marlisaann-blog

[marlisaann-blog]

*Foucault: Power as Rhetoric*

In this essay, I will explore the question, “What is an example of a discursive formation and its elements? How does this discursive formation evoke a certain sense of power, and how is this power productive and/or unproductive?”. In order to do this, I will be using the 5 elements of a discursive formation to analyze our Comm 320 class this term.

Like all Augustana classes, our Rhetorical Tradition class has specific ways that we interact during class time. I will be showing how our class promotes productive discussion and creates a power that is helpful but not too controlling.

The first element of discursive formation is discursive practice. Foucault defines this as the various symbols, narratives, movement or other things that are attached to those within the formation. In our class, the room is set up so that as students enter, we sit in our desks, and Dr. Kunde stands in front. The main symbol for our class would be the syllabus that lays our the course. The syllabus describes different kinds of class days- either presentations, group work, or lectures. During all of these, we see the placement of the speaker in front, and those listening or discussing in chairs. Additionally, there is the general understanding that we only change between the structure when told to do so by the speaker. These different movements or categories also help to ensure we are speaking on topic of the course, rather than about science or math.

The second element of discursive formation is rules. These are defined as principles or procedures that help establish discursive practices. Rules are not normally conscious, but instead are generally accepted without knowing. In a classroom, many of the rules come from an unconscious educational upbringing. Since kindergarten, we were taught to raise our had when we want to speak, to listen to the presenter, that we come to class at the time assigned, and we sit in a seat. In college, normally the seat you pick on the first day is the seat you non-verbally claim for the term. In Comm 320, we have these generally accepted rules, but we as a class also discussed several rules at the beginning of the course. These included being respectful of opposing opinions; do not attack a person, rather focus on the subject; that there are times that we can discuss and speak up without having to raise our hands; and a few others. The rules that are unspoken help in creating a respectful and orderly educational experience, but the rules we created worked in order to make sure that we were having productive discussions.

The third element is roles. Like I mentioned in the discursive practices, in our classroom there are two main roles that are traded between people; speaker and listener. For the majority of the term, the speaker is Dr. Kunde and the listeners are the students. However, during discussion groups or tumblr presentations a student takes over the role of speaker, and while Dr. Kunde often assists in creating discussion, she also takes the role of speaker. However, there is the overall roles of teacher and students, where the students are completing course work for the critique of the teacher, and the teacher is using her knowledge to help educate the students.

The roles of teacher and student lead into the fourth element of power. Focoult believes that power is the overall system or process of force that spreads through a discursive formation, which creates habits within a system and remains present in the discursive formation even without a particular person enforcing rules. Dr. Kunde has power as the director of the course, and also as the one deciding our grades. This means that she determines what our homework is, and how our class days are structured. Dr. Kunde is the direct power in Comm 320, but as students, the communications department head, as well as the Augustana Administrative have power over our grades and enforcing all school rules. The administration also sets the schools general academic goals, which influence how Dr. Kunde may set up the course. All of these powers ensure that even when we are not in class, we still work on homework and projects. Additionally, when we are working in groups, or on a test and Dr. Kunde leaves the room, we continue discussing or following the rules that she sets up.

The last element is knowledge. This is what is considered truth in our discursive formation, and the product of the all the elements interacting. In Comm 320, the truth that is established is that we are in class to learn about different rhetorical theorists, as well as have productive and interactive discussions. The difficulty of the material, and the homework assigned to us creates a place for critical thinking and quality education, even without the presence of a teacher.

To relate with Dr. Kunde creating a healthy atmosphere for discussion, there is an article that discusses how power in speech may help or hinder participance in discussion. Soo-Hye Han and Colene J. Lind(2017) write “For both learning and respect, individuals’ perceptions of what they gained and how they measured up within the discussion could have grave consequences for their future willingness to participate”. Meaning that if the speaker would create a classroom environment where those listening and discussing did not feel comfortable speaking or that their contributions are not important, the overall participation would decline over time. Additionally, this would not be a safe space for productive and challenging ideas. This, luckily, is not what was created in Comm 320. Dr. Kunde used her power to set a standard for respect and active participation.

Overall, I believe that this is a productive formation. Comm 320 sets up meaningful discussions and forward-thinking ideas. Though there are multiple powers within our class, they aren’t always at the forefront, which allows us as students to practice thinking and evaluating on our own.

Foss, Sonja; Gill, Ann. Michel Foucault’s Theory of Rhetoric as Epistemic. The Western Journal of Speech Communication. 1987. 

Han S, Lind C. Putting powerfulness in its place: a study on discursive style in public discussion and its impact. Argumentation & Advocacy [serial online]. August 2017;53(3):216-233. Available from: Communication & Mass Media Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 26, 2017.

[marlisaann-blog]

*What Is Rhetoric To Me*

In Comm 320, Rhetorical Traditions, I learned about different theories of what rhetoric is, and how it is used. This essay will show how my personal definition of rhetoric has shifted from the beginning of the term to the end. In the beginning of the class, is described rhetoric as “the way that people use words to describe things, create arguments and influence opinions”.  Prior to this course, I associated the term rhetoric specifically with debates and arguments. 

One of the theories that changed my opinion of what rhetoric is was Booth’s idea of the listening rhetoric. Booth writes that rhetoric includes “the whole range of arts not only of persuasion but also of producing or reducing misunderstandings”. This theory helped me see how rhetoric can be used in a productive way rather than just for influence. Additionally, Booth’s discussion of how rhetoric is used in listening and discussion made me realize that rhetoric is used on a daily basis, rather than just in politics or speeches like I originally thought. Booth’s theories started to change my views on how rhetoric is used. 

Another theory that helped influence my opinion on rhetoric was Gerard Hauser’s opinions on rhetoric and the self. I had only considered rhetoric in the terms of between at least two people, but Hauser’s four beliefs on how rhetoric can apply to the self also helped change my views on when and how rhetoric is used. Hauser(1986) writes “In these four ways-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 for consciously reflecting on these interests...tension between self-maintenance and receptivity marks the open-minded person”. In fewer words, Hauser’s ideas of how rhetoric can be used to challenge our own beliefs and creating or re-creating ourselves leads to a more open-minded and learned self. Learning about how rhetoric applies to my own growth and continued education was a major change in my views of rhetoric. 

A third theory that helped me better understand rhetoric was deliberative democracy. Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson (2004) conclude that deliberative democracy aims to reach “conclusions that are binding in the present on all citizens but open to challenge in the future”. When I initially defined rhetoric, I mentioned that it worked to influence opinions and win over people. Gutmann and Thompson would argue against that, and say that rhetoric works to find compromises between people in society, and come to decisions that work to better society. Additionally, they include that rhetoric in this form is a ongoing process, rather than just winning or losing an argument as I initially thought.

Overall, my thoughts about rhetoric have expanded so much from the beginning of the course to the end. While my initial thoughts on how rhetoric still came up in the course- creating arguments and using them to influence people- I now know that rhetoric is so much more than that. I would now describe rhetoric as something that we use everyday in our conversations, for both listening, contemplating, explaining and responding. Rhetoric can be used both ethically and unethically, but the common perspective is that it’s used for manipulation and influence. If used in an ethical manner, rhetoric can be productive for society and the way we make decisions and have discussions. Rhetoric is not just for large groups or societies either, it can also be applied to the self or between families, relationships, roommates, media, basically everything that involves speaking or writing. Rhetoric now means more to me than just politics or arguments, I see it used in everyday life and how it can be used to create a progressive and productive society.

Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric. 2004. Malden, MP Blackwell Publishing.

Gutmann, Any, & Thompson, Dennis (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hauser, Gerard A. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. 1986. New York: Harper & Row.

[marlisaann-blog]

*The Feminine Style*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlVwXFWOAKg

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

In order to examine these questions I will be examining an episode of the tv show How I Met Your Mother, and how the typical roles of men and women are shown. In this particular episode, the dominant ideology that women need to be comforted and are more emotional than men is reinforced. Additionally, it promotes an idea that women can not hold positions of authority over men. It marginalizes women, and encourages a harmful ideology. 

How I Met Your Mother is a tv show that tells a story of 5 best friends living in Manhattan in the early 2000′s. In one episode, one of the friends, Robin, shares how she has avoided multiple traffic tickets simply by crying to the male police officer. Barney, on of the friends listening, decides to try and prove how he can get out of a traffic ticket by either sympathy or using his male dominance and seducing an officer. 

Judith Butler (2004), in her article titled Undoing Gender, states that people do not “ ‘do’ gender alone. One is always ‘doing’ with or for another, even if the other is only imaginary.” Butler is saying that gender is not something we create or decide on alone, rather it comes from the cooperative actions and beliefs of our society, and we act in accordance with what we are told is normal. In this episode, Robin shows how men are often uncomfortable around women when they are emotional, by describing how she gets out of speeding tickets by crying to a male officer. This promotes the fragility of women, and when comparing women to men, how women are not held to the same standards as men because of emotions or ‘hormones’. In this episode, Robin is using that stereotype to her advantage, and promoting it to her friends as well.

After hearing about how Robin has avoided tickets, Barney sets out to use the same tactics to manipulate his way out of them. However, his emotional pleas are not met the same way because he is a man. So, Barney decides to try and seduce a female officer that pulls him over. This tactic follows gender norms of belittling a women in authority specifically because they are female. Additionally it follows the sexual norms of masculine dominance over women. 

Jack Glascock (2003), a student at Illinois State, studies the sexualization of television characters and how audience members perceive them based on how their gender roles are used, and how these roles have changed over the past 20 years. He finds that “greater equivalency between genders may have come about because the masculinity side of male characters has been toned down as well as the gain in masculinity ... perceived among female characters”. Meaning, that over the span of several decades, the amount of masculinity in male and female characters seem to be coming closer to being even. The episode I am examining does show this in a small way, seeing as Robin uses her feminine side against a police officer, however she does so in a manipulative way that is similar to a way that is normally characterized with men. 

Glascock’s research adds to a question that Butler asks- “If I am a certain gender, will I still be regarded as part of the human?” This speaks to the dichotomy that gender roles create, and the episode of How I Met Your Mother that I analyzed really contributes to keeping that dichotomy between how men and women handle situations, as well as how they are perceived, and that instead of one collective human society, we are split into the male and female societies. This episode showed how those two sides are still being used and shown through entertainment and even in real life. 

In conclusion, this artifact is not productive in our conversation about gender roles. It affirms them, and is harmful to the way we think about men and women, and how they use sexuality or differences in emotions in order to manipulate the other gender. It promoted the male majority opinion over the marginalized female group. However, looking at studies like Glascock’s research, we can hope that characters become more and more similar as we move forward, and hopefully there will not be a dichotomy in gender stereotypes. 

Butler, Judith. (2014). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge. 1-4

Glascock, J. (2003). Viewer Perception of Gender Roles on Network Prime-Time Television. Communication Research Reports, 20(2), 173-181.

[marlisaann-blog]

Critical Questions:

In an age of media driven news, do you think celebrities using their platform to spread awareness/promote change is actually helping, or is it just talk? 

What happens when we attempt to not attack the person, and instead the situation, but that person is actually at fault?

[marlisaann-blog]

*Isocrates, Politics, and Rhetoric*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What is an example of an artifact that fits Isocrates’ criteria of good rhetoric. Is this example of “good rhetoric” ethical/productive for democracy? To explore those questions, I studied a monologue given by Jimmy Fallon after the KKK incidents in Charlottesville. His speech represents both good rhetoric by Isocrates’ criteria as well as production rhetoric for democracy, by attempting to further our understanding of how racism is hurting our society.

Jimmy Fallon is an American comedian, and current host of The Tonight Show. Typically, his show takes the comedic side of current news, keeping everything lighthearted, but in this specific episode, Fallon takes a somber turn to address the riots in Charlottesville. In early August, white supremacists held a protest at the University of Virginia against the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The rally turned violent, and in the end, there was 1 dead and 35 injured. In response to the racist statements at the rally, and what he describes as a “shameful” response from the president, Fallon takes a few minutes to react and ask America to look to the future instead of reverting to our racist past. He uses his young daughters as an example of why we as American citizens should be trying to advance society rather than stay within hate, for the good of the future generations.

Isocrates states that good rhetoric is shown through three standards: Kairos, which is to speak in a timely manner; Appropriateness, or using proper decorum/speech; and Originality, or something out of the ordinary, something that would catch attention. Specifically, he states “to mix them with each other and to arrange them suitably” (65) is the sign of well studied speech. Looking at Fallon’s monologue, his timeliness is very appropriate. The Charlottesville incidents happened on August 12th, and Fallon addressed it on August 15th. Not only was the information relevant and recent, it gave him the opportunity to reflect on what had already been said by others. A large part of Fallon’s speech addressed President Trump’s late, and in the majority opinion, inappropriate, response to Charlottesville and the racist behavior. So Fallon definitely fits into the Kairos standard. His speech, or decorum, was somber, quiet, and serious. He spoke clearly and addressed many of the concerns so many Americans had about the attack. This type of speech also fulfills the originality standard. Fallon himself starts his monologue saying “the Tonight Show isn’t a political show”. Normally, the show discusses pop culture, or sometimes moves into politics in a humorous way. However, the solemn tone Fallon took on was a surprise to many viewers and quite different from the norm.

In a paper written about monologues given on the Tonight Show, Christopher White outlines how late night tv shows use humor to help audiences process what is going on in the world. White rights “As a form of public discourse fashioned by committee, corralled by economic mandates and delivered by a trusted bricoleur, for thirty years the monologues regularly reflected and refracted public taste, celebrated shared experience and exposed fractured hegemonies” (5). White is showing how rhetoric is used in all forms, even on TV, in order to promote ideas. The writers of the show use current events to relate to their audiences, and by doing so, it helps start discussion on things in our society that might need to be changed. In recent years, TV stars, athletes, and other celebrities have used their large platform to being spreading ideas and start conversations about political or social topics. These normally follow Isocrates’ standards as well, and since the media is used in real time, they are normally extremely well times and relevant. I would say the one danger in introducing humor to rhetoric is potentially losing appropriateness.

Jimmy Fallon was able to speak out in against a social issue in our country, using his popularity as a voice for those that might not be able. This particular speech is a perfect example of how to use Kairos, Appropriatness and Originality in order to express an issue in our society.

I., Mirhady, D. C., & Too, Y. L. (2000). Isocrates I. Chapter 13 Against the Sophists

White, C. (2007). Our Own Skins for Wallpaper: Celebrity-Signifiers in The Tonight Show Monologues 1984-1992. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1.

[marlisaann-blog]

*Rhetoric as Narrative*

In this entry, I will be answering the critical question: What narrative does this artifact tell about a certain person or group of people? What truths does it promote and what truths does it ignore? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this narrative?

In order to answer these questions, I will be examining Taylor Swift’s new music video. I will look at why she chose to present a certain narrative, what it says about her and other groups in pop culture, and how stories and narratives influence public opinion. 

After very little social media coverage and no music released within the last few years, Taylor released a song titled “Look What You Made Me Do”, and an accompanying music video last week.  In the music video, Taylor presents different versions of herself from over the past ten years in the ways that the media has branded her over that time. She uses these different ‘Taylor’s’ to portray the wrongful ideas people have about her, or how the media makes her out to be. At the end of the video, amidst 13 other ‘Taylors’ arguing with each other, the 2017 Taylor Swift says “I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative”. She is referring to the narrative of the media that says she has so many different personalities and that there is no real and true reputation of Taylor Swift.

Swift has decided to battle public memory with her personal memory, hoping to use narrative to create a new image of herself to the public. Public memory, as Palczewski, Ice and Fritch (2012) define it, is a “particular type of collective memory that combines the memories of the dominant culture and fragments of the marginalized groups’ memories, and enables a public to make sense of the past, present, and future”(120). Swift uses personal memory, “the manner in which [she] remembers [her] past”(119) to tell a combating story. Through her music video, Swift’s narrative tells us about her story but also something about the media. It tells us that Swift is the marginalized group, and the media’s dominant culture is controlling what others believe her to be like. Her personal memory is that she has been victimized by the media and the characteristics that have been given to her over the past years aren’t accurate. It also tells us that Taylor does not want any part of those false narratives, and that she is using her power as a pop culture icon in order to tell her story. The video’s narrative about the media is that it wrongly influences people about Swift’s character. 

In an article titled ‘The Power of Storytelling in P ublic Relations: Introducing the 20 Master Plots’, Michael Kent outlines the importance of storytelling as a form of rhetoric and how there are about 20 storylines that have been used throughout history and how each of theme are used for different purposes in public relations or persuasion. Kent writes how “stories have the power to inform, persuade, elicit emotional responses, build support for coalitions and initiatives, and build civil society” (480). In Swift’s video, she was able to tell a story that created buzz and emotions within fans and in the pop culture community. Using Kent’s master plots, Swift’s title “Look What You Made Me Do” would fall into the master plot of revenge, where Swift has been hurt by the media and others in the music industry and now she is taking matters into her own hands. In the music video, there are also many images of past Taylor’s fighting with each other to make it to the top with the 2017 Taylor. This aligns with Kent’s plot of rivalry; Taylor is creating a joke of how the media is pitting her against herself to see which version they create comes out on top. 

This narrative is constructive in some ways. Many fans have congratulated Swift on her ability to continue to make fun of the hurtful things the media says about her. It’s a story that seemingly uses a story to tell the truth of what is being said about her and who she actually is. Unfortunately, it is Swift’s version of the truth, and in the world of social media and pop culture, the real ‘truth’ of a situation is hard to find through all the different opinions. Additionally, the quote “I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative” has made a lot of people respond saying that if she would like the narrative to end, she should stop using it to create songs. 

In conclusion, Swift’s use of narrative and storytelling was an inventive way of telling her side of the story after such a long period of silence. It certainly was effective, as it created a lot of talk on the internet and between those interested in pop culture. I think it was also very persuasive in the way that it caused many people to see her side of the story and empathize with it. However, because she addressed the issues she saw in a more intense way, some people have just become more critical of the way Swift handles fame. 

Kent, Michael L. "The Power of Storytelling in Public Relations: Introducing the 20 Master Plots." Public Relations Review, vol. 41, no. 4, Nov. 2015, pp. 480-489. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.05.011.

Palczewski, C.H., Ice, R., Fritch J. et al. Rhetoric in civic life. State College, PA, Strata Pub., 2012.