My interest in public rhetoric began
when I started examining a report created by the Forward through Ferguson
Commission Task force, a group assigned to create calls for action after the
shooting of Michael Brown and the protests that followed. The more I read, the
more questions I had; suddenly, my deep dive into the aftermath of Ferguson
also led me back into the past from the 1992 LA riots, to the Montgomery Bus
Boycotts. In almost every document and interview I came across, the word
rhetoric was mentioned, but it was used in a negative connotation. After every painful
event proceeded with warnings to not get caught up in the rhetoric- as if not
talking about the issues would make them go away. I’m hoping that through this
project, we can start to see that rhetoric is actually the tool we need to
start to learn and to grow.
Below I have collected resources that
discuss public rhetoric that help us answer the question what is public
rhetoric and how do we use it. The podcast Mere
Rhetoric provides a history of public rhetoric, exploring its origins and
the questions that arose from it. "Public Rhetoric in the Shadow of Ferguson:
Co-Creating Rhetorical Theory in the Community and the Classroom” discuss ways
to incorporate public rhetoric pedagogy into composition classrooms through
listening and archiving. “Ecological, Pedagogical, Public Rhetoric” explores rhetorical action through
an ecological framework and discusses the importance of “mundane” acts and
texts, which can lead to effective rhetorical action. “The Uncivil Tongue:
Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality” discusses the limitations
of civility and challenges the traditional definition of civil engagement.
Online social advocacy is addressed in “Anti-racist Activism and the
Trasformational Principles of Hashtag Publics: From #HandsUpDontShoot to
#PantsUpDontLoot.” The fallacies of the liberal notion of hate speech and the
different models of the public sphere are addressed in “Freedom of Speech and
the Function of Public Discourse.” Finally, the video from Last Week Tonight examines the effects of public shaming and
analyzes when and how it is used.
Hedengren,
Mary. “Habermas and the Public Sphere.” Mere Rhetoric. 13 Nov. 2014, https://mererhetoric.libsyn.com/habermas-and-the-public-sphere
Hedengren discusses the significance of
coffeehouses in 15th century Ottoman Empire, which were considered a
place for intellectual conversation. They had such an impact on political
discourse that King Charles II of Spain tried to restrict coffeehouses because
he claimed that they were the breeding grounds of calumny at the sovereign.
As coffeehouses grew, so did the discussions
about the French monarchy. Jurgen Habermas called this rise in political
conversations in public settings “offenulichkeit” or public sphere. To constitute as a public sphere, everyone must be able to speak, regardless of their
social and economic background. Habermas argues that this increase in coffeehouses indicated
the replacement of representative culture. Before
these coffeeshop conversations were happening, the private sphere and
bureaucratic sphere were separate entities that never intersected. Coffeehouses
provided the middle-class, or bourgeois, a space to discuss political issues. Issues also had to
be accessible so everyone could participate. However,
Nancy Fraser challenges the equality of this public sphere. Women weren’t
allowed in coffeehouses in France. The middle-class men made it seem like this coffeehouse gatherings were a
universal class so that they could justify their actions.
While the podcast doesn’t offer a new perspective, per se, I feel that it is an essential review of rhetorical history. Public rhetoric is about building from previous scholarship, and in order to do this, students who are introduced to public rhetoric need a foundational knowledge of how and why the notion of a public sphere was created.
While the podcast doesn’t offer a new perspective, per se, I feel that it is an essential review of rhetorical history. Public rhetoric is about building from previous scholarship, and in order to do this, students who are introduced to public rhetoric need a foundational knowledge of how and why the notion of a public sphere was created.
Obermark,
Lauren. “Public Rhetoric in the Shadow of Ferguson: Co-Creating Rhetorical
Theory in the Community and the Classroom.” Composition
Forum, vol. 36, 2017, http://compositionforum.com/issue/36/shadow-ferguson.php
Obermark was
working as an assistant professor for the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL), a
college just a few miles from Ferguson, Missouri, when Michael Brown was shot
by police officer Darren Wilson. The college’s administration stayed silent on the matter for a
while, and when they finally did make mention of Brown’s death or the protest
happening in the area, they tried to distance themselves from the events going
on in the community. Obermark highlights the possible damages of silence and
how not speaking about the protests in Ferguson denies the lived-experience of
their students and can cause a silencing on the rest of the campus and community.
Obermark argues that educators can
address race and racism in writing classrooms through rhetorical listening and
digital archives. She created a ”Rhetoric and Social Justice” course, which introduces
students to the study of rhetoric. However, instead of introducing rhetoric through
a more traditional chronological approach through the Western cannon, she “puts
public rhetoric and writing at its heart” aligning the lens of the class to
focus on Ferguson. Obermark makes a case for archives. She connects students to
“rhetorical citizen historians” because it provides them the opportunity to
produce new knowledge, participate in the discourse, and consider the
rhetorical tradition, paying particular attention to whose voices are being
considered and whose are being ignored or silenced.
One assignment she asks students
to do is to interview people in St. Louis about Ferguson and how it intersects
with rhetoric. There are no restrictions on whom the students should interview,
which cast a wide array of individuals to help students identify the
intersections people have in relation to Ferguson. Questions are prepared for
the interviews, but the focus and emphasis are placed on natural conversations.
These conversational interviews requires rhetorical listening and provides modes
for students to discuss and to understand social issues. The goal is that when
students have these conversations and listen to the interviews conducted by
their peers that these activities “will facilitate a more complex form of
identification” one where students can “practice listening across differences.”
The activity reshapes the students understanding of Ferguson and rhetoric.
These interviews, Obermark argues, are modes to expand public rhetoric
practices. They demonstrate that public rhetoric doesn’t happen in a single
moment but are continuous with multiple contributors and multiple audiences.
The article brings a new pedagogical
perspective to research and makes it a more discursive rather than linear
process. With conversational interviews and ongoing archiving, students must
begin with questions, unsure of where their research may take them, which is
different than the traditional approach where they already have their
conclusions in mind and look for evidence to support their points. I believe
this is important because it allows more room to learn and more space for new
knowledge to enter, helping provide more perspectives on an issue. The article
challenges the traditional definition of rhetoric as a means of persuasion and
instead frames rhetorical exchanges as a need to grow and to learn. It frames
rhetoric as a process, one that includes struggle and uncomfortable
conversations. It pushes the notion of rhetorical exchanges, attempting to
extend it beyond listening. The article also provides a new perspective on who
can do rhetoric and how they can do it. The archiving the class does is a type
of collective rhetoric, one where there are multiple voices advocating one
unitary message. It also moves the goal of rhetorical listening from
understanding and expands it as a mode to learn and to grow.
Rivers, Nathaniel and Ryan
Weber. Ecological, Pedagogical, Public Rhetoric. College
Composition and Communication, vol. 63, no. 2, 2011, pp. 187-218.
Rivers
and Weber begin with an example about a student who
removed an American flag on the college campus and replaced it with an anti-war
flag, despite not having permit documents to do it. The researchers argue that
going through the process to get the permit would include multiple texts, a
wider audience, and more opportunities to discuss the student’s issue. In the
process, the rhetor learns why institutional systems and polices are structured
the way they are. While the action of replacing the flag may seem more
exciting, getting the permit is another form of public display. In fact, the writers
argue that supporting documents, like the permit, are a crucial part of
creating publics. Rivers and Weber call to expand “public rhetoric’s scope to
include the mundane” (188) because it is these texts that promote public
rhetoric ecologies. Publics exist because of the way texts reference and build
on top of one another. It’s the circulation and interplay of texts that cause
publics to emerge. They argue that it is necessary to recognize the
intersection of the systems and how change in one system ripples into another.
It
is an ecological approach that brings out the complexities of the rhetorical
process, making it collaborative and ongoing and creating “more rhetorically
robust work” (190). Using an ecological framework, the writers analyze Rosa
Park’s courageous protest that sparked the Montgomery Busy Boycott. They
provide a list of mundane activities that led up to Park’s arrest, as well as
the text activities that followed afterwards. Rhetorical action needs a
rhetorical network to act as a catalyst to mobilize a social movement. To keep
the rhetorical pace requires a circulation of texts, communication between
people, sharing of narratives, and circulation of resources to inform and motivate
a variety of audiences. It was Park’s network who brought attention to her
courageous act and rhetorically influenced how the audience responds
afterwards.
Similarly, writers reside in an ecology system and environmental structures.
Often, instructors try to simplify writing by atomizing documents and
assignments, which halt the fluidity of the processes. Rivers and Weber offer a
pedagogical approach to introduce rhetorical ecologies to a writing course. Students
create a cohesive advocacy campaign, creating documents that help sustain
advocacy. These assignments include multiple genres for multiple audiences,
including a formal proposal, a letter to the editor, a letter to an organization , a visual
document, and a Facebook page. The analysis helps students identify players
involved or affected by the issue, gather historical information about the
issue, and then begin making rhetorical decisions on the best ways to advocate
change. They learn about institutional structure and the rationale behind their
setups. The class becomes a protopublic space, meaning that first year composition
students are able to practice the production of public texts without having to
deal with the risks and complexities of actually producing it publicly.
An ecological approach creates awareness of
the ecological power of institutions and the formation of publics through the
concatenation of texts. Unlike a traditional Platonic approach that tries to
break free from obstacles and constraints, an ecological approach tries to
negotiate constraint and navigates through obstacles, and it provides a new
perspective on rhetorical invention.
Lozano-Reich, Nina M., and
Dana L. Cloud. The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem
of Inequality.Western Journal of Communication, vol. 73, no. 2, May
2009, pp. 220–226.
The writers challenge the traditional
perspectives that link violence with persuasion. Disruptive acts, like sit-ins,
are not considered violent; rather, they are considered invitational. However,
the writers point out that oppressors are not “inviting” the oppressed to
commit disruptive acts. Furthermore, they argue that purposeful public
disruptions often happen on more than one occasion because the acts are ignored
the first time, which dismantles the argument that these acts are invitational.
They call for more theorizing of persuasion, invitation, and violence, and
argue for more distinctions between persuasion and violence, as well as an
acknowledgment of the similarities between persuasion and invitation.
The authors argue in situations of power imbalance that
invitational rhetoric be used with caution. When
an invitation of dialogue is initiated by the oppressor, the writers argue that
it is vital to examine the limitations and expectations of the invitation
because the oppressors is still in control and will set the conditions. The
writers remind readers that the goal of rhetorical invitation is to create
stronger partnerships and to better understand the opposing side. If the goals
consist of the freedom and safety or a group, however, invitational rhetoric is
less likely to accomplish the latter goal because there must be a shared
interest between the oppressor and the oppressed. The writers remind readers
that the most effective rhetorical moves toward equality have typicality been
persuasion and direct action.
McVey,
James and Heather Woods. “Anti-racist Activism and the Transformation
Principles of Hastag Publics: From #HandsUpDontShoot to #PantsUpDont Loot.”
Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society, vol. 5, no.3, 2 March 2016, https://www.presenttensejournal.org/volume-5/anti-racist-activism-and-the-transformational-principles-of-hashtag-publics-from-handsupdontshoot-to-pantsupdontloot/
In this article, the writers examine the rhetorical properties of hashtags, the
interplay of ethical principles of #HandUpDontShoot, the manipulation of
#PantsUpDon’tLoot, and the necessity of rhetorical studies to better understand
online advocacy.
Hashtags are modes of public organizing and
can be used as a rhetorical tool. It coordinates conversations because they have an
open-ended circulation and that circulation grabs more strangers to participate
in a discourse, creating even more possible publics. The public then decides
how it wants to respond to circulating texts. Strangers are brought together by
commonality, and individuals forge into collectives. Hashtags signal
commonality and act as a bridge between users. The hashtag must be broad enough
in scope for multiple people to participate but still clear and concise, so
people focus on the topic. They are "flexible and fungible", meaning their rapid
circulation can reshape the conditions of the publics the hashtags helped
construct.
After Michael Brown shooting, protests emerged
on the streets and online. The ground protest relied on the digital public
sphere to circulate images and videos of protest happening on the ground.
#HandsUpDontShoot
emerged from the eye-witness accounts of Michael Brown’s shooting that he had
his hands up. It served as a multimodal of texts, chants, videos, and images of
a shared discourse action. It served as an artifact that proliferated, meaning
it was discursively exchangeable, clear enough to direct its audience’s
attention to police brutality, and catchy enough to invite people into the
discourse. Shortly after #HandUpDontShoot went viral, however, counter-protests began to emerge online, supporting Wilson and the Ferguson PD. The characteristics
of #HandsUpDontShoot were mutated into #PantsUpDontLoot, which played on the
trope of the criminality of young black males. Researchers urge advocates to
not dismiss social media all together as a tool for advocacy organizing but
rather to be aware of the risks of the connectivity of hashtags prompting
appropriation from counter-protest.
The
hashtag is a mode to form publics, and what I think is interesting is that it is
commonground and values that form this collectivity without knowing anything more
about the strangers that enter into a public. Similar to the uniforms of a
particular public, a single hashtag can be used as a form of unity and solitary
while also being misused and manipulated by counter publics. This expands the perspective on how publics are formed and what spaces the formation happens in.
Donnelly,
Michael. “Freedom of Speech and the Function of Public Discourse.” Present
Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society, vol. 4, no. 1, 11 Sept. 2014, https://www.presenttensejournal.org/volume-4/freedom-of-speech-and-the-function-of-public-discourse/
When it comes to free speech, Americans often
believe that all points of view, no matter if they are ones of ignorance and
hate, should be heard. Americans believe hate speech is just one of the costs
of a democratic process. However, Donnelly argues that this liberal notion of
free speech links to capitalism, one that equates the public good with
individual liberty. These beliefs ignore the social imbalances of power. While
Americans may believe that more speech will drown out hate speech, “meaningful
debate is increasingly reduced to just another kind of competition, a show, a
spectacle” (Donnely 1).
Donnelly analyzes the court decision Snyder v. Phelps. In this case, Albert Snyder sued the Westboro Baptist Church for protesting near his marine son’s funeral, alleging invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy. The church believed that they needed to protest at soldier funerals because the soldiers deserved to die because they were fighting for a country that tolerated gay rights. The jury awarded the family; however, the Church appealed the case in 2008 where the judgment was reversed. The Supreme Court finally ruled that under the 1st amendment, the Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote "a broad-based message on public matters."
Donnelly analyzes the court decision Snyder v. Phelps. In this case, Albert Snyder sued the Westboro Baptist Church for protesting near his marine son’s funeral, alleging invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy. The church believed that they needed to protest at soldier funerals because the soldiers deserved to die because they were fighting for a country that tolerated gay rights. The jury awarded the family; however, the Church appealed the case in 2008 where the judgment was reversed. The Supreme Court finally ruled that under the 1st amendment, the Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote "a broad-based message on public matters."
Donnelly
points out that this liberal notion of free speech stems from Haberman’s
bourgeois public sphere model. The writer suggest we use other modes (interest-based,
deliberative, and agonistic) to discuss characteristics of public discourse and
to examine the Westboro court case. Interest-based
model focuses on self-interest and a marketplace of ideas where the best of
ideas flourish. The deliberative model values listening where individuals keep
an open-mind on new and different ideas. They believed common ground superseded
individual interests. The antagonistic model resists the impulse of consensus.
The interest-based model aligns more with the bourgeois model, focusing on
individual liberties, which can stifle debates. The Westboro court decision privileged
individual expression. If examined from a deliberative and agonistic
perspective, the question then becomes, “What does this opinion contribute to
the discussion about matters of public concern.” The church made it clear that
they aren’t willing to discuss the issues they bring forth and paradoxically
require the Court to protect their free speech when they are ridiculing the
Court for the countries support of gay rights.
With Trump’s new executive order regarding
freedom of speech, I think it’s important now more than ever to review our
perspective of our 1st amendment and what it entails. Prior to reading this
article, I would have to admit that I believed in the hierarchy or speech and
that the erasing of hate speech required more speech. However, the article made
me aware that this type of thinking has a capitalist notion to it, and that in
reality, more speech wouldn’t actually erase hate speech, and it would continue
to infringe on the liberties of marginalized groups who hate speech is directed
at. At the same time, it made me reflect on the notion of rhetorical labor,
which is discussed in Obermark’s article, and how vital it is for dominant
groups to participate in “uncomfortable” conversations about social issues to
help prevent ignorance evolving into hate speech.
Oliver,
John. “Public Shaming: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.” YouTube, uploaded by Last Week Tonight, 17 March 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7Eh6JTKIg
The
video focuses on the power of public shaming. Not all public shaming is bad,
especially if it’s well directed. Public shaming can hold people accountable, specifically
public figures who make public comments and refuses to apologize for them. Oliver
explains that context must be considered before utilizing public shaming. For
example, before publicly shaming someone on the show, the writers consider the
rhetorical consequences and rhetorical situation. They pose the questions: who
are we making fun of and why are we making fun of them?
However, the situation becomes different if
the person didn’t want the public attention. Oliver interviews Monica Lewinsky to
discuss the devastating consequences of public shaming. She claims she is a
reminder of “what the consequences can be to a misdirected flood of public
anger.” The public attention can
dehumanize a person, causing them great trauma, and deconstructing their
identity by defining their life by one mistake.
This
resource provides a new perspective of the imbalance of power. Public shaming
can be used as a tool to keep people accountable, but it challenges
questions about how it is used, who it’s used on, and how long it should be
used. I think with social media being used as a new mode of public discourse,
it’s important to consider these questions, especially since social media is
known for its trolling. Public shaming forms strangers into a type of
public, and I think we can get so wrapped up in it that it can cause us to be blinded by the dominant public voices
that use public shaming to marginalize others.
No comments:
Post a Comment