mediating histories

I've been thinking and writing a lot about epideictic rhetoric over the last few days which is, in very few words, the rhetoric of display. I read this cool article that basically claims that the most successful occasions of epideictic kind of stick around in a community's and even society's memory. We use those pieces of discourse as proverbial dots--culturally defining moments--and connect those dots to create for ourselves workable histories. These histories are never complete and maybe even do more to obfuscate the actual realities of what occurred. Nevertheless, they help us imagine our pasts, and therefore also help us imagine ourselves.

Anyway, I saw this cool ad today and it made me start thinking about this all over again. Media is one way that we do the work of history reconstruction:



www.onlyanything.com is a project with basically these same ends. Reconstruct the past using the pieces of discourse that have persisted (in both artifact and memory).

my schedule (and that crazy confusing Communication community)

I had a pretty intense week.  I felt tricked by Labor day, because even though it meant I didn't have to teach, my other responsibilities were unchanged.  So, after playing for most of Monday, I clicked into panic mode and didn't really click out of it until after my Thursday afternoon seminar. 

My classes this semester are going to be pretty good, I think.  One, from afore mentioned favorite person on campus, on Aristotle promises to be challenging, but fundamental. It is my largest seminar to date, with something like 16 people in it from several disciplines. Should be good.

The other class I am taking is called "Communication in Context" and should also be good. We started by discussing genre theory--which was kind of fun, because I have studied it before and felt less lost than I typically do at first.

It's funny: my community college experience was in Speech Comunication, but neither rhetoric or Aristotle were ever mentioned. (Ha!)  Then, for my first degree in "Communication"--which I chose because of "communication" in speech communication--was only tangentially related to the communication I was introduced to in CC--and I ended up studying the social science instead of the discourses of communication (i.e. rhetoric) that I may have found more interesting.  But, I was clueless.  I just wanted a degree. Only now, finally, and after two more degrees in English, are the treads that originally interested me in Communication crossing back over (and by now, I mean in the last several years).

I mean, the English field has some disciplinary issues, but holy cow: Communication? I mean, Speech Comm here at the U of I just dropped the Speech and folded itself back into the conglomeration that is Communication studies... how do they keep their action straight?   (All that was to say that I think that my Comm class is going to be great--and right in line with my interests over in Writing Studies.)  

apply this...

There are very few things I like less than filling out job applications. I find the process mind-numbing--an exercise in the kind of rhetorical cookery detested by Plato: "Hire me! Look how awesome I am at saying good things about myself and searching for many precious minutes for archaic contact information for my references which you will likely only glance at and not really actually use."

I am filling out applications for summer work. Someone save me.

just to be clear...

I had a great discussion with my students today about the video I posted yesterday. We were talking about what persuades us (or hasn't yet persuaded us) to vote. This question of "effect" is one that kind of puzzles rhetoricians. Do people really act as a result of persuasive rhetoric, or is rhetoric just one of many influences that eventually causes action. We (my class and I) looked at a bunch of posters on this site, talked a little about Mtv ads, watched that video and--in the end--came to some interesting realizations.

One of those realizations--or maybe admittances--was that young people (my students are 18 and 19) don't vote. One student said that he didn't vote because he didn't really know a lot about the candidates and didn't want to just vote to vote. It felt irresponsible. So the posters weren't really that persuasive. Another student said that he liked the posters but that it really took something spoken before he was moved in any particular direction. That made me think of the video I posted yesterday.

I didn't know if I would have time to show it because I had other stuff to cover--so I held off on it until the end of class. We did have about 5 minutes after my planned lesson on library research, so we watched the video.

I didn't know who a lot of the celebrities were in the video, but I knew they would, so I asked them to write down the names of people they knew. When the video was over, I asked them whether or not they felt the video was persuasive. They did. I asked them why-- The student who said he liked oral persuasion said "I don't know why I am persuaded, but I am! I've got goose bumps!" "And we believe what our goose bumps tell us, don't we!" I shot back. "Yes!" he said. Ha, ha--I had lured them into my trap.

Then we started talking about all the celebrities in the video and why their influence helped the message be persuasive. We didn't have a lot of time, but it was here that I revealed my purpose in showing them this video that really doesn't have any clear mention of Obama's politics or views on the issue other than that he wants change and "Yes we can" get it. We talked about ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical appeal) and how the video was almost completely based on pathos--the least stable of all of the appeals. It was a great teaching moment where I was able to talk about being weary of rhetoric that appeals only to the emotions (which most visual rhetoric is aimed at--at least initially). We mentioned how sad it would be if they voted for a candidate based on the feeling their TV ad gave them without doing any research (ah ha! Research!) about what that candidate really believes--where they might find some drastic personal incongruities.

If I would have had more time, I could have spoken a little about using that kind of rhetoric as a springboard to investigation. If they like a certain candidate based on his or her ads on TV, start doing that research. Start doing some soul searching.

So, my own recent decision to align myself with the Democratic party (instead of flailing as an independent) and support Obama does not come lightly and without much thought (or without some help from an understanding, very conservative, friend). And I am still doing work to figure out my exact stance on the complex issues our Nation faces. But that I am thus working is a marked change from my past apathetic political life. And at least I know now which way I lean. I hope that doesn't alienate me from my friends and family who are persuaded differently. Being a religious democrat (like being a religious academic), is often incorrectly spun--as outlined in this great speech--as a paradox or conflict of interest. I just don't think that is the case.

Election Addition (open season)

I approach this post with a bit of trepidation, mostly because I feel like a bit of a novice trying to get some chops in a room full of well-seasoned players. But chopping I am.

Tina and I finished watching the New Hampshire debate this evening. Something about this election has really got our attention, and I think that can be said about many younger voters in our country (though we are very quickly approaching a time where we can no longer be considered a part of that group). It is an exiting race for many reasons--and we're into it (and not, I might add, necessarily in agreement).

I point to this post to establish my own current political status and/or standing. I am not willing anymore to be attached easily with a certain party or politically blanketed organization. I am frustrated by what I see as the political band-wagoning that occurs around the hot-button moral issues that divide the parties. I think that its nearly impossible to be aligned with all of the issues within a given party, and am generally turned off when I encounter voters who think that it is that simple. Granted, there was a reason that parties were organized—and I imagine, as I get my chops, the reasons for those party convergences will become more clear to me, but generally speaking, I have a tough time seeing the connection between (for example) a desire to keep taxes low and the right to life—they’re both “conservative” though. I’m just trying to figure out how.

Not only have I not decided who I am going to vote for in the primaries (though I know I have to vote in the primary of the party I am currently registered under), I have not decided yet whether “party” will have anything whatsoever to do with who I vote for in November where it’s open season, as it were. I feel a bit uneasy being aligned with any party, actually. Maybe this is the result of the apathy that is so common among us under-30s. But, even as my apathy begins to slide away (and my 30th birthday quickly approaches), I am not yet convinced that either team represents enough of my budding sense of personal "views." I'm glad, really, that I have remained unsure--it feels more honest to me than to have jumped on any bandwagon, despite what is on my current voter-card.

Truth is, I just loved watching the same-party members debate. I thought it was profoundly interesting to see members of the same team hash out the huge differences of principle and policy that exist within that team. I think that in watching those debates, we can get a glimpse of the complexities that underpin the issues that we might normally consider simple. The issues are not simple. So I am having some fun being the audience of these candidates’ rhetoric. My request is simple: Persuade me. I’m open.