moirasworks

[moirasworks]

Reflection on Ethical Communication

Ethics, a concept often perceived as a dichotomy between right and wrong, once again has revealed its nuances in the second half of our semester. In my first look into the subject, I covered concepts such as thoughtfulness, concern, and the role of virtue ethics in shaping moral compasses. Now, as I dive a little deeper into the discourse on communication ethics, I find myself confronted with new layers of complexity and introspection. Amongst these new layers of complexity, I will give some of my thoughts and responses. 

My favorite moral philosophy we learned, and the one I resonate with the most, is definitely Ubuntu. I think that it is a beautiful approach to life, and pretty much sums up my way of thinking. I think that the recognition that "I am because you are"—is a profound acknowledgment of our shared humanity and interconnectedness. Ubuntu challenges us to move beyond individualism and self-interest. In a world plagued by division, hatred and selfishness, Ubuntu is a powerful message, reminding us that our collective responsibility is to nurture, and have compassion and mutual respect in our interactions. Ubuntu emphasizes that we are all human beings, and we are all in this together. In my perfect world, everyone would live by the Ubuntu philosophy. 

Another concept that continues to resonate with me is the notion of ethical loneliness. From my understanding, it's that profound sense of isolation that creeps in when our voices go unheard, our concerns unaddressed, and our connections get lost. It's a reminder of the importance of genuine engagement, of listening not only to the words spoken but also to the silent cries for help and connection. Ethical loneliness isn't just about feeling alone in a crowded room; it's about feeling disconnected from the very fabric of human interaction and being filled with apathy and indifference. This is unfortunately a concept that I can relate to. I think in a way, a lot of people can, whether they want to admit it or not. I tend to self-isolate quite a bit, and certainly feel disconnected from “the outside world”.  While I don’t necessarily feel abandoned, I do sometimes feel that my thoughts and feelings are not prioritized, which can make anyone feel alone. I think that we live in a world ruled by greed, when it should be ruled by love and compassion, so I tend to feel an extreme disconnect. 

But to counterbalance that enormous sense of solitude, is the concept of critical responsiveness—which to me, is kind of like a beacon of hope in the darkness. It's about cultivating the capacity to listen deeply, to empathize with the pain of others, and to respond with compassion and understanding. In said world filled with hate and division, critical responsiveness is a way to light up the path towards authentic connection and mutual respect. It's about more than just hearing; it's about truly listening—listening with empathy, with an open heart, and with a genuine desire to understand. Listening to someone and hearing someone are different, in a similar way that thoughtfulness and being full of thought are different. Good little connection from the first part of the semester. Empathy is unfortunately not an inherent trait of all humans, so it takes actively acknowledging the lack of empathy they have, in order to start fixing the problem. However, to my dismay, we do not live in a world where Ubuntu and empathy are the standard moral compass, so who's to say that people even care if they lack empathy or compassion? I certainly care, but I can’t force others to.  

Another intriguing aspect of ethical communication that we went over was the concept of dysrelationality. Dysrelationality serves as a reminder of the fragility of human connection, highlighting the importance of nurturing healthy, meaningful relationships grounded in trust and mutual respect. It's about recognizing that communication isn't just about exchanging words; it's about fostering genuine understanding and connection between individuals. I consider myself lucky because I have curated some incredible relationships that go back decades. As I get deeper into my twenties, I hear a lot of people my age complain about finding real, meaningful relationships, and I have been fortunate enough to remain friends with the same people for many years. And despite us all living our own adult lives now, that connection that we have fostered over the years runs so deep that our relationships have not faltered. The respect and compassion we have for each other has built lasting relationships. 

 I do recognize that this isn’t always the case, though, and dysrelationality goes far beyond our friendships. Navigating the complexities of dysrelationality, challenges us to confront our own biases and assumptions, to listen actively and empathetically, and to engage in dialogue that promotes mutual understanding and growth, even with strangers. Within the realm of ethical communication, I think it's important to remember that every challenge presents an opportunity for growth, and every interaction is a chance to deepen our understanding of human connection. Basically, we all have room to grow and be compassionate, understanding humans.  

We also went over the concept of care ethics, another framework rooted in compassion, empathy, and relationships. One limitation often discussed in care ethics is its aversion to duty. Unlike traditional ethical theories that rely on rules and principles to dictate behavior (deontological, for example), care ethics prioritizes authentic, relational care that comes from personal connections and empathy. While this rejection of duty may seem strange to some, it highlights the inherent humanity of ethical engagement, emphasizing the importance of genuine compassion over obligation. I think back to CJ’s story about his cousin’s aversion to helping his sick mother. This is not an uncommon case, as I have heard several stories of those seemingly closest not helping. Why is that? Although I did say earlier that all humans do not inherently have compassion, I think it runs deeper than that when it is affecting someone close to you. I don’t think that CJ’s cousin is a bad person, maybe they just hate to see their mother that way? A conversation could be had about gender roles in care ethics, as well.  All I’m saying is, like most things in communication ethics, it’s nuanced.  

Speaking of gender roles, we also discussed feminist ethics, a subset of care ethics, which further emphasizes the importance of meeting human needs and fostering connections. In feminist ethics, relationships become the focal point of ethical consideration, highlighting the moral significance of nurturing connections and supporting one another in times of need. This relational emphasis challenges the traditional emphasis on autonomy and independence, recognizing that humans thrive in interconnected networks of care and support. (I am because you are!) 

Virginia Held, a leading figure in care ethics that you showed us, outlines six major features that characterize an ethics of care. Central to this framework is the idea of meeting the needs of specific individuals for whom we have responsibility, such as a parent caring for a child. Emotion is valued in moral deliberation, acknowledging the role of empathy in understanding others' needs. I come from a single-mother household, so the importance of that responsibility to care is far from lost on me. My mother took on the incredibly difficult task of not only caring for the needs of my siblings and myself as children, but also helping us become our own, caring and empathetic adults.  

Wrapping up here, I have really enjoyed the second half of the semester, just like the first. These concepts of morality are important and need to be acknowledged and studied by more people, in my opinion. I hope that moving forward, we have a collective moral compass led by the foundations of Ubuntu. Like I said, if the whole world lived that way, I think that we’d be in a much better position.  

[moirasworks]

The Rhetoric of the Women’s Suffrage Movement 

theoretical framing of a social movement

“Don’t touch my pride/ They say the glory’s all mine/ Don’t test my mouth/ They say the truth is my sound” — Solange, “Don’t Touch My Hair” (2016). This song is about far more than hair, Solange is asserting her right to define herself, refusing to let anyone else control her narrative. These lyrics show the themes of identity, pride, resistance, and agency—ideas deeply related to the rhetoric used by the suffragists in the fight for women’s rights. The rhetorical force of the movement was a forceful defiance, as the suffragettes refused to let society dictate their worth or their place in the world. The fight was about more than just the right to vote, it was a much deeper battle for agency and self-determination for women. They stood against the patriarchy and what emerged was a transformative movement that rewrote women’s role in society forever. 

The Suffrage movement’s identity challenged deeply ingrained misogyny and sexism and emphasized self-expression and the right to claim their own power. These women were revolutionaries who demanded change and fought against the hegemonic rules set in place. The Suffrage movement’s rhetoric was about taking control of their own story, their own lives, and their own future.  The fight in the United States began in this mid 1800s, and in 1920, the 19th Amendment officially gave (white) women the right to vote, with it being ratified in 1965 to finally include all women. This long and hard-fought battle was spearheaded by thousands of women, some of which became famous feminist figures and used their voices to gain traction for the movement. For years, women had been told their place was in the home, that politics were for men. But suffragettes like Alice Paul, Ida B. Wells, and even male allies like Frederick Douglass, challenged these notions. 

Their rhetoric was fueled by creating visibility and disruption. Their public protests, hunger strikes, and other forms of civil disobedience made sure their message was seen and heard. Alice Paul, for example, picketed the White House for 18 months. In 1917, she organized the “Silent Sentinels,” a group of suffragettes who held up signs demanding that President Wilson support women’s right to vote. Paul and several others were subsequentially jailed, Paul herself for seven months.  While imprisoned, they were subjected to harsh conditions, and their hunger strikes (where they refused to eat in protest) drew national attention. The rough treatment they faced in jail shocked the public, which garnered widespread sympathy for the suffrage cause. This, in turn, led to growing support for the movement, as people recognized the injustice these women were enduring for something as basic as the right to vote. 

One of the most powerful rhetorical strategies used by the suffragettes was creating public unrest to demand attention. The 1913 Woman Suffrage Procession in Washington, D.C., is one example. Thousands of women marched through the streets, making their demands impossible to ignore. The large demonstration sent the message that they would not remain silent and emphasized the severity of their demands.  

Another key rhetorical strategy was mobilizing people—especially women—into action. Suffragettes used pamphlets, newspapers, and speeches to inspire people to join the cause. They made both logical and emotional appeals to gain sympathy and respect. They shared stories of how women were treated unfairly, and how the vote would be a powerful tool for change. These appeals helped build solidarity and bring women from all backgrounds together for the movement. Although, I would be remiss not to note that famous Suffragette Susan B. Anthony and several others still perpetuated racist ideals, causing inner turmoil within the group. Anthony even stated, “I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman.”, so I don’t really like to recognize her, as much as a key figure as she was.  

This divisive stance created rifts within the suffrage movement. Black suffragettes, like Ida B. Wells and others, had to navigate the complexities of advocating for their own rights while also confronting the racism within their own movement. These racial tensions hindered the suffrage movement’s rhetorical power at times, as it was unable to fully unite all women in the fight for equality. 

Despite these challenges, the suffrage movement’s rhetoric remained a powerful force for change. While internal divisions existed, the broader message of equality, justice, and women’s right to self-determination resonated with many and played a key role in eventually winning the right to vote. The legacy of the suffrage movement’s rhetoric continues to influence modern day struggles for gender equality and social justice, reminding us that the fight for women’s rights was never just about the ballots, but about redefining women’s place in society. 

[moirasworks]

Cultural/Rhetorical Analysis on The Challenge

The pop culture artifact that I have decided to explore is MTV’s The Challenge, a reality competition show that is a spin-off of two of the network's reality shows, The Real World and Road Rules. This intertextuality brought a surge of fans, creating a pop culture phenomenon that is still active today. Currently, the show is airing its 40th season. I will be looking through a cultural lens, and in this analysis, will examine how the show constructs and portrays identities, influences viewer perceptions, and interacts with broader societal narratives and norms. I’ve been a huge fan of this show and an avid watcher for about a decade, and I believe that it reflects the cultural shifts we experience and highlights important themes like race and gender, which will be my focus. 

A key characteristic of television is its realism, a concept explained by George Gerbner and his colleagues in our book through cultivation theory, which describes how television shapes viewers' perceptions of reality (Gerbner et al. 275). This is particularly relevant for The Challenge, where personal interactions and competitive dynamics influence viewer interpretations of relationships and social norms. 

The Challenge first aired in 1998, featuring participants from either The Real World or Road Rules, two groundbreaking shows from the early '90s. The Real World, MTV's original reality series, introduced the premise of moving a diverse group of young adults into a house and filming their cohabitation, highlighting issues of race, gender, and sexuality during a time when these topics were largely ignored. Road Rules, which began in 1995, offered a mobile format with castmates traveling in an RV, and introduced gamified elements that set the stage for competitive reality shows. 

The Challenge, was subsequently introduced by the same creators, Mary Ellis Bunim and John Murray, in 1998. The new show combined the two formats, still focusing on the individuals but adding a layer of competition. Contestants not only competed for monetary prizes but also formed romantic affairs, alliances, and rivalries, layering competition with interpersonal relationships. The show's longevity, now in its 40th season as I said, speaks to its ability to adapt to changing cultural landscapes while continuing to engage audiences. The intertextuality has expanded even more, as now there have been contestants featured from shows like Survivor and Big Brother.  

I will be analyzing The Challenge through a cultural lens. Through this cultural lens, we can explore how the show constructs and portrays identities, influences viewer perceptions, and interacts with society. This lens allows us to examine how the show reflects cultural shifts related to race and gender and also enables a critique of the power dynamics at play. 

Gender plays a crucial role in the politics of the show.  Initially, teams included both genders until season 6, when Battle of the Sexes separated them. This shift introduced cutthroat strategies among female contestants, leading to the emergence of the "mean girls" trope, exemplified by cast members like Veronica, Tina, and Rachel. Despite receiving backlash for their manipulative tactics, a male contestant, Puck, faced far less scrutiny despite his abusive behavior, which included threatening a female castmate and spitting at a Black contestant.  He was never officially kicked off the show and eventually left on his own accord. A protest in his favor was actually started by some of the women, who refused to compete unless he was able to as well. MTV allowed behavior like this to happen for several years. The men were rarely called out or punished for their actions, unlike the women. This lack of accountability was representative of our culture, especially at the time, where men and women did not receive the same treatment and judgement.    

When the mixed gender team format returned, the men started to strategically eliminate the women on their own teams. This tactic was commonly referred to as “trimming the fat” by the “alpha males” on the show, who believed the girls were the weakest links and if they were gone, their team would not only improve, but they would also be left with more prize money at the end. This behavior was called out by several women on the show but was still perpetuated for the remainder of the team-based format seasons.  

The women on the show were also victims of hyper sexualization. In an article titled “Consuming the Fractured Female: Lessons from MTV’s The Real World”, author Danielle Stern says, "The Real World has continued to up the ante on sexual displays and bodies" (Stern, 2007, p. 5). She says his strategy capitalizes on the marketing of a "fractured female," reflecting cultural fascinations with troubled women like Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.  

 A woman named Tonya, who went from an extremely religious “good girl” on her Real World season, transformed into the role of the troubled and lost girl, who used alcohol and relationships to cope with her issues. She was highly scrutinized by castmates and fans, who simply labeled her “a mess” and did nothing to help. Things finally came to an end in season 18, The Ruins, when she drunkenly slapped Veronica and got kicked off of the show.  

A few years later, Tonya filed a lawsuit against production and MTV, claiming she was sexually assaulted during that season by two male castmates. NDAs were signed and the suit was settled privately. The two men, Evan and Kenny, were never allowed back on the show, but had already participated in (and won) several seasons after 18. To this day, several castmates still have close relationships with the expelled men and cite their wish for them to return. Years later, many female castmates have come forward claiming that production did nothing to intervene and even encouraged heavy drinking often. A conscious choice was made by production to exemplify a “fractured female” trope, in hopes to entertain the masses, but under the guise of their “showing real issues” format. I find this representation disingenuous, but still important. Furthermore, the lack of swift accountability reflects a cultural norm of silencing victims and allowing perpetrators of sexual violence to continue with their lives without repercussions for years.  

Race also played a significant role in shaping the dynamics and narratives within The Challenge. Despite the historical diversity in the show, throughout the series, there has been a notable trend of non-white contestants being voted out early or left out of alliances, which reflects a broader cultural narrative of racism and exclusion. This pattern is not coincidental but reveals significant racial biases. 

Historically, non-white contestants have often found themselves marginalized in the game. The structure of the show, which prioritizes alliances and strategic partnerships, tends to favor established social dynamics that are predominantly white. Personally, I attribute this to The Real World/ Road Rules casting a singular, token, non-white person in the cast in the name of diversity. Oftentimes the alliances were friendships that bled over from previous shows, and the non-white castmates were still left out.   

In his article on multiracial issues in reality TV, author Jon Kraszewski (2023) discusses how this dynamic perpetuates stereotypes and undermines the identities of multiracial cast members, indicating that while the show may promote a narrative of inclusion, it often falls short of genuinely embracing diversity.  This exclusion not only impacts individual contestants but reinforces the idea that non-white people are less valuable within the competitive framework of the show. 

A particularly egregious example of racial insensitivity occurred during Battle of the Exes, when Emily Schromm mocked her partner, Ty, by using blackface. This incident drew criticism for its blatant disregard for the historical and cultural implications of blackface, a practice that is rooted in racial mockery and oppression. Despite the seriousness of the act, reactions from castmates were mostly silence, reflecting a dangerous trend within the show (and in real life) where racist behavior is often overlooked or excused. Emily was not kicked off the show and went on to win the following season.  Kraszewski’s analysis highlights how moments of racial insensitivity, like the blackface incident, are often met with silence or complicity from both producers and other contestants. 

The Challenge eventually changed their tune, showing a significant shift toward awareness and accountability regarding the behavior of its contestants. This evolution reflects a broader cultural shift in how reality TV engages with social issues, highlighting the importance of sensitivity and respect in representation. This shift started around 2019, a significant period in the U.S., where Trump was in office, the Me Too movement was peaking, and the Black Lives Matter movement was also heavily active.  

In this new political climate, The Challenge began implementing much stricter consequences for inappropriate behavior. Currently, contestants found guilty of actions that are deemed offensive or discriminatory now face immediate repercussions, including being banned from future seasons. This is a big contrast to earlier seasons, where problematic behavior often went unaddressed and was sometimes even encouraged. Instances that would have previously only created a little audience outrage now result in significant penalties, showing MTV’s commitment to creating a safe, respectful and inclusive environment. (Which they promoted for years but did not really practice) 

As noted by authors Enns and Smit in their article “The Creation and Corruption of Diversity in MTV’s ‘The Real World.’ (1999, pp. 15-26), while the show initially commodified diversity inauthentically, recent trends indicate a shift toward a more genuine representation. The show's evolution reflects a move away from a superficial approach to inclusivity toward one that acknowledges and addresses real social issues. This change signifies a recognition of the importance of the nuances and sensitivity in representation. 

In conclusion, The Challenge is a microcosm of societal dynamics regarding race and gender, showcasing how reality TV can both reflect and shape cultural narratives. While it has a problematic history, the show's recent shifts toward accountability and sensitivity give me hope for more responsible/genuine representation in the future. The Challenge shows that reality TV can shift with the culture and help to represent but also shape cultural norms.  

[moirasworks]

Reflection on Trump's Victory Speech

After securing a second term in office, President Donald Trump delivered his victory speech in the early morning hours from Florida. Surrounded by his family and supporters, he exuded confidence and a calm tone that was different from his usual style. The speech felt less like a declaration of victory and more like the opening chapter of a new political narrative. Rather than utilizing his usual bravado, Trump chose to express gratitude to his supporters and announced that his movement had achieved "the greatest political movement of all time." Through the massive applause, Trump promised that a "Golden Age" of America was coming, thanks to their votes.  

In this speech, Trump appeared far calmer than in past addresses. There was a noticeable absence of the hateful rhetoric and attacks that often occur in his speeches. No personal insults were thrown at political opponents or the media (for the most part), and his demeanor was strangely subdued, lacking the usual combative tone that had become a staple of his presidency. In its place was a calculated focus on rallying his base around a central message: that his leadership would restore the country to its rightful place. The focus was on promises of greatness and revival, striving for an America that was "great" in some way, but never clearly defined. 

This shift in tone, however, did not mean that Trump’s usual political tools were absent. His speech continued to lean into revisionism, a practice he has utilized throughout his political career to reshape historical narratives and project a glorified image of his leadership. Trump spoke at length about the notion of restoring American greatness, but he was intentionally vague about what that meant. By positioning himself as the sole figure capable of reversing the course of the nation, he invited his supporters to fill in the gaps with their own definitions of "greatness." This allowed him to sidestep the need for specific policies or (concepts of a plan) or a clear outline of what his second term would entail. This was not just a political strategy, but a tool for creating a version of history where our nation's problems are framed as anomalies that only he can fix. It’s almost like a “chosen one” narrative that he loves to use, and his supporters tend to agree with wholeheartedly. 

This was a prime example of political revisionism. As Brown (2020) suggests, revisionism involves reinterpreting past events to suit a particular agenda or narrative. Trump’s rhetoric used this framework by presenting the past as a time when America was truly “great,” and only through his leadership could this greatness be restored. He always conveniently excludes the complexities and challenges of the job and simply claims that he can do it like no one else can.  

Trump’s framing of the current political landscape as a struggle between "us" and "them" also demonstrated a form of gaslighting. While gaslighting typically refers to the act of making others question their perception of reality, in this case, Trump was actively distorting the political realities of his opponents to create a sense of anger and fear. He implied that the Democratic Party’s control was a threat to the nation’s well-being, suggesting that if they had remained in power, America would have continued to decline. This divisive rhetoric aimed to demonize his opponents, presenting them as not just political rivals, but as enemies of the nation itself. 

Gaslighting was also evident in Trump’s comments about immigration. Traditionally, Trump has used fear-mongering language about immigrants, painting them as a threat to the nation’s security and culture. In his victory speech, however, he softened his rhetoric, claiming that he "wants people to come in, but they need to come in legally." This subtle shift in language showed a change in his messaging, but it was still framed in terms of maintaining control and securing borders. By offering a more PC version of his views, Trump attempted to confuse his audience, implying that his opposition to immigration was based on legalities rather than the harsher, bigoted rhetoric that had appeared in his earlier speeches. This seems revisionist again and is also a form of gaslighting—by downplaying his past statements and presenting himself as more moderate, he sought to reshape his image while maintaining his core political base’s loyalty. 

Despite these calmer moments, Trump still leaned into the hype atmosphere and framed the election as a victory for the people against the so-called elites, emphasizing that his movement represented the true will of the American people. This rhetoric, while softer than usual, continued to perpetuate the sense of division that has characterized much of his political messaging. He also declared “certain news” (companies) as his enemies, therefore enemies of the people, further dividing us and creating even more mistrust in the media.  

Trump also employed his usual self-promotional tactics. He mostly refrained from boasting about personal accomplishments, but he still managed to steer much of the narrative back to himself. In his remarks about the support of his family and key figures like Elon Musk and Dana White, Trump continually reinforced the idea that he was the central figure in the political landscape. This continued focus on himself, even in a lighter tone, highlighted his tendency to make everything about himself. For example, when introducing JD Vance, he was sure to mention that he “Sure did make a good pick”, despite the negative opinions that people apparently had. 

In conclusion, while this victory speech was less combative than many of Trump’s previous addresses, it still kept to key rhetorical strategies: revisionism, gaslighting, and self-promotion. Trump framed his victory as part of a larger movement to restore some kind of “greatness”, further emboldening his supporters to stand firm against anyone in their way. As Brown (2020) argues, these tactics of revisionism and gaslighting allow politicians like Trump to create a narrative that supports their political (or personal) goals, often at the expense of a more truthful reality. Based on his track record, I can only assume that Trump will continue using his hateful rhetoric, but his calm demeanor during this victory speech does give me some hope that he will be less inflammatory moving forward.  

[moirasworks]

While enrolled at Chattanooga State, I took TV production classes. This demo reel showcases my roles in the class. Filmed and edited by me.