mnovak20

[mnovak20]

*November 22*

In this entry I will examine the critical questions: In what ways does this artifact depict a productive or unproductive (or both) framing/representation of the narrative of a counterpublic, and why does it matter?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed the advertisement called “Join the Bud light Party This Summer with Ellen!” featuring Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen at a gay wedding. This advertisement depicts an unproductive representation of the LGBTQ+ community by primarily featuring heterosexual people, having comedic qualities, and creating a narrative that gay weddings are just like heterosexual weddings, and therefore should be accepted by the public. This matters because the people of the LGBTQ+ community are not equally valued or accepted in society despite efforts of inclusion and acceptance. There needs to be a lot more changes to the public in order to empower the counterpublic and embrace its ideologies.

This advertisement was released as part of the “Bud Light Party” campaign which includes a series of parodies about election season. The advertisement came out June 1, 2016, kicking off the start of pride month and was posted on YouTube by The Ellen DeGeneres Show. In the video, Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen are shown narrating the wedding of two men. They explain how it is just like any other wedding with terrible speeches, overenthusiastic women catching the bouquet, and cake. They then toast to Bud Light supporting gay rights and gay marriage which is followed by the wedding crowd raising their beers to cheers.

According to Felski, a counterpublic is a group that is characteristically opposite to the discursive community, or public sphere that serves the public opinion. In a public, there is the belief of rationality meaning that all participants in the public have an equal voice, but this voice does not serve members who are not in the public. A counterpublic is made up of people who are not viewed as being in the public sphere, often are marginalized, and have a lack of resources. The members of a counterpublic are brought together through their experiences of oppression from the public sphere and serve to emancipate the ideologies of the people in counterpublic. Felski writes more specifically about the feminist counterpublic sphere and how it raised awareness for women’s needs and challenged the existing male-dominated and defined values in the public sphere. Felski expresses how it is the goal of a counterpublic to internally form an identity and externally convince the larger society of the importance of the counterpublic including its people and ideologies.

The advertisement focuses on characters who are heterosexual people, like the two celebrity narrators and guests at the wedding, to suggest that counterpublic is accepted by all heterosexual people. The two main characters in the advertisement are famous actors Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen, who identify as being a straight woman and a straight man. These actors are known for being allies of the LGBTQ+ community but are not a part of the counterpublic themselves. The main setting of the commercial is at a gay wedding for two men, but these two men are only shown once for a brief moment in the beginning while cutting the wedding cake. The heterosexual guests at the wedding are featured more than the grooms as the commercial includes scenes of wedding guests and their dates (men and women couples) seated at tables in the opening and closing scenes as well these couples dancing on the dance floor. For a commercial that is all about promoting this community and their ideologies of being able to freely marry whomever one wants, there is a lack of representation of the people who are a part of the LGBTQ+ community. The focus on the heterosexual guests who are a part of the larger public pushes the idea that the people in this public are already accepting of the people in the LGBTQ+ counterpublic. While there are allies of the counterpublic, like Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen, the majority of the larger public is still apprehensive about the acceptance and inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community and the ideologies that come with the community. By suggesting that majority of heterosexual people already support the LGBTQ+ community in this advertisement, it downplays the necessity of rallying more support and inclusion for the community. The audience looks at this commercial as being a portrayal that the counterpublic is already being included, so they may assume there is no need for further action towards accepting this community, when in reality there is.

The comedic qualities of the advertisement and humorous tone of the narrators downplays the seriousness of promoting gay marriage and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community by the larger public. For example, Seth Rogen exclaims, “you’ve got cringeworthy speeches” then mocks the woman who is delivering a bad speech by shaking his head and making faces indicating it was awkward and embarrassing. This scene is followed by Amy Schumer describing the bouquet toss with, “a girl who’s super ready to settle down” featuring a woman who aggressively grabs the bouquet and starts screaming in celebration. The two main characters in this advertisement are famous stand-up comedians and actors who are well-known for making people laugh. The scenes of the wedding are also dramatized and over-exaggerated to make people laugh. By giving this advertisement comedic qualities, the audience is likely to view the advertisement as nothing more than comedy. The purpose of this advertisement is to promote that Bud Light supports gay marriage, but this message is hidden behind the comedy of the narrators and the wedding scenes. The humorous characteristics of the advertisement eliminate the seriousness of the issue that the counterpublic is not accepted by the public and does not represent the struggle that members of the LGBTQ+ community face. The advertisement does not emancipate the ideology that one should be able to marry whomever they want, homosexual or heterosexual, without being discriminated against because of it.

The advertisement argues that gay weddings are just like heterosexual weddings and should be accepted because of it. This is apparent through the visual wedding qualities as well as verbal comments made by the narrators. The opening scene shows an outdoor tent wedding with flowers, chandeliers, and the newlywed couple cutting the cake surrounded by their groomsmen and bridesmaids. Seth Rogen claims, “gay weddings, they’re just like any wedding” and goes to talk about how they have bad speeches, bouquet tosses, and cake. By describing the gay wedding as having characteristics of a traditional heterosexual wedding, the advertisement suggests that gay weddings are normal because of it. This concept of normalcy is emphasized as being the reason why gay marriage should be accepted by the larger public. If gay marriage is to be accepted by the larger society, the reason should not be because gay weddings succumb to the pressure of society’s heterosexual wedding stereotypes. Acceptance means embracing and empowering the counterpublic for their non-stereotypical ideals, not supporting it for molding itself to fit the public’s standards.

Fraser argues that counterpublics exist outside of the one public that Habermas defines as being a sphere between society and the state. This public is supposed to be representative for the people, meaning all people, but it is limited to a select majority group of people and excludes people of minorities. Because of this, Fraser argues that the perceived common good of the public should be questioned as it promotes majority groups but oppresses minority groups. These minority groups are counterpublics as they are not seen as the dominant group and do not have power, resources, or recognition in comparison to the dominant group. This is seen as the counterpublic LGBTQ+ community is barely represented in the Bud Light advertisement meant to empower this community. It rather focused on featuring heterosexual people and having comedic qualities meant to entertain heterosexual viewers. Fraser’s view of counterpublics and publics also applies to this Bud Light advertisement in that the public made up of heterosexual people are oppressing the LGBTQ+ community counterpublic by labeling them as “normal” in comparison to the public for following traditional wedding standards. While the public felt like they were doing a good thing by promoting that they accept gay marriage and the freedom to marry whomever one wants, this advertisement is actually counterproductive as it conveys a message that the public only accepts gay weddings because they are “normal” like heterosexual weddings.

This is unproductive for society because it implies that in order to be accepted by the public, the LGBTQ+ community has to succumb to standards and norms set by the public. While the advertisement seemed to have good intentions for promoting acceptance of gay marriage as it was supported and posted by Ellen DeGeneres, a member of the LGBTQ+ community, the message was not accepting nor celebrating the differences of the LGBTQ+ community. It did not help promote the goals of the counterpublic in changing the public’s opinion of being more accepting and supporting of all types of intersex marriages. This message was hidden behind comedy that minimized the importance of supporting the LGBTQ+ community in marrying whomever they want. The message given by the advertisement was also not for the public to accept all different types of marriages, but only ones that have weddings exactly like stereotypical heterosexual weddings. The advertisement was exclusionary in that it represented mainly heterosexual people and only a small segment of the LGBTQ+ community that have traditional weddings. It featured two grooms who had groomsmen, bridesmaids, and a bouquet toss, suggesting that either one of the men or both men had feminine qualities as they carried a bouquet on their wedding day and had female friends to support the “bride.” For these reasons, the advertisement was not productive as it did not empower the LGBTQ+ community counterpublic as a whole nor promote for the public to be more accepting of the entire LGBTQ+ community and its ideologies.

In conclusion, the Bud Light advertisement meant to support gay marriage actually depicts an unproductive representation of the of the LGBTQ+ community by primarily featuring heterosexual people, having comedic qualities, and creating a narrative that gay weddings are just like heterosexual weddings, and should be accepted by the public because of it. The advertisement fails to empower the LGBTQ+ counterpublic by poorly representing the members in the community and minimizing the seriousness and importance of supporting the members of the community marrying whomever their heart desires. This matters because the people of the LGBTQ+ community are not seen by the larger public as having the same humanly value as heterosexual people, which is so incredibly wrong. Just because someone is straight does not mean that they hold more value than someone who is not straight. The public needs to be more morally conscious of what denying people the right to marry whomever they want means to the LGBTQ+ community. Overall, this advertisement is unproductive in representing the LGBTQ+ community counterpublic and proves that there needs to be changes to the public in order to empower the counterpublic.  

 

References

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

Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

The Ellen Show. (June 1, 2016). Join the Bud light Party This Summer with Ellen [Video] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnL1Odj50O4

[mnovak20]

*October 23*

In this entry I will examine the critical question: How does or doesn't this artifact fit Isocrates' criteria of good rhetoric (Kairos, appropriateness, originality)? Is this example of rhetoric ethical/productive for democracy and/or limiting to society?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed a speech from Variety’s Power of Women luncheon given by Jennifer Aniston in which she describes what true power means and how her experiences have influenced her view of power. Jennifer Aniston’s speech fits Isocrates’ criteria of good rhetoric by achieving Kairos, appropriateness, and originality in her promotion of the empowerment of children. This speech is both ethical and productive for society and democracy because the overall message is that nobody is alone in feeling unheard and unvalued, even celebrities, anyone can use their voice for the good of others, and society should better the love and support children are shown to encourage the development of their power.

This speech was delivered by Jennifer Aniston at an event called Power of Women hosted by Variety, which is a source of entertainment business news. Aniston was invited to this event as one of the chosen six Power of Women honorees in October of 2019. She was chosen by Variety because of her status of being an influential female celebrity who uses her voice for the promotion and well-being of others. She is well-known for her connection and support to St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital.

According to Isocrates, “good” rhetoric exhibits Kairos, appropriateness, and originality. Exhibiting Kairos means that one speaks in a timely fashion on a matter. The speaker must be speaking at a designated time or time that makes sense for what they are saying, and what they are saying must make sense for the timing in which they are saying it. Exhibiting appropriateness means that a speaker adheres to the community guidelines and values they are speaking to. This sense of appropriateness varies depending on the genre of occasion that one is speaking at. Exhibiting originality means that a speaker makes strategic choices that separates their voice and speech from other speakers through stylistic choices. To be original, a speaker must find something that makes their speech memorable. These three concepts are highly dependent on context and change for each situation. In order to be “good” rhetoric in Isocrates’ opinion, all three of these concepts must be fulfilled by a speaker, if one is not included then it is not good rhetoric.

Jennifer’s speech exhibits Kairos as she is an invited speaker at the event who delivers a meaningful speech saying the right things at the right time. She is a guest at Variety’s Power of Women event who was invited to speak because of both her role in the entertainment industry and in her dedication to supporting St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. She fulfills the reasoning behind her invitation and speaks at the right time slot of the event, her own time slot. She gets an introduction from Ellen DeGeneres then begins her speech. The content of her speech also exhibits Kairos as she discusses her definition of power through her own experiences. For example, when starting off her speech she describes being nervous to speak in front of such a large audience but expresses how, “it is not that often that we’re surrounded by people who found their voice and are using it and using it to hold people up and bring people together and that to me is true power” (Variety). This was the perfect moment for Aniston to define what power means to her because the Power of Women event is all about the honorees expressing how they define power and how they use this definition to empower others. Aniston goes on in her speech to discuss her realization of the power her voice had through her connections with the television show Friends as well as how she used her power to support St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. Aniston’s definition of power inspires other women in the entertainment industry and anyone who listens to her speech to find their voice and use it for the betterment of others. It makes people question whether or not they have found their voice and pressures them to ask themselves how they can connect their power to their passions.

Jennifer’s speech is appropriate in that it adheres to the communal values and purpose of the Power of Women event. The purpose of this event is to pay homage to women in the entertainment industry who dedicate their time offscreen to aid and promote various charities and causes. The communal values of this event include caring about the welfare of other people, being passionate, showing respect, and empowering others. In giving her speech at this event, Jennifer Aniston is being celebrated for her selfless devotion to St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, which contributes to the purpose of the event. Just by simply attending and speaking, Aniston is being recognized and respected for using her power for good and igniting her passion for helping children. This good is represented through her support for St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. After describing her time shooting a public service announcement with a little girl named Sawyer who had cancer but did not know what the word cancer meant, Aniston says, “that’s part of the magic of St. Jude and why I’m so honored to support their work because they’re giving children the best care on the planet so that they can reclaim their childhood so that they can find their little inner superhero” (Variety). Through her reflective tone and tearful moment in thinking about Sawyer, it is clear just how much St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital means to Jennifer. She supports St. Jude’s Children’s hospital because she believes that it is an organization that provides such amazing care to children that they feel the power to live their lives to the fullest despite having cancer. This is an appropriate emotional moment shared with the audience because it humanizes Jennifer which promotes the communal values of caring about others and empowers people to support St. Jude’s or charities that create this magic of giving back for the good of others.

Jennifer’s speech exhibits originality as she speaks from personal experience in discussing two different personal narratives which explain her connection to power and why she feels it is important to discuss power. For example, in the beginning of her speech Aniston recalls her early experience with feelings of power explaining that, “I remembered a parental figure saying to me around the rather critical age of about eleven after a dinner party that I was excused from the table because I didn’t have anything interesting to add to the conversation. Ouch and it’s stuck with me, it stuck with me painfully like sentences can and if I’m being honest, and I’m being honest because I’m fifty-eight […] I carried that sentence with me into adulthood” (Variety). This personal narrative shows Jennifer Aniston, a well-known and famous actress, experienced being belittled and feeling unimportant as a child. Her experience stuck with her throughout her life despite growing her growing fame in the entertainment industry. This explains why Jennifer Aniston agreed to speaking at this event Power of Women and why she feels connected emotionally to the topic. It also creates connections from Jennifer to audience members who may also have experienced feelings of little value and power in their lives. The second narrative shared in the speech is about Jennifer’s experience in shooting the public service announcement for St. Jude’s with the little girl Sawyer, mentioned in the previous paragraph. She describes how Sawyer was a seven-year-old cancer patient who had “big angelic eyeballs” and despite having cancer was as happy as could be the whole time they were shooting the video (Variety). After getting emotional about how Sawyer did not know what cancer meant, she concludes her speech saying, “every child deserves to know that they are powerful, and they are loved and that they deserve a seat at the table” (Variety). The personal narrative about witnessing just how powerful Sawyer was as a little girl with cancer, connects why Jennifer Aniston is so proud to support St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. The organization showers the children with love and support which encourages them to embrace their own power. Jennifer Aniston is so connected to this organization and promotion of power because she herself did not feel powerful as a child.

This example of rhetoric is both ethical and productive for society as it humanizes such a prominent famous woman which emphasizes the importance of using power for good and promotes the empowerment of children. Jennifer Aniston is an American actress who is widely known for her role as Rachel in the television show Friends and different roles in pop-culture movies. Looking from an outsider’s perspective, one would never guess that she experienced feelings of doubt in her self-worth and value as an individual. By revealing her struggle with power as a child, Jennifer makes herself more relatable to average people which allows for the average person to look up to her, not for her career but for finding her voice and using her power for good. This encourages people in society to find their own voices and use them to better others, like Jennifer Aniston did. It clears the confusion that one does not have to be famous or have immense wealth to promote the welfare of others, they just need to realize the impact their voice can have through using their power. On another level, this speech identifies the importance of supporting children, young girls specifically, while they are growing up so that they feel powerful and valued. Through Jennifer’s personal narratives of being a young girl and experiencing feeling inadequate and then meeting Sawyer and seeing how powerful she was in her battle against cancer, the value of promoting childhood empowerment arises. Jennifer Aniston expresses how it is critical and necessary that children are strengthened by love so that they can achieve their own power and strive to reach their full potential. This speech is a productive message for society because it makes people think about how they can use their power to help support others, lets people know that they are not alone in feeling powerless, and suggests that society needs to put more emphasis on empowering children.

Overall, Jennifer Aniston’s speech given at the Power of Women event held by Variety is a form of good rhetoric as it exhibits Kairos, appropriateness, and originality. The speech is delivered at the right time, incorporates the right ideas for the event it is given at, and exhibits originality through personal narratives. This speech is productive and ethical as it promotes using power for the welfare of others and highlights the importance of empowering children.

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.)

Variety. (October 11, 2019). Jennifer Aniston Has a Special Message for Young Girls- Full Power of Women Speech [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHEOlLTM1zY

[mnovak20]

*October 2*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: “What central narrative(s) 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 analyzed the music video “Drinking Class” by Lee Brice as my rhetorical artifact. Through the themes of exhaustion and pride, character development through choice of setting, and juxtaposition of lyrics with visuals, the video constructs the narrative of a drinking class made up of proud yet tired blue-collar workers who drink to wash away the work week. Overall, this narrative is limiting for society because it oversimplifies and stereotypes this group of people which creates unnecessary divisions in society.

“Drinking Class” is a song written by Josh Kear, David Frasier, and Ed Hill that was recorded by American country singer Lee Brice. The song was released on Brice’s third album I Don’t Dance in September 2014. The music video came out shortly after in November 2014 and was directed by Ryan Smith. The lyrics and music video are about hardworking people who work all through the week and drink on the weekends to have a good time. These people mostly work manual labor eight-hour long shifts Monday through Friday. The music video depicts these people working, their homes and families, and them partying at bars. It also features Lee Brice who identifies himself with the crowd of people he sings about.

Palczewski describes narratives as being stories that inform the lives of people. These stories have an entertaining aspect that intrigues listeners and allows them to understand concepts easier than if they were hearing nondescriptive factual evidence. A narrative organizes people’s experiences by piecing together relationships in events and time. While Palczewski summarizes what a narrative is, Foss explains how to critique a narrative. First, one must identify the dimensions of the narrative to comprehend what the narrative is doing as a whole. Some dimensions of a narrative include setting, characters, narrator, events, theme, audience, etc. After identifying different dimensions in the narrative, then one must draw conclusions and form an explanation behind the narrative.

One of the ways that the music video “Drinking Class” creates the narrative of the drinking class as proud but exhausted blue-collar workers is through illuminating the themes of pride and exhaustion. For example, after Lee Brice identifies himself as part of the drinking class he sings, “If you gotta, gotta label me, label me proud” (Hill, 2014). In the next stanza after describing working through the week he sings, “We’re gonna shake off those long week blues” (Hill, 2014). The pride theme comes through as Brice states he is proud to be labeled in the drinking class. Labels have a negative connotation, but Brice makes this positive as he labels himself amongst the working class he describes. This line is repeated twice in the lyrics emphasizing the idea that the drinking class is not ashamed of their way of life. The lyrics about shaking off the blues of the week do not have the same positive connotation as they follow Brice singing about how the workers “bust [their] backs” (Hill, 2014).  every day of the week. The word choice of “blues” has multiple meanings in this context, referencing both blues as in jeans and blues as in feelings of melancholy. Brice connects the blue-collar workers as being troubled by their work week and needing to “shake” off their jeans and exhaustion from working. This shaking is in the form of dancing at the bar, which implies drinking at the bar. While this creates values of taking pride in one’s work and way of life, it also supports that manual laborers are tired out by their jobs but are too proud to admit it and resort to drinking off their exhaustion at the end of the week.

Another way the central narrative is promoted is by development of a certain demographic character through setting. The opening scene of the video is a sunrise taking place in a rural area with fields in the background, which transitions to show people getting ready for work in small country homes before the sun is up. There are two men shown getting ready by opening a fridge and drinking coffee. There is also a woman shown in a bedroom taking care of a crying baby. The setting throughout the video then changes to different places of work occasionally with workers shown like the highway, a welding shop, a diner, a barn with a truck being filled with hay, a construction site, a factory, a utility pole on the road, etc. In the mix of all of these scenes with job sites, there is also a woman again shown with a child getting groceries. The depictions of women in the video show that Brice sees women as part of the drinking class, but their duties are to take care of families rather than work like the men shown in the video. These work settings define the blue-collar jobs that fit the demographic of the drinking class. The workers shown in the video are focused and giving it their all, despite looking tired. For example, there is line worker shown looking down at his work who then glances up at the clock to check the time of day. He looks solemn and focused but is sweating and curious to see how long until his shift is over. While this represents a good hardworking man, it also represents a man who is too proud to take a break to regain his strength and finish his shift strong. This scene transitions from a place of work to a place of drinking. It flashes to a night bar scene where there are both men and women shown playing pool, dancing, and drinking. The transitions of setting emphasize the demographic of character being blue-collar workers and their families who work tirelessly all through the week and drink when the hard work is done.

Additionally, this demographic character is developed through accompanying lyrics that reinforce the characteristics of mainly men manual laborers who are proudly connected to both their jobs and the bar. For example, when Lee Brice sings, “If you’re one of us, raise your glass” (Brice, 2014) people are shown in the music video working and drinking. The lyrics set a proud tone from Brice as he is asking his audience to raise a glass, and by doing this action, recognize and celebrate being a member of the drinking class. As these lyrics are sung by Lee Brice, the music video shows people who are in his mind a part of this class are shown. The first time this sequencing occurs, the music video shows a group of men outside a bar smoking and chatting. There is a woman with them, but it only shows the back of her head and hair. These men appear to be bikers as the wear bandanas and leather vests. The bar looks like a local town bar with neon signs outside. The video then transitions to a utility pole laborer who is picking up what appears to be a heavy piece of equipment at work. The second time the sequencing occurs, the video shows a truck driver on the road drinking a fountain drink and staring aimlessly ahead of him. He looks worn down by a day’s work. It then switches to moonshine being poured into shot glasses in a crowded bar and people taking the shots. These people include two bearded men with tattoos and bandanas on their heads and a woman who is briefly shown next to them. Lee Brice’s pride is in these people that he shows. These people are displayed as being both workers and drinkers, they are connected by the stylistic approach of including the scenes of people working then drinking and vice versa. The scenes themselves show similar people- men who are burly and tough as well as hardworking blue-collar men. Women are also shown but are not captured as having as big of a working role as the men, their roles are more supportive of the men. Through the juxtaposition of lyrics and drinking class demographic characters, it is once again promoted that hardworking people are connected to the bar scene after work and they are proud to be connected to both drinking and working.

This narrative about blue-collar workers drinking to get by is limiting to society as it labels the drinking class as being separate from other groups in America and creates an idea that the rest of American people are better than them. By characterizing the drinking class as being proud but tired men and women that work certain blue-collar jobs and drink in relation to their jobs, Lee Brice creates a stereotype of this group of people. The stereotype makes it seem like blue-collar workers are the only members of society that are associated with drinking alcohol after a hard day’s work. This stereotype does not accurately represent American society because in reality, a majority of American workers work all throughout the week and let loose by drinking on the weekends and having a good time with friends. Having a drink is not a terrible thing. It is not an action that should cause feelings of pity for people who do drink, but in this case it does. Because Lee Brice illuminates themes of both pride and exhaustion, this makes blue-collar workers look like a lesser class of people for drinking as it makes it seem like they are drinking to alleviate the work week not drinking to celebrate the work week. This concept creates feelings of pity from people who are not included in the drinking class demographic like those who work office jobs in the city. Feelings of pity for other people also creates feelings of being better than other people. Another way that this narrative is unproductive for society is through its depiction of women throughout the music video. It stereotypes women as contributing to the drinking class only through the working roles of mother and caregiver to families. Blue-collar jobs are not limited to only men, but that is what the portrayal of characters in this narrative suggest. Overall, the narrative of the drinking class is not productive because it stereotypes blue-collar workers as being mainly men laborers and women supporters who are subjected as being the only ones who drink in American society, which creates unnecessary divisions amongst society.  

Fisher further explains how narratives work by describing the narrative paradigm in relation to human communication. He makes the claim that meaningful communication between humans comes from storytelling and that past experiences influence this communication as well as how people respond to the communication. The responses to storytelling come from evaluating the coherence and fidelity of a story. Fisher’s narrative paradigm can be applied to the music video and song lyrics of “Drinking Class” because Lee Brice is telling a story to his audience about who he believes is in the drinking class, and this story is open for questioning coherence and fidelity. Because of the consistency of the narrative throughout the song lyrics and easy to follow structure, this story passes the test of coherence. On the other hand, the fidelity of the story is a bit more complicated because it requires the audience to determine if the narrative is an accurate reflection of reality. Because of the central narratives’ simplistic view of such a heavy stereotype this story would not be considered passing in fidelity. Just because a country song promotes a group called the drinking class and characterizes the people of it does not mean that people consider themselves part of the class. The narrative also creates an assumption that people who do not work blue-collar jobs do not drink after the work week. Assumptions like this do not reflect an accurate picture of America’s society.

In summary, the music video “Drinking Class” by Lee Brice creates a narrative about proud but tired blue-collar workers who drink because of their jobs through themes of exhaustion and pride, character development and demographic through setting, and juxtaposition of lyrics and video scenes. The narrative is unproductive for society because it creates a simplistic stereotype of a group of people and labels them as being the only people who drink in society.

Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390180

Foss, S. K. (2004). Narrative Criticism. Rhetorical criticism (3rd ed.) (pp. 333-341). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Hill, E. Kear, J. Frasier, D. (2014). Drinking Class [Recorded by L. Brice] [Lyrics]. Retrieved from https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/leebrice/drinkingclass.html

Lee Brice. (November 14, 2014). Lee Brice- Drinking Class (Official Music Video) [Video] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV1oQiRdoPc

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