trevorboryla - Tumblr blog

[trevorboryla]

*November 22, 2022*

In this entry I will examine the critical questions: find an artifact of a counterpublic: Why/how is it a counterpublic? What is its rhetorical message, and how does it use rhetoric to make arguments and/or create identity? How is it empowering and/or limiting?

To investigate these questions I examined a Nike ad entitled “One Day We Won’t Need This Day”. By using repetition, powerful images and a pathos appeal to determination, this ad celebrates females in sports by recognizing what they’ve had to overcome, but in doing so it also shows that they need to continue to fight for equal recognition and rights, with the ultimate goal of being included in the dominant public. This ad is empowering overall because its message insists that the efforts of the counterpublic are certain to pay off, which not only inspires the counterpublic in the present but also gives them hope for the future.

Nike posted this commercial on their YouTube channel on International Women’s day in 2020, which is on March 8th. Nike is a multi-billion dollar company specializing in athletic apparel. They sell clothing, shoes and athletic equipment, and also sponsor many teams and individual athletes worldwide. Thus, due to their connection with sports, they’re celebrating women in sports. The ad highlights discrimination that female athletes faced compared to male athletes in the world of sport. In the ad they show images of women in many different sports, across different age levels, including some of the most famous and successful female athletes currently, such as Serena Williams and Megan Rapinoe The description under the video reads: “On International Women’s Day, Nike is celebrating the women who have moved sport forward—in the hopes that One Day, every day will feel like this one we mark on our calendars” and the video currently has 517,000 views.

Counterpublics are present in every society in the world, as every society has groups of marginalized people being oppressed by privileged members of public spheres. Further, counterpublics can be present in very specific aspects of society, such as in sports in this paper, as any time there is a dominant public, there are counterpublics. Felski explains that a public “perceives itself as distinct from state interests, a discursive community bound by shared assumptions which define its boundaries and validate its claim to authority as the locus of informed public opinion” (Felski, p.164). The difference between public and counterpublic spheres, is that while public spheres represent the dominant ideals of the public, according to Felski, counterpublics “seek to define themselves against the homogenizing and universalizing logic of the global megaculture” (Felski, p.166). Therefore, counterpublics must be marginalized in some way as Felski describes, “The experience of discrimination, oppression, and cultural dislocation provides the impetus for the development of a self consciously oppositional identity” (Felski, p.167). Thus, a counterpublic is a group of people with some collective trait who are not included within the dominant public sphere, causing them to be discriminated against. Therefore, it is imperative for counterpublic groups to use rhetoric to gain recognition, and attempt to break into the public sphere. This use of rhetoric by counterpublics is necessary for progressing society, and liberating groups of people.

The repetition of the phrase “one day we won’t need a day to…” throughout the ad emphasizes the adversity that female athletes have to overcome currently, while also insisting that their efforts will eventually yield the equal recognition they deserve. All throughout the ad this phrase is repeated with different endings, such as “one day we won’t need a day to celebrate how far we’ve come” (0:07) and “one day we won’t need a day to prove were just as fast or strong or skilled” (0:14). These phrases focus on the present. They discuss the fact that currently we have a day to celebrate women in sports, and that currently, female athletes feel that they need to prove that they’re just as “fast or strong or skilled”, and this is the theme of the whole ad until the very last phrase. This clearly indicates the fact that female athletes are indeed a counterpublic, as the ad suggests they have to deal with discrimination when compared to the general public sphere. The ad finishes with “one day we won't need this day at all, because one day, this will be our every day” (0:43). The set up to this final phrase through repetition makes it even more powerful, especially because the line “this will be our everyday'' ends with the word that has been repeated the most throughout the video. Using repetition in this way emphasizes the perseverance the counterpublic must have. Further, it is not just hopeful for the future, it is insistent that through this perseverance one day, female athletes will be recognized as equal to male athletes; they will be included within the public sphere. The certainty and strength of this message is enhanced through this use of repetition throughout the video.

The use of very famous athletes as visuals throughout the video demonstrates that while some female athletes have reached the utmost success and superstar status, even these athletes have still been criticized at almost every point of their career, simply due to their gender. This ad specifically uses images of Serena Williams and Megan Rapinoe who are both athletes who have achieved the highest level of success in both of their respective sports, however they have both been harshly criticized for speaking about equal recognition for male and female athletes. The history behind these athletes highlights the fact that female athletes are indeed a counterpublic, but it also is empowering, as it emphasizes the success that female athletes can reach despite all of the adversity that they face. Obviously, they should be able to be successful without having to face discrimination simply because of their gender, but their success in spite of this is inspiring and therefore using them as visuals in this ad increases the empowerment of the rhetoric.

This advertisement uses a pathos appeal to bravery to empower the counterpublic of female athletes and encourage them to continue to stand up in the face of discrimination. By appealing to the bravery of current female athletes, the ad commends their determination, reinforcing their resolve to continue to fight for equality in sports. The ad uses the lines, “One day, we won’t need a day to rally behind the ones fighting to change the rules” (0:33) and “One day we won’t need a day to relive the comebacks, the firsts, or the titles we’ve won” (0:27). By bringing up rhetoric about the trailblazers and in general the relentlessness that all female athletes innately demonstrate just by participating in sport, the feeling of bravery is produced. The instillment of bravery into the audience members strengthens the overall message of the ad, as it recognizes the courage female athletes face and encourages them to continue in their resolve. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the use of certain famous athletes who have been brave in the face of criticism also appeals to the bravery of the audience by simultaneously showing strong female athletes along with the phrases, reinforcing this appeal to the bravery of the audience.

While there are certainly laws all over the world preventing women from participating in sports in the same way that men do, this ad highlights the “informal impediments to participatory parity that can persist even after everyone is formally and legally licensed to participate” (Fraser, p.119) as described by Fraser. The ad moreso focuses on the social discrimination that women in sports face, rather than fighting for the actual legal ability to play sports (although this is certainly still an issue). This ad seems optimistic that this counterpublic will even overcome this obstacle, as the overall message and title of the ad is “One Day We Won’t Need This Day”, however Fraser suggests that this outcome may be impossible under Habermas’ bourgeois definition of a public sphere, which is the same definition described above by Felski. Fraser argues that the attempt to eliminate social inequalities in the discourse of the public sphere was unsuccessful, and instead they were only “bracketed”, and bracketed unsuccessfully. She argues that, “bracketing usually works to the advantage of dominant groups in society and to the disadvantage of subordinates. In most cases it would be more appropriate to unbracket inequalities in the sense of explicitly thematizing them” (Fraser, p.120). So eventually getting rid of the celebration of women in sports may actually act to marginalize the counterpublic group more. Therefore, according to Fraser’s theory, the counterpublic of female athletes should certainly continue to use rhetoric to fight for equal recognition, however the celebration of International Women’s Day, and the recognition of the differences between male and female athletes should remain in order to highlight the inequality that female athletes have faced historically. This may actually allow for better equality in terms of discourse and recognition within the dominant public sphere.

The contents of the advertisement itself are certainly overall empowering. It celebrates female athletes, promotes equality, and encourages women in sports to continue overcoming their adversity to receive the recognition they deserve. The overall message of the ad that “one day we won't need this day” is powerful due to the certainty of the statement. The message is not one of hope; it is matter of fact, and that makes it even more empowering. The only limitations that come from this video is that it is an advertisement for a very large corporation, who is well known for having some unethical business practices. Nike has been accused of using sweatshops in order to create their products. Therefore, it is somewhat hypocritical to promote equality in sports, when their own workers are mistreated and forced to work in dangerous environments. Further, using the struggles that female athletes face as a way to attempt to sell their products could be considered unethical, especially when considering that the CEO, CFO and COO of Nike are all male. Although, overall I still believe that this advertisement is empowering, and the largest sports apparel company bringing more attention to this issue is also a very good thing for exposure.

In conclusion, Nike’s ad, “One Day We Won’t Need This Day” is an overall empowering video, evident through the analysis of its rhetorical elements. By using a pathos appeal to determination, repetition and images of successful female athletes, the ad encourages the counterpublic of female athletes to continue to fight for equal recognition, while also celebrating their adversity in the world of sports. This strong message is empowering as it is assertive that the determination of female athletes will bring equal and deserved recognition.

Works Cited Felski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change. Boston: Harvard University Press. "The Feminist Counter-Public Sphere", pp. 164-172)" 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. One Day We Won't Need This Day. Nike, YouTube, 8 Mar. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzYYUGnmqLA. Accessed 21 Nov. 2022.

[trevorboryla]

*October 23,2022*

Tumblr CQ Essay 2

In this entry, I will evaluate 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 analyzed a speech by Daenerys Targaryen from the television show Game of Thrones. By building her ethos through examples, using a pathos appeal to resentment, and creating a logos appeal through the use of an enthymeme, Daenerys attempts to convince her audience to help her overthrow their current government, as they will have a better life under. This is overall an ethical message, and her rhetorical appeals are used ethically as she promotes the values of freedom and denounces the practice of slavery.

This speech is from a scene in the television show Game of Thrones. It comes from season four episode three which came out on April 20th, 2014. In this scene, the speaker is Daenerys Targaryen who is a She is outside of the city walls of the city of Meereen, a city’s whose entire economy and way of life is based upon slavery. Thus, Daenerys has come to take the city because she is appaled at these acts of slavery, and would like to free all of the slaves. As she stands outside the gates and delivers this speech, she is addressing the enslaved people of the city and only the enslaved people, though the “masters” certainly also were able to hear the speech. The “masters” know that she has come with the intent of laying siege to the city, taking it, and then outlawing slavery under her rule, as she had done the same to two other nearby cities as well. However, it is unlikely that the slaves know this, as the “masters” would probably keep the knowledge of her conquests secret because she threatened their way of life. Thus, Daenerys is addressing the enslaved people as if they do not know who she is, as many of them likely believe that she is there to perform acts of violence to their city, as she is standing outside of it with a grand army.

Speeches are an essential form of rhetoric as they are the main format in which political leaders communicate with the masses. Thus, the study of rhetoric in speeches is imperative in understanding the ethicality and effectiveness of the messages given by political leaders. Herrick demonstrates this importance by citing Aristotle’s work, who discusses three types of rhetoric used by orators, one of which is deliberative rhetoric, which is the category that the speech that I am analyzing falls under. Herrick explains, “Deliberative rhetoric involves weighing evidence for and against a policy” and “deliberative oratory is concerned with actions, is future oriented…deliberative orators would need to know what the audience envisions as a good future, what they consider to be in their best interests, and what they think of as wasteful”(Herrick, p.76). To deliver this type of rhetoric, the speaker can use three different rhetorical appeals: appeals to logos, to ethos and to pathos. Herrick describes, “Logos was the study of the arguments employed in practical decision making, and in particular of the enthymeme” and that it is “the ways people actually reason with public issues” (p.79). He mentions an enthymeme which is a specific type of logical appeal in which a commonly held value by the speaker and the audience does not specifically need to be stated, because it is assumed to be “grasped internally” (p.74) by both the audience and the speaker. Pathos, according to Herrick, is an emotional appeal, as it is “emotion’s ability to affect the judgment of audiences” (p.79). He further adds, “a knowledgeable speaker can engage the strong beliefs and feelings that both influence the reasoning of audience members and move them to action” (p.79). However he makes certain to clarify that emotions are not “irrational impediments to decision making. Rather, they are rational responses to certain kinds of circumstances and arguments” (p.80). Finally, Herrick explains that to build credibility and develop ethos, a speaker has to “exhibit phronesis (intelligence, good sense), arete (virtue) and eunoia (goodwill)” (p.80-81). He says Aristotle believed this might be the most important rhetorical appeal because, “when people are convinced that a speaker is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and has their best interests at heart, they will be very likely to accept as true what the speaker has to say” (p.81).

Danaerys builds her ethos by emphasizing that she has the audience’s goodwill in mind, through the use of parallelism which shows examples of her past actions. This whole speech could be considered an attempt by Daenerys to build ethos, as the main purpose of the speech is to convince the audience that she is there for their benefit. A specific part where she boosts her ethos the most is by demonstrating her eunoia through parallelism, “First I went to Astapor. Those who were slaves in Astapor, now stand behind me, free. Next I went to Yunkai. Those who were slaves in Yunkai, now stand behind me, free. Now I have come to Meereen.” (Daenerys, 0:50). Daenerys demonstrates that she has improved the lives of other people that are in the same situation as her audience members. By doing this, she takes on the persona of a savior; she has come there to save them from their oppressors and improve their lives. This asserts that she is there for the benefit of her audience, and that her conquest of their city will bring prosperity to them. Her use of examples, and having physical proof of her accomplishments also demonstrates her phronesis, as it shows to the audience that she has been successful two separate times in the past in her pursuit of defeating slavery.

Daenerys uses a pathos appeal to incite the feeling of resentment into the enslaved people of Meereen by highlighting the injustices of the “masters”, and contrasting this to herself. Daenerys emphasizes the actions that the masters have taken for their own benefit at the expense of the enslaved people to illustrate that they are the real enemies. She exclaims that, “Your enemy steals and murders your children”(Daenerys, 1:04) and then later, “and I bring your enemies what they deserve” (1:23). The majority of parents believe that their children are the most important thing in the world, even to the extent of sacrificing their own lives for them. Thus, bringing children into the speech certainly attempts to incite an emotional response in the audience. Specifically highlighting not only wrongdoing to the children of her audience members, but emphasizing that their children are murdered by the masters arouses the feeling of resentment. She brings up the most important thing in the world to most people, and then brings up who is taking that from them, directly appealing to their resentment and rage to show that the masters are the enemy. Then by using the line “I bring your enemies what they deserve” (1:23), she continues to use these emotions to further elevate herself by claiming that she will bring justice to the people that the audience resents. In sum, she appeals to this feeling of resentment in the audience to display that the masters are the real enemy, and that she is there to stop their injustice.

Daenerys uses a logos appeal by utilizing an enthymeme that demonstrates that the real enemy is the slave masters, not her. She concludes her speech by saying, “Your enemy has nothing for you but chains and suffering, and commands.I do not bring you commands, I bring you a choice.”(Daenerys, 1:18). These two sentences are the final two clauses of the enthymeme. The main point that is left out is that having freewill is a better state than being commanded to do something. This enthymeme assumes that the enslaved people of Meereen share the value that having freewill is the best choice for their lives. Therefore, Daenerys appeals to logos by attempting to convince the audience that their lives under her rule will be better than life under their current rulers, as they are enslaved, oppressed and must obey, however under her rule they would have free choice. The use of this enthymeme encourages the audience to consider their future and decide which leader will provide them with a better life.

Some may consider this speech unethical as it promotes violence to an extent, however this speech is ethical and productive overall. In this fictional context, the speaker has shown up at this city in order to conquer it, and convince the oppressed people of the city to rise up, which could be considered unethical under many circumstances. However, the values of freedom and opportunity that Daenerys is promoting through this conquest makes her speech ethical. She encourages violence, and must perform violence in order to free people who will suffer a lifetime of violence and oppression otherwise. It is unfortunate, however in this context at least some violence is necessary in order to overthrow oppressive dictators who refuse to compromise in other ways, or stop their exploitation of enslaved people. She uses logos, pathos and ethos appeals to denounce the practice of slavery and encourage the audience to rise up against these oppressive policies. She highlights her good qualities, while emphasizing the harmful practices of her enemy drawing on physical proof through her rhetorical appeals. Her rhetoric is truthful and powerful, and her attempt of persuading the audience that their lives will be better under her rule is objectively true if it is to be assumed that slavery is an objectively immoral practice.

In conclusion, Daenerys delivers an ethical message through her rhetorical appeals, evident through rhetorical analysis of her speech. Daenerys attempts to convince her audience to join her in helping to overthrow their leaders, as she will provide them with a better life and end the injustices done upon them. She does this by using a pathos appeal to resentment, a logos appeal through the use of an enthymeme, and building her ethos through examples of her past actions.

Works Cited

Herrick, James A. Aristotle on rhetoric In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.) (pp. 69-81). Routledge, 2005.

Targaryen, Daenerys. “Game of Thrones Season 4: Episode #3 Clip-Dany’s Speech (HBO).” Youtube, uploaded by GameofThrones, 21 July 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cze5A4iyQGk.

[trevorboryla]

October 2, 2022

*Tumblr CQ Essay 1*

In this entry, I will examine the questions: 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 a song from the band System of a Down, entitled Prison Song. By creating the character of a tyrannical antagonist, increasing the credibility of the narrator through an appeal to ethos and framing government brutality as intentional through causal relations, the song creates a narrative that the U.S. government unjustly incarcerates its own citizens, specifically targeting minority communities, to exploit them for profit. This is overall a positive narrative as it encourages government scrutinization and activism against oppressive government policies, while promoting empathy to those faced with systemic oppression.

This song came from the band’s 2001 album, Toxicity and is 3 minutes and 21 seconds long. While the band is quite popular, their music is unique, as they are a progressive metal band who produce aggressive songs. They are however, also a very politically active band, as most of their songs have underlying themes that advocate for societal change. This specific song, entitled Prison Song, is a critique on the criminal justice system of the United States, claiming that the government has incarcerated its citizens for its own benefit. The song was released in 2001, amidst decades of rising incarceration rates in the United States, with a significant number of inmates being held on drug related charges. In 2001 the “war on drugs” was raging rampant with harsh penalties for drug related charges in many states and according to NPR, “federally regulated mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses”(NPR). Harrison and Beck from the U.S. department of justice disclose that in 2001 there were “470 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents up from 411 in 1995” (Harrison and Beck, p.1).

Narratives have a very significant role in rhetoric, as storytelling is one of the main ways in which humans communicate ideas to each other. Palczewski et. al demonstrate this significance by explaining “narratives, or stories, inform people’s personal lives”, and “narratives also inform public life. Political views are shaped by the stories that politicians tell” (Palczewski et. al, p.118). So essentially the entire world revolves around narratives. People create narratives about others to spread ideas, and people also create narratives in their memories to understand ideas. To distinguish what can be characterized as a narrative, there are four characteristics that are laid out by Foss. The first is that a narrative is “comprised of events that may be either active (expressing action) or stative (expressing a state or condition)”, the second is that “events in it are organized by time order”, the third is that it “must include some kind of causal or contributing relationship among events in a story” and the last is that “it must be about a unified subject” (Foss, p.334). While these are the characteristics of a narrative, within a narrative there are dimensions which can be analyzed for narrative criticism. To analyze this artifact, I will be using Foss’s guideline for narrative criticism, where she explains narrative criticism involves “Identifying the dimensions of the narrative; and (2) discovering an explanation for the narrative” (Foss, p.335). The specific dimensions that I will be analyzing are character, narrator and causal relations presented in the song to form the narrative. One specific aspect of the artifact analysis that I will be focusing on throughout this paper is the ethicality of the narrative presented in the artifact. Foss explains that “Perhaps what emerges as significant in the narrative suggests that the explanation for your artifact lies in an evaluation of whether or not the narrative is a good one” (Foss, p. 339). My analysis is rooted in this idea of ethicality, as I will explore the values presented in the narrative through the rhetorical analysis of the dimensions of the narrative laid out by Foss.

The narrative that the U.S. government unjustly incarcerates its own citizens to exploit them for profit is expressed through repetition with an appeal to pathos by creating a character of the United states government as a racist tyrant. While there are many lines or specific words that are repeated throughout the song, the most repeated and therefore most important line is “They’re trying to build a prison” (System of a Down, 0:08). This line is repeated 18 times throughout the short song, and following it many times is “for you and me to live in”(1:09). Using the word “they’re”specifically throughout the song creates a clear separation of the government from the citizens. It further creates an “us vs them” mentality by repetition of “for you and me” which frames the government as a tyrannical force by specifically grouping the listener with the band into an inferior group, in explicit danger from the government, which also creates fear and anxiety. So, repeatedly the singer is trying to invoke alarm and concern in the listener against the government, while at the same time making a clear distinction between the government and its citizens. Further repetition of the word “you”, now directed toward the government in an accusatory manner is evident throughout the song such as in the lines “Following the rights movement, you clamped on with your iron fists” (0:43), “Minor drug offenders fill your prisons..”(1:16), and “drugs are now your global policy, now you police the globe”(2:32). Similarly as before, this paints the picture of a tyrannical, but now also racist government, through the repetition of “you”. The prejudiced angle comes from the line discussing the rights movement, implying that the government increased harsh criminal legislation after the civil rights movement, in order to maintain control over minority groups. This repetition is further reinforcing the separation between the listener and the government while it continues to develop this character of a government that is out to do harm to the listener. This is also once again an appeal to pathos, invoking fear but also sympathy for those already imprisoned under this tyranny. This is important to the narrative, as the creation of this character, which has the qualities of being prejudiced, tyrannical and apathetic, seems intimidating, and is thus viewed in a negative way. The qualities of this character should therefore be condemned. By highlighting how bad this character is, the narrative also supports the qualities that are the exact opposite of this character through sheer contrast. The antagonistic nature naturally invites protagonistic ideals and actions to be associated with defying the government in this narrative. Therefore, the song also promotes the values of resisting and removing oppressive government legislation.

The band increases their ethos by embedding facts and statistics into their lyrics, taking on the persona of an educated dissident which makes them seem like a more credible and reliable narrator. The use of specific statistics that are verifiable adds to the narrative of mass incarceration by the United States government. The lyrics state “Nearly two million Americans are incarcerated in the prison system, prison system of the US”(System of a Down 1:01), and later, “The percentage of Americans in the prison system, prison system, has doubled since 1985” (1:31). While many artists are concerned with societal issues, it is rare for any type of music, especially a heavy metal song, to include verifiable statistics in the lyrics. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,100,146 persons at year end 2001” (Harrison and Beck, p.1). Taking time to deliberately add these in, which artistically may take away from the flow of the music, establishes this persona of a well read, qualified and educated dissident. The use of these facts and the creation of this persona appeals to ethos, which strengthens the narrative of the song, because some of what the singer is saying is verifiable through fact checking. Through this, the narrator claims more authority, meaning that the things that he says, including predictions about the future and accusations toward the government, at least warrant a second thought, due to the ethos established by the narrator. Furthermore, this authority associated with this persona causes the singer to take on a confident tone, further adding to the credibility of the narrative.

Causal relations are established through framing government policies in a way to suggest that the United States government is using mass incarceration as exploitation. The following lines in the song imply a very clear cause and effect relationship: “Following the rights movement you clamped on with your iron fists, Drugs became conveniently available to all the kids” (System of a Down, 0:49), then “Utilizing drugs to pay for secret wars around the world, drugs are now your global policy, now you police the globe”(2:28), and finally “Drug money is used to rig elections and train brutal corporate sponsored dictators around the world”(2:40). These lines imply two different cause-effect relationships that implicate the United States government. The first is that the rights movement happened and gave liberation and power to oppressed minority groups, and to continue the control and exploitation of them, the US government created harsh drug-related legislation and provided drugs to the “kids”. This frames the government in a way that actually blames them for creating the drug problem that allowed them to begin a “war on drugs”. The second causal relationship is that money is gained from both the selling of drugs, as mentioned in the first relationship, and from the imprisonment of citizens and so this money is used to covertly meddle in foreign affairs that benefit the United States government. So, overall through these causal relations, the U.S. government is framed as creating a complex, sinister plot to fund classified foreign affairs, through the control and exploitation of their own citizens. Intentionally connecting the conclusion of the rights movement to an increase in drugs in the country implies an intentional plot that strengthens the narrative that is being pushed. Furthermore, the connection between this exploitation being used to fund the covert meddling in foreign affairs paints a full picture of the extent of the oppression being pushed by the narrative.

This narrative might be unproductive to citizens in certain ways, however the overall narrative is a productive one. It might be unproductive for violent criminals who would use this narrative as a way to escape responsibility for their actions, by blaming their incarceration on systemic oppression. The narrative could also be framed as promoting anarchist ideals and being unpatriotic for its anti-government motif. Furthering this notion is the aggressive nature of the actual music and overall genre of music, which has a stigma of violence associated with it. Therefore, this narrative could be limiting because it excludes people who do not enjoy listening to this genre of music. However, overall these notions are refuted by the values that the song explicitly conveys, and the narrative is certainly productive to society. The accusations that the band makes towards the United States government are rooted in fact, as discussed, and while some of the accusations are grand, they don’t extend to violence in any way. The narrative pushes for a call to action; not a call to violence. The values that are promoted in the song include scrutinization of the government, activism against oppressive government policies, and empathy towards those in unfortunate situations due to systemic oppression. A key aspect of democracy in the United States is the right to free speech. Speaking out against government policies that one perceives as dangerous, such as the one presented in this narrative, is essential to the survival and advancement of our country as a whole. Furthermore, constant questioning and scrutinization of the government allows for all angles of an issue to be explored and considered. In other words, increased discourse allows for the perspectives of more overall citizens to be acknowledged. Promoting empathy through the highlighting of those experiencing oppression is also certainly an ethical value. Empathy breeds understanding, which leads to compromise and away from oppressive or prejudiced perspectives/policies.

This narrative is considered to be a level 3 musical narrative, according to David Nicholls guidelines, due to changes in volume and pace associated with emphasizing key ideas in the narrative. Nicholls classifies narratives within popular music into five different categories of narrative analysis. He describes the third level of narrativity in musical pieces as: “The lyrics contain elements of narrative discourse, and these are supported by the musical setting” (Nicholls, p.301). An example of this is demonstrated with Kate Bush’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ in which Nicholls explains “this narrative shift in the lyrics is supported by an unexpected harmonic shift, via an instrumental link, between the end of the first chorus and the start of verse 2” (Nicholls, p.302). In Prison Song, key ideas of the narrative in the lyrics are accentuated by decreases in volume from the instrumentation, in order emphasize these key ideas, in line with the definition of a level 3 narrative, according to Nicholls. For instance, the song begins with the line “They’re trying to build a prison”, (System of a Down, 0:08) with no instrumentation, followed by a very loud guitar riff, before once again cutting out the instrumentation to allow for that line to be said unaccompanied. This level of narrative analysis is also demonstrated later, by a noticeable slowing down of the pace of the music during which the lines “All research and successful drug policy show that treatment should be increased, and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences” (2:08). These noticeable changes in the music bring attention to the lyrics, which are imperative to the narrative. The line “they're trying to build a prison” is essentially the main idea of the narrative, and opening the song with this line standing alone sets the stage for the rest of the song. The other line that I mentioned discusses a solution to the problem presented in the narrative, another very important point that is being emphasized by the changing in music. This combination of music and lyrics is essential to analyzing the whole narrative of the song, as described by Nicholls.

In conclusion, System of a Down’s Prison Song, creates an overall positive narrative, evident through analysis of its rhetorical elements. The narrative that the U.S. government unjustly incarcerates its own citizens, specifically targeting minority communities, to exploit them for profit is conveyed by creating the character of a tyrannical antagonist, increasing the credibility of the narrator through an appeal to ethos and framing government brutality as intentional through causal relations. The narrative encourages empathy for others, activism, and scrutinization against oppressive government policies, all ethical and productive values, necessary for a functioning society.

Works Cited

Harrison, Paige M, and Allen J Beck. “Prisoners in 2001 - Bureau of Justice Statistics.” Bureau of Justice Statistics , U.S. Department of Justice, July 2002, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p01.pdf.

Nicholls, David. “Narrative Theory as an Analytical Tool in the Study of Popular Music Texts.” Music & Letters, vol. 88, no. 2, May 2007, pp. 297–315. EBSCOhost, https://proxy.augustana.edu:2138/10.1093/ml/gcm006.

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

System of a Down. “Prison Song”. Spotify.

“Timeline: America's War on Drugs.” NPR, NPR, 2 Apr. 2007, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490.