melinathurmond - Tumblr blog

[melinathurmond]

*Rhetoric to Me*

In the midst of Comm 380, Rhetorical Traditions, I had the opportunity to learn from many different rhetors to define what rhetoric is. This essay will encapsulate my understanding of rhetoric from what it was to what it is now and how I have defined it. At the beginning of the course, from what I can remember, I sought rhetoric to be something that is a person's own point of view that is used to persuade others. Now, looking back at multiple readings and rhetors that we have learned about, I see rhetoric as a specific frame of mind that one uses to guide people toward a topic or idea through narrow ways of persuasion, such as dialect, framing of sentences, and more. 

One of the big readings that we dug into right away was Obers (1994) “The Orators”. Ober was a late rhetorician who had a lot to say about Greek democracy and rhetoric. This gave me a good grounding for what rhetoric could be. Specifically, in this reading, Ober is able to lay out what a natural democracy would look like in Athens during ancient times, as well as points out how rhetors are going to combat this type of democracy to win over the demos. Although this was a heavy reading, a lot of the main points were very relatable to the way we look at political democracy today. Ober says, “when addressing democractic audiences...pa[y] close attention to the established social and political notions, opinions, and beliefs common to most members of the Athenian citizen body” (p.130). Similarly, he also says, “Demothsenes’ argument suggests that the rhetor of the Meidias type will address the demos only to aggrandize himself or to lead the masses astray, but his argument also retains an essential place for the good rhetor like himself” (p.138). His ideas that alludes to making the audience happy helped construct my definition because I see this as a means of persuasion.The rhetorician is not only meant to persuade the demos to believe something they already agree with, but also persuade them to like him as well. Even if you are not fond of the topic at hand, one of the biggest downsides of Athenian democracy is that you either agree with the demos or pay the consequences. While this may be controversial, it also allowed for great persuasion from the rhetors and we, Americans, have something to learn from that. 

Another rhetorician and greek philosopher that I found most of my inspiration coming from was Herrick’s take on Aristotle. This greek philosopher has a long history and education from former rhetoricians. Aristotle was educated under Plato, studying zoology and botany. After doing a lot of traveling, he settled down and his research was able to influence a multitude of majors that we have today as well as the seven pillars of liberal arts. His profound knowledge and extensive background of education is what inspired me in my definition. Herrick gives insight to Aristotle and says, “Aristotle begins with the assertion that “rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic”(1354), the latter art being discussed in another…” (70). One thing that Aristotle brought to discussions that other rhetoricians didn’t was this idea that sometimes it is not the words that you are saying, but how you are saying it. This idea could be a thanks to Plato for being his teacher all those years, but nevertheless, it worked and people were drawn toward the speeches Aristotle gave. From Aristotle’s most famous definition of rhetoric, which is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (72), he was able to create many different theories from this, like an enthymeme, the three different types of oratory, and the three different types of artistic proofs. Much of what we know about rhetoric and how we frame it can be handed to Aristotle and his years of research and education.  

Finally, one of the more recents journals that we had the opportunity to dive into was Dow and Tonn’s (1993) “‘Feminine Style’ and the Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards”. This framed rhetoric in a way that really had not been seen yet in the class. I enjoyed this insight because it separated men’s speeches from women’s and we were able to unpack that throughout our discussions. The part of this journal that I was able to add to my definition was this idea of how you frame your subjects and sentences. Authors mention Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, who was a Texas governor in the 1990’s. She had a lot to say about being a female running for a high position, and stood her ground in confidence and posterity. She notably tells many familial stories that resonate well with most of her audiences. One of these stories says “I pray my kids don’t have a growth spurt from August to December so I don’t have to buy new jeans. We buy clothes at the budget store to have them fray, stretch, and fade in the first wash...We’re the people you see every day in the grocery store. We obey the laws, pay our taxes, and fly our flags on holidays. We plod along trying to make it better for ourselves and our children and our parents...I believe people like us have been forgotten in America” (289). While this just seems like a list of her life story, she points out a few things to me. One: that she is a normal person, just like the rest of the people in the audience. Two: she is fighting for a better America where everyone is seen. Three: she has a background that gives her a chance to tell these kinds of stories. Most politicians have come from a background that was easily handed to them and they do not have much to compare to the average citizen. This instills in me, and my definition, that women do have the opportunity to be created equal, and that starts by the way we frame our stories, and the willingness of the people to listen. Rhetoric has changed the way that people think about feminism in this mindset, but at the same time, feminism has changed rhetoric as well. 

Overall, rhetoric has a whole new meaning to me. From what used to be a synonym for point of view is now a specific frame of mind that one uses to guide people toward a topic or idea through narrow ways of persuasion, such as dialect, framing of sentences, and more. I am more than grateful to have had the insight starting from Greek philosophers to modern day feminists that have built my understanding of rhetoric as well as fruitful class discussions that have guided me along in my thinking. 

References

Dow, B. J. & Tonn M. B. (1993). “Feminist style” and political judgement in the rhetoric of Ann 

Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79. pp. 286-302. 

Herrick, J. A. (2013). The History and Theory of Rhetoric. London and New York: Routledge 

Taylor & Francis Group.

Ober, J. (1994). The Orators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

[melinathurmond]

*We Did It*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: Why/how is this artifact a counterpublic? What is its rhetorical message? How is it empowering and/or limiting?

To investigate this question, I examined the infamous Rose the Riveter photo from 1942 that depicts Naomi Parker saying the words “We Can Do It!” while flexing her muscles as my artifact. In addition, I will also look at the “American Rosie the Riveter Foundation” website that gives a bit of history on who she is and what they have done to upkeep her legacy. This artifact represents the counterpublic of women workers during World War II, a time where they were often thought of as inferior to men and used as a trophy to their husbands, empowering women by depicting them as strong and vibrant.

Rosie became an iconic figure to women in the workforce during World War II. She was a large advocate for women working outside of the home, which in turn led to an unprecedented number of women working in industrial labor forces. By starting this movement, she was able to encourage women to move outside of the stereotypical work they do within the home and create an identity for themselves. Naomi Parker, using the pseudo-name Rosie, never got the credit she deserved for being the woman in the picture until two years before her death in 2018. This only helps prove her cry for equality for women in every aspect of the word. 

Squires (2001) goes into great depth to explain the counterpublic. Squires defines this idea as this subgroup of society that creates their own rules and faces for themselves through the media, newspaper, and word of mouth. The author highlights the Black counterpublic that was created overtime and how this brought more limelight to the inequality that they were facing. Specifically, he states, “The black press facilitated the growth of internal aspects of the public sphere through its production and transmittal of alternative Black identities and fostering the imaginations and discussions of Blacks across the nation” (120). This idea that an inferior group of society created a life for themselves because the opposing public would not hear them is what Squires overall tried to encompass within this article. He also gives hope to other counterpublics through this piece because it is seemingly understood that voices were being heard and acts of justice were starting to become more natural.

Rosie became an icon to many women during World War II. She was not keen for the spotlight, but started an uproar with the little screen time she did have. This artifact helps separate women from their husbands, making them a person of their own. As seen in the picture, Rosie is saying “We Can Do It!”, which emphasizes the importance of women as a whole. The idea of “we” highlights that no woman is by herself in this fight for her own freedom. Throughout most of the 1900’s, men often used their wives as a “trophy” for the town to see. They dressed their best while cooking up three course meals and sewing every stitch of their husbands clothes by hand. Most of this was because they did not have a husband to come home to, since most men during this time were overseas (nationalWW2museum.org). With this extra time and the leash being loosened, women were able to start constructing their identity by themselves and working in places that paid them and were out of their comfort zone. By creating that narrative, Rosie is building a counterpublic for women that will help represent women as a whole in the workforce and in the public eye.  

The use of color is super important when looking at this picture. Red is often seen as a strong and sexy color, while yellow is a bright and illuminating color. The use of blue as a clothing color also signifies this idea of a “blue collar worker”. What Rosie was wearing was clear from many sources, but the colors are still questionable. Women, especially in the early 1900’s, were depicted as sexy and well kept, put in their best clothes that often included red pieces, to emphasize their beauty over the rest of them. The yellow background used in the picture helps put more emphasis on Rosie herself, making her look like a brighter and a more determined young woman. She stands tall in her blue jumpsuit, encapsulating her strong arm and grit from the look on her face. With the little pay that she might be getting from this job, she is being understood as a strong worker in a physically demanding job. This paints an ideal for women that says they can do anything they set their minds to. Regardless of if they are doing it in high heels or broken down tennis shoes, this picture portrays a strong will of women that the media has not seen yet. 

This image and the foundation that was created behind this picture is empowering. This picture created a new wave of feminism that would not have been seen if it were not for Rosie in the workplace. According to the History Channel, though, this picture was not an open gate for women to get all the recognition they deserved. This picture was only published for forty days and then taken down, after being sold to many news media platforms (Pruitt). This was a step in the right direction, surely, and it gave women more confidence to create a life that they wanted. In the same way, this sparked a foundation to form. On December 7th, 1998, the “American Rosie the Riveter Foundation” was formed to highlight her work as well as what former president Franklin D. Roosevelt did for the progression of women. This home was a space and comfortable living area for FDR and is now used as a museum to encompass his life during World War II as well as women in the workplace (rosietheriveter.net). Within the walls of the foundation, they have merchandise that has Rosie’s face on it and all the proceeds go to help keep the museum afloat. The rich and real history that this foundation puts forth is one thing, but the impact that the picture has is another. While the picture might not have seen drastic measures during the time in which it was taken, it did leave hope for future women and allowed them to believe that they, too, can do it. 

Kimble and Olson (2006), in their essay about facts and myths of feminism in response to the Rosie the Riveter poster, they compute a different argument and say that the image did not spark as much of an uproar as it is nowadays. This idea that working as a riveter makes any citizen believe it is a man's job. It is labor intensive, hot working conditions, and according to the authors, unfeminine (534). Rosie, unsure of the outcome, took the leap of faith and did it anyway, not necessarily for herself, but to prove everyone else wrong. What is still prevalent, regardless of what context and time period this poster is being talked about, is the encouragement for women to join the workforce. The underlying message of this poster is simply put: Women can work and need to work in this time of need (that time being World War II era). Regardless of if they could do the work or not, they were needed, and that is a step forward in a hopeful direction. Though it might not be the best encouragement from the government to promote women in the same way as men, they were at least getting some light on the situation at hand and being recognized for the hard work they were doing. What the authors do, in this case, is frame Rosie as a radical feminist, when in fact she was merely asked to pose how she thought best fit her in the job. This illustrates the power of the media and surely how counterpublics are used for good, but sometimes seen as bad because of the picture somebody else paints for them. 

Overall, Rosie paved a pathway for women and feminists that is still being walked on today. She illustrated what it is like to be a women worker in a perceived “man’s job”. The counterpublic that has been created around women over centuries has encompassed many waves of feminism and during the World War II era, this allowed another wave to begin. Rosie empowered women to do what is best for them, not their husbands, and granted an opportunity for many women to be seen for their grit and stamina versus their outward appearance. By painting this message that “We Can Do It!”, Rosie gave hope to women and defied odds that no women thought was possible at that time. 

References 

American Rosie the Riveter Association (2012-2020). https://rosietheriveter.net/

Asen, R. & Brouwer D. C. (2001). Counterpublics and the state. State University of the New York 

Press. pp.111-136.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/wom

en-wwii

Kimble, J. J. & Olson, L. C. (2006). Visual rhetoric representing Rosie the riveter: Myth and 

misconception in J. Howard Miller’s “We Can Do It!” poster. Rhetoric and Public 

Affairs, 9(4), pp. 533-569. 

Pruitt, S. (2018). Uncovering the secret identity of Rosie the riveter. 

https://www.history.com/news/rosie-the-riveter-inspiration

[melinathurmond]

*A Heartfelt Goodbye*

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

To investigate these questions, I examined Michelle Obama’s Final Speech as First Lady as my rhetorical artifact. Obama builds her ethos by illustrating her line of workers and credibility in the award she presented as well as painted herself as a humorous person so the audience has more comfortability with her. 

Michelle Obama, 54 at the time, married former President of the United States Barack Obama in 1992 and has had two kids since. Obama was a well-known lawyer and Harvard graduate who has successfully written a book since her time in office. During her terms (2009-2017), she launched the “Let’s Move!” campaign, which encouraged healthy eating in young children to decrease childhood obesity and increase outdoor activities, in hopes that this will lead to higher education for these children. 

Herrick (2013) gives precise ways in which logos, ethos, and pathos are portrayed in communication. Logos, in this sense, was “words of a document or speech” (79). The goal of logos was to produce a coherent argument using words. This is without going into depth of what these words could mean to others, but rather do just have words and be able to justify them. Pathos, according to Aristotle, referred to “emotional appeals” and “persuasive messages [that] move an audience into action” (79). Herrick goes on to say how anyone can have emotion, but the way you use it is the most important key to the communication. Finally, Aristotle frames ethos as “personal credibility” (80). Aristotle believes this is the most important part of a speech because a person’s speech should not be liked based on their reputation within the crowd, but rather the facts that they give to prove their credibility. Aristotle as the first rhetorician to coin these terms and use them within his numerous speeches. 

We see Obama’s credibility in ethos within the first few minutes of the speech. Though she does not start the actual speech till about sixteen minutes in, she takes time to give credit to people who made all of her hard work and dedication to this position possible. She gives thanks to “our outstanding secretary of education, John King” and gives thanks to his hard work and “dedication to leadership” and how much it has done for “our country”. She then goes on to mention some well respected friends that she has in the audience, like Usher, Andy Cohen, and Jake Farrow, thanking them for their “starpower to inspire young people”. As mentioned, she spent a majority of her time in office advocating for young people in their health and education. By reiterating these facts in her speech, she is adding to her knowledge of the subjects at hand. Similarly, Obama talks about Terri Brzezinski, 2017 school counselor of the year, and touches on what some people had to say about her. “Once she identifies a systemic need, she works tirelessly to address it” says the principal of the school that Terri was recommended from. This is not directly about Obama, but shows that she is not flattering the candidate with all compliments; she uses the resources that she can to make sure the person is thought of in the highest regard. This shapes her trustworthiness because she not only connects the speech back to this idea of education, which is something Obama has been extremely passionate about for a long time, but she uses it as a frame to see others in that same light as well. She was able to find the passion in others that she finds within things she enjoys, and that is not something that most people would do for fun. 

Obama then goes on to subtly persuade people as to why high school counselors are so important to a young kid's education. She started this award back in 2015 to help recognize those counselors who have done an outstanding job. She mentions Brzezinski again, as she has won the award, and what one of the students had to say about her. “Mrs. Brzezinski has helped me grow to love myself. She has helped me with my doubts and insecurities. My life has changed for the better in all aspects”. Emotions is a huge aspect of persuasion, so for Obama to tie that into why Brzezinski is so deserving of this award was well placed. This also shows Obama’s strategy within her speech to show just how much this counselor deserved this award among all the other counselors there. Obama also lists reasons of importance as to why it is so necessary for school counselors to get this type of recognition. “They work tirelessly to help them be who they were truly meant to be...all in the face of overwhelming challenges: tight budgets, impossible student counselor ratios, endless demands on your time, come in early and stay late, reach into your own pocket…”. These ideas were well received by the audience as a lot of them got “Amen’s” back. She gives realistic situations that probably many of the counselors behind her have worked through, though she has never been a counselor herself. Even though Obama is a well respected woman, this enhances her persuasion, as she relates to the audience on a more of a personable level.  

Finally, Obama uses a great deal of emotion to evoke a positive response from the audience. As it was already stated, emotion goes hand and hand with persuasion and the idea of logos. In this case, pathos was used very well during the entirety of her speech. In the beginning when she was recognizing some of the people she invited to the speech, she mentioned Usher's name, and then joked with the audience saying, “calm down...keep it together, ladies”. On the same token, she mentions “Coach Jim Harbaugh, and his beautiful wife, who is a lot better looking than him”. Granted these are long time friends, she pokes fun at these people which illuminates laughter within the room, creating an easiness of emotion. Sometimes, though, throughout Obama’s speech, emotion was seen through her facial expression and hand movements. It does not take much for a speech like this to make someone feel any type of way, and when she mentioned one of Brzezinski’s students, there was a warming comfort brought to the atmosphere. At the end of what the student said, Obama took a pause and made a face that signified the wonders of what Brzezinski has done. This helps persuade the audience to feel a sort of heroic sense towards counselors, as they do so much for our young kids, and yet most families do not recognize it. She continues to crack jokes and add humour throughout the speech, giving a lighthearted sense of emotion for the audience and viewers at home. 

In many ways this speech is productive for society. First, it helps further the idea of her organization, which helps healthy eating and higher education for younger kids. By creating this award, she continues her enthusiasm for the foundation she built and furthers society into living a healthy and trusted atmosphere. Second, it brings to light a career that Obama believes to be really useful for young kids. She gives concrete examples of the hard work and dedication that these counselors have given to their job, which can only benefit them and society. Lastly, it puts kids at the forefront of this whole idea. Having two kids herself, Obama knows how much kids impact our lives and the future of America. By bringing up students in the speech and giving limelight to her own foundation, she is helping kids who watched this speech a sense of hope through whatever they may be going through, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc. 

Overall, Obama uses her years of experience as a lawyer to present a well rounded speech that exudes ethos, logos, and pathos. She shines a light on the many counselors nationwide that deserve to be recognized for their hard work and unending love for each student. The audience is able to connect to each word through Obama’s use of humour, joy, and most importantly passion, as well as her credibility in the subject at hand. While Obama distinguished this award a few short years ago, she continues to use rhetoric each time she presents and gives recognition to those who deserve it. 

References

ABC News. (2017, Jan 7). Michelle Obama final speech as first lady-ABC news. YouTube. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoTTBq2OhjM

Herrick, J. A. The history of theory and rhetoric (2013). Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group. 

[melinathurmond]

*This Time For Rhetoric.*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What central narrative does this artifact tell through its rhetorical elements? In doing so, what values does it promote and ignore (who does it include and exclude)? In which ways is this narrative (ethically) productive for society, in which ways is it limiting, and is it more productive or limiting? 

To investigate these questions, I examined the 2020 Super Bowl halftime show performed by Shakira and Jennifer Lopez as my rhetorical artifact. This halftime show creates an ideology of important cultural and personal values that ultimately teaches the audiences of facts and rituals pertaining to the artists cultures by using common dancing techniques, songs to represent their citizenship within the United States, and costumes that portray particular customs of their home countries.

Since 1967, two teams in the National Football League have played for one night to determine who is the best in the league and wins the trophy. The Super Bowl halftime show is one of the big elements of the Super Bowl each year. From artists ranging from Bruno Mars to Maroon 5, these performers are paid between $24-$30 million to put on a riveting fifteen minute show. Shakira and Jennifer Lopez come from Latin and Colombian backgrounds that molded their performance. Lopez, 50, was born and raised in The Bronx by two Puerto Rican parents. She grew up singing and dancing in order to stay out of trouble and create a life for herself in the future. Most of the dances she gave off the bat were at home with her family, performing classic Puerto Rican style dances. Lopez started touring at the young age of seven, with her parents' support to follow her dreams. Shakira, 43, also known as Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll was born in Colombia and spent a majority of her childhood there. Much like Lopez, Shakira started a specific type of dance at a young age. She toured most of her hometown and surrounding cities doing belly dances to the doumbek, which is a classic colombian rhythm that accompanies this type of dance. Both singers take massive pride in their heritage and have captured audiences around the world with their take on commemorating their culture and moving forward with their career in America. 

Foss (2014) defines a narrative as “our experience[s] so that we can make sense of the people, places, events, and actions of our lives” (333). Narratives are crucial to our everyday living and ongoing stories that are created and passed on through centuries. Narratives, in their simplest form, can be illustrated through books, films, songs, short stories, novels, etc., according to Foss (333). In the video, Lopez and her daughter teamed up to do a duet portraying the significance of being a Puerto Rican in the United States. They did a beautiful rendition of “Born in the USA” while Lopez strutted her feathered Puerto Rican and American flag jacket. This paints a picture that Puerto Ricans are still very much apart of America and our culture, despite the separation. This also symbolizes the importance of culture in the Lopez family and the pride they take in their heritage. 

Lopez and Shakira both reign from different backgrounds, but mesh their performance to make those fifteen minutes come together. One of the four key concepts to make a narrative a narrative, according to Foss (2014), is that “it must be about a unified subject” (334). At the end of the video, Lopez and Shakira come together to perform Shakira’s world famous song “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)”.  Though the culture that is evident from this song depicts neither of the cultures that the women portray, they came together for the last two minutes of the performance to dance coherently as well as perform as one. This significance illustrates the collectivity that nations have with America and the richness they bring to the country, regardless of background and story. They give a sense of togetherness with the crowd in the stadium as well as the viewers at home who were watching. 

This picture of cultural pride can have its advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that this video can also mold the ideologies of America. If the Super Bowl halftime show can create this idea that we are all one and there are no borders, then it can be presumably perceived that America welcomes all. Shakira and Lopez identify and portray women of all colors through their performance, taking pride in their heritage. This can also be a disadvantage because it is unrealistic. It is impossible to have one country agree on an idea fully, and from the looks of it, we know that the United States is seemingly split. Another advantage that can be seen through this narrative is that it educates society on cultural aspects that may not be their own. Through the body rolling, extremely technical footwork, and “noises” that Shakira made into the screen, these are all aspects of tradition that Americans may very well be naive to. Foss (2014), talks about theme and asks the question, “How obvious and clear is the theme”(338)? Through this, though, Americans can educate themselves and become more aware of the importance of these customs. While this video could have been uplifting and powerful for most people, some people felt like this could have been too much of a statement. A disadvantage of this clip can be the sole fact of family friendly viewing. The Super Bowl can be a family get-together occasion and with this performance, it could evoked a lot of negative emotion for these families. The flashy outfits, provocative dancing, and foreign words did not sit well with most viewers. Without knowing the context behind their dancing and songs, Americans, in general, were not satisfied with the choice that NBC made to produce this show. 

Singh (2010) identifies the importance of culture in new media. She mentions this “fantasy” that the media, in any form, creates about culture and how that alters the way we see things and how we become close-minded to our own beliefs and rituals. She says, “Today [the] media offers value judgement about the desirability of superiority of some transmitted elements which determine the direction of change from one corner of the world to the other” (87). Whatever native country one may be from, most of the time, these people are accustomed to believing the ideologies only from their culture, which can put a damper on the way that other people express their culture. This can help explain the disadvantages of this narrative. People are narrow-minded to other cultures and rituals and it could often be defined as ethnocentrism. This also helps explain what people are and are not seeing from this performance. Culture is also a very specific and delicate thing, so what we see on screen is not often what we get. We saw a beautiful performance shaped by background and intensity, but we also have to recognize that there is much history and explanation behind each step and song. 

Overall, the Super Bowl halftime performance show was a spectacular mesh of culture, unity, and values that meant something to both Shakira and Lopez. This clip emphasizes importance in views as well as open-mindedness to other cultures. While both sides can be argued, this clip understands the importance of background and illuminates what America should pride itself on.  

Foss, S. K. (2004). Narrative Criticism. Rhetorical Criticism (3rd ed.) (pp.333-341). Long 

Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

NFL. (2020, Feb 2). Shakira & J. Lo's FULL Pepsi Super Bowl LIV Halftime Show. Youtube. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pILCn6VO_RU

Singh, C. L. (2010). New media and cultural identity. China Media Research, 6(1), p.86-90.