ways the self can be manipulated. This part of his piece is what convinced me to tweak my definition a little more as well. In the article, Hauser says “by reflecting, evoking, maintaining, and destroying a self- rhetorical tactics may either bring the self into the risk of reconsidering matters in which it has an interest or seal the self from consciously reflecting on these interests and thereby risking manipulation” (Hauser 1986). The way Hauser talks about the self really sparked the idea of bringing in interests and how that influences the diction used and motives behind what is said. This then prompted me to enhance my definition by adding how rhetoric uses certain diction, syntax or art to carry out opinions or messages. 

Lastly, the other article that really stood out to me while defining the term “rhetoric” throughout these ten weeks was the article of Undoing Gender by Butler. Within this article, Butler talks about how gender normalities are a huge component in how we view, determine and are effected by rhetoric. This type of rhetoric usually correlates into establishing social normalities which again, ties into the overall definition in the grand scheme of things. Within the article, there is a lot of interesting quotes; however, the one that was thought-provoking enough was when Butler said, “...normative conception if gender can undo one’s personhood...” then went on to say also, “...becoming undone can undo a prior conception...” (Butler 2004). The depicting of a normative conception becoming undone in both positive and negative ways allowed me to further describe rhetoric. This pushed me to add that rhetoric also explains thoughts and just reiterated the rest of the definition! 

Throughout these last ten weeks, with the help of many examples, discussions in class, thought-provoking critical and discussion questions and these theorists, my definition of rhetoric has transformed and developed into a deeper, more complex understanding. In the end, my definition of true, ethical and overall best rhetoric is something that effectively explain thoughts, persuade ideas or lead people on behalf of the information given with the use of certain diction, syntax or art that carries out opinions and messages. Rhetoric is not something that has to follow a certain suit or form; however, to be useful, it needs to uphold these qualities. 

References:

Palczewski, Ice, & Fritch. (2012). Narrative. Forms of Symbolic Action,117-146.

Hauser. (1986). Making Commitments Through Rhetoric. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory,44-55.

Butler. (2004). Undoing Gender. Acting in Concert.

[marcatalano25-blog]

*Rhetoric as Division*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: How is Burke’s notion of the unification device evident in this artifact? How are each of the components at play? How is this productive and/or unproductive (ethical/unethical) for society? 

To properly investigate these critical questions, I examined the statement given by President Obama following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, or known as the Sandy Hook shooting. I am using this as my rhetorical artifact because it instills a sense of community and President Obama calls for unity following this tragedy. The statement specifically calls for unity of parents to mourn for the parents who were directly affected by this event and unity of parents everywhere to stand up and not allow this awful experience to occur again. This artifact shows the unification devices of inborn dignity, symbolic rebirth, and commercial use throughout; however, does not provide a projection device. The speech does not sugarcoat and does not provide America any scapegoat for why this has happened. The devices are shown by telling America it is our responsibility to come together to make a change, by saying as a country it is our time to take “meaningful action” in order to move forward and sells the idea that America as a whole is at fault and should use the “guilt” as motivation to stand up for change. This use of the unification devices is productive and ethical based on the realistic appeal, personal appeal, leadership appeal and lack of sugarcoating provided. 

Going more in depth on the artifact and the context behind it, President Obama gave a speech on December 14th, 2012 following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School which resulted in 28 people dead including the shooter himself (CBS News 2012). This shooting was not the first mass shooting at a school and will go on to not be the last. The emotion behind America after this shooting was undeniable. President Obama then gave a statement the same day the shooting occurred and emotions were still raw. He talked about how he felt, how America feels or should feel, the next steps and the mourning that should be done. His statement overall was gloomy, but real based on his emotions following the event. 

The article, The Rhetoric of Hitler’s “Battle” written by Kenneth Burke, suggests that rhetoric used in speeches or conversations from leaders can entice unification amongst the society that can be manipulative or negative (Burke 2005). Burke specifically talks about how Hitler’s Mein Kampf was a red flag as to which he used rhetoric against the Jewish people and their ties to the fall of the economy to his advantage. As previously briefly stated, Burke describes the unification devices used as inborn dignity, a projection device, symbolic rebirth and commercial use. The inborn dignity was shown by showing superiority of Aryans over the inferior Jewish people. The projection device was that the fall of the economy was not the finances rather than the Jewish people’s fault. The symbolic rebirth was uniting those who were not Jewish and “purging” the ones who are as a “forward-moving” action. Lastly, the commercial use was displayed as selling the idea that Jewish people were solely to blame (Burke 2005). As we see based on the information given, Burke does in fact propose the idea that unification can* be detrimental to society, especially in the way that Adolf Hitler proposes; however, I believe that in the artifact I chose, President Obama uses these unification devices not as manipulation, but as a plea and persuasion for the American people to realize that without action, the same tragedies will reoccur. The inborn dignity President Obama displays refers to the sense of responsibility he puts on the American people. This responsibility comes into play when he lists some of the past occurrences that have happened under this generations watch essentially. The President exclaims, “...there are no words that will ease their pain as a country we have been through this too many times whether it's an elementary school in Newton or a shopping mall in Oregon or a temple in Wisconsin or a movie theater in Aurora or a street corner in Chicago these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children...” (President Obama 2012). The symbolic rebirth he suggests is the moving forward and making change. President Obama states, “We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this regardless of the politics.” (President Obama 2012). This “meaningful action” he refers to can mean anything. He leaves it open to interpretation, but even then, it is a clear message as to what the main goal is no matter the action taken. The commercial use that President Obama is trying to “sell” throughout his speech is that these events occur because we as the people of America do not and have not taken action. He, in a way, puts the blame on us all. He does this when he says, “I know there's not a parent in America who doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do the majority of those who died today were children beautiful little kids between the ages of five and ten years old they had their entire lives ahead of them birthdays graduations weddings kids of their own among the Fallen were also teachers men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams” (President Obama 2012). 

Knowing all of this and going into further diagnosis detail, it is true that there are some advantages to this unification tactic and disadvantages as well. The advantages include a realistic call to action, lack of sugarcoating and lack of scapegoating. I think these qualities within his speech really “pull” on the “heart and mind strings” of the American people. The reality of the matter is that nothing is going to change without making some changes. Having a real and raw call to action gives the people of America a “wake up call” so to speak. The lack of sugarcoating just reemphasizes just how important this matter is and how “fed up” the world is with this kind of behavior; however, we can be “fed up” all we want, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Not providing a scapegoat for the people is one of the most powerful moves in my opinion done within this statement artifact. There is not rhyme or reason as to why this is happening STILL and yet no changes that stick are being made. This is OUR fault, WE need to fix it. That being said, there are some disadvantages to this tactic as well. Some of those include no clear directional path and harshness. We still as a country want to stay hopeful and positive as possible, but that is difficult when the leader of our country gives a statement as gloomy and dark as they come. The no clear directional path that the people can take is tough to unpack as well. He is saying we need to do something, but what is that something? What can be done that will stick? What is the government doing to help as well? Not everything can be put on the American people to fix this issue when our laws come from Congress. 

To further unpack this, I read an article that talks about how unity is key when it comes to making change. In the article, Unification: What is it, how do we reach and why do we want it? by Erik Weber, he explains that there are some issues with unification especially at the political level; however, we tend to over look the benefits that could cause change in our society for the better. He explains, “...explanations for unity can give meaning to the events they explain...” (Weber 1999). I find this fascinating because sometimes we think explanations and giving meaning can also come across as forcing one’s self to think in a uniform way when it comes from politicians. Weber is saying that if we isolate the context behind the explanation and the event it follows, we can make positive uniform moves rather than feeling like a “robot”. This compares to when Burke said, “The more uniformly the fighting will of a people is put into action, the greater will be the magnetic force of the movement and the more powerful the impetus of the blow”. He also goes on to say, “...weak and unstable characters the knowledge that there are various enemies will lead only too easily to incipient doubts as to their own cause” (Burke 2005). When unpacking this, I see his words as saying uniformity is a call for fighting or aggressiveness because it is all for one; however, the uniformity that President Obama is suggesting is a more peaceful goal based on a powerful call to action. This unification talk is definitely different based on a case by case basis, but we need to not look only at the negatives of unity within politics, but the benefits as well. We see how polarized our country is and how that has hurt us. We need to not get rid of diversity and diverse thinking, but come together on more issues as a whole rather than split on everything as if we HAD to chose between black and white while skipping the gray. Also, this could be the reason why President Obama used these unification devices. These appeals are what truly provides a “call to action”. No call to action can actually happen without the unity of the people who are calling that said action. 

In conclusion, the artifact chosen was a statement that was given by President Obama after a tragic school shooting. His appeals were based on using three of the four unification devices that Burke proposes within his article. The three that President Obama uses were done in a ethical and productive way. Now it is time to see where our society goes with this appeal nearly 7 years after. Even though there has not been change necessarily done and set in these past years following, I do still believe this was a effective way to speak to America on behalf of the events that unfolded that day. 

CBS News. (2018, July 24). A look back: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/a-look-back-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting/

House, T. O. (2012, December 14). Retrieved January, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIA0W69U2_Y

Weber, E. (1999). Unification: What is it, how do we Reach and why do we Want it? Synthese,118(3), 479-499. doi:10.1023/a:1005134205471

Burke, K. (2005). The rhetoric of Hitler’s battle. In C. R. Burckhardt (Ed.), Readings in rhetorical criticism (3rd ed.)(pp. 188-202). State College. Strata Publishing, Inc. (Original work published in 1974)

[marcatalano25-blog]

*Isocrates, Politics, and Rhetoric*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: What is an example of an artifact that fits Isocrates’ criteria of good rhetoric? Is this example of “good rhetoric” ethical/productive for democracy/society?

To investigate these questions, I examined Freedom Writers - The showdown which is a YouTube clip of a scene from the movie Freedom Writers released in 2007 about a woman, Mrs. Gruwell, who begins teaching at a diverse school whose students are going through tough situations outside of the classroom that affect their focus and work in the classroom. The clip from the movie shows who the students call, Mrs. G, speaking from a unfiltered and original point of view on how to behave as decent human beings in this society rather than what they think they should act like based on their situations, making this artifact an example that fits Isocrates’ criteria of good rhetoric as it provides an original lesson being taught and is an example of an ethical and productive one for society considering it’s relation to making your own path rather than taking the one “forced” by societal pressures by succeeding in the classroom and relating that success to real life. 

Mrs. G is a woman who begins teaching at a school in Los Angelos in which is racially diverse and her class is full of at-risk teenage students. These students were in a sense given up on by the administration and that has been a part of leading them to also giving up on themselves. Mrs. G takes a unique approach in not just teaching this class, but inspiring them and getting to know them personally. Her approach, especially at the institution she is at, is unpopular and frowned upon by her colleagues, friends and husband; however, it is the approach she sticks with until the end (Freedom Writers). 

Aside from the movie as a whole, the clip chosen is a scene where Mrs. G finds a note being passed around the classroom. When she has the note in her possession, she sees that it is a derogatory drawing of what appears to be a black male who is a student in the class with big lips (referring to the stereotype that all black people have abnormally large lips). She is appalled by this and decides this is the start of her unpopular teaching methods. She takes the drawing and makes an example out of it in front of the class. Mrs. G begins, “It starts with a drawing like this, and then some kid dies in a drive-by never even knowing what hit him...”. Her statement is followed by debate from the other students in regards to how she knows nothing about their situations and cannot relate due to her color of skin (white). They also bring up the fact that what they are learning in school does not relate to what they have to deal with outside of school. Mrs. G somewhat accepts this, but then counteracts. A student brings up that they want to die protecting their own to “die for respect”. Mrs. G says, “When you die, you’re going to rot...and when you rot, do you think it’s going to matter whether you were an original gangster?” This started to get the students’ attention as they sat up, stopped speaking and some teared up. She then proceeds to express, “Nobody is going to want to remember you, because all you left behind is this” (pointing to the drawing where this all started). From this, it is assumed then that Mrs. G is trying to teach the students or the “demos” that it is not doing themselves any justice just following the same messed up paths because of color, situation, etc. She uses the original and inspiring thought that if they want to be respected they need to do things respectable. If they want to leave a legacy, they have to learn and love rather than skip out and hate. 

When relating this artifact to the reading of Isocrates, it is important to start at the very base; teaching. “If all those who undertook to teach were willing to speak the truth and not make greater promises than they planned to fulfill, they would not have such a bad reputation among the general public” (Isocrates 2000). From this, the relation to the artifact is straight-forward; Mrs. G is a teacher because the truth and originality is important to her. Optimistic yet, Mrs. G does not try to sugarcoat certain aspects of the students’ lives or their academic situations. She is raw and unscripted when it comes to inspiring her students, whether it is what they want to hear or not. In addition to, Isocrates also states that “The greatest indication of the difference is that speeches cannot be good unless they reflect the circumstances (kairoi), propriety (to prepon), and originality...” (Isocrates 2000). Mrs. G (1) reflects the circumstances of what is going on in a timely manner. She also (2) uses language and appropriate diction when speaking to the students about a matter so sensitive yet pressing. Lastly, (3) she is expressing an original thought in which the students are not necessarily aware of and uses this thought to inspire and “wake-up” the students. According to Isocrates, these traits are what make a good rhetor. This being the case, it is safe to say that Mrs. Gruwell follows in suit. 

Even though Mrs. G’s message is an example of a good rhetor and is refreshing yet inspiring; it is valuable to point out both the advantages of this message and disadvantages as well. In regards to the second part of the critical question, yes, this artifact is indeed ethical and productive for society. The message is from a place of wanting a better generation, more change, more risk for greater reward and more people stepping out of their box and saying “they can” rather than “they cannot” because they are told that “they cannot”. The advantages to these examples are a better society as a whole with more driven students, more diversity across the spectrum, personable educators, and the possibility of saving lives. The key word; however, is “possibility”. There is also the possibility of doing more damage than good with taking the original and circumstantial route. Mrs. G’s words, inspiring to most yes, but could have hurt some in the making. Taking the original route can cause more pain in regards to lives outside of the classroom, the budding in where not necessary wanted at first and a backlash from the class due to the “stubbornness” of not knowing what they are going through. 

A book called Speaking for the Polis: Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education by Takis Poulakos dives deeper into the teachings of Isocrates and how that relates to diversity. Poulakos states that he believes rhetoric to be the “engine for creating unity out of diversity and the public good out of the individual action” (Poulakos 1998). The reason this is monumental in regards to this artifact and the previous reading is because this way of looking at rhetoric based on the thoughts of Isocrates directly transcribes to the way teachers approach adversity. This statement relates to the artifact in two different definitions of diversity. First, Mrs. G provides unity out of diversity and public good by choosing the teaching way that she finds most beneficial and morally correct rather than following suit as the administration and other colleagues. This provides a stepping stone for teachers and students to come. There was a risk of being original and she took it in order to spread diversity and ultimately bring together the system and the student body. The other way of looking at diversity as unity in this artifact is that she brings together the diverse class in order to not only inspire each other, but to inspire other students in their school and the people outside of school that they associate with. 

In summary, Mrs. Gruwell provides an original teaching style in the movie Freedom Writers that facilitates a appropriate and inspiring conversation that turns into somewhat of a movement. Based on this fact, this artifact is an example of a good rhetor; therefore, making it an example of good rhetoric that is both ethical and productive for the society or “demos”. 

References 

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)

Speaking for the Polis: Isocrates’ Rhetorical Education. (1998). 

Lyubima64. (2013, October 10). Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU_BueZZNd8

[marcatalano25-blog]

*Rhetoric as Narrative*