Prominent rhetor, Kenneth Burke, contributed significantly to our current body of rhetorical theory. He believed that rhetoric is “an attempt to move others through the manipulation of symbols” (Smith 340). While there are numerous ways to manipulate these symbols and thereby construct reality, Burke was particularly concerned with how rhetors persuade others to act through “identification”. In other words, he examined how rhetors use motives to explore topics and present them in ways that give the audience a chance to identity with the rhetor’s argument (Smith 340-341). One of the ways that Burke discusses motives is through eulogistic and dyslogistic uses of languages. Eulogistic language characterizes something “in a cloak of admiration” whereas dyslogistic language characterizes something “in a cloak of negativity” (Smith 343). Exploring how rhetors do this can reveal the motives of the rhetor and illuminate the dominant or mutually existing “tonalities” in a given artifact (Smith 343).

Author and cartoonist, Nathan W. Pyle, illustrates the importance of both eulogistic and dyslogistic language in his Strange Planet web comic series. By consistently using both types of language in his comic illustrations, Pyle comedically presents everyday situations in new ways. In doing this, he draws attention to the many possible ways to describe these situations, thereby deepening the audience’s amusement or appreciation for these little moments. 

For example, in one of his very well-known web comics (see figure 1), two Strange Planet characters are talking about being sunburned. The one character uses the word “damaged” to describe the other. By using this dyslogistic language to describe sunburn, the character acknowledges the danger of sunburn. However, Pyle then switches the tone of the comic by having the sunburned character describe themselves as “more attractive”. After using this eulogistic language, the comic repeats the idea of damage, illustrating how the use of both types of language can present a new way of seeing something. The comic ends with the non-sunburned character saying “I crave star damage”, which illustrates both the negative and positive aspects of being sunburned. 

In another one of his web comics (see figure 2), Pyle illustrates two Strange Planet characters conversing as they exercise. In contrast to the previous example, Pyle consistently has the characters utilize dyslogistic language including references to being “wildly uncomfortable”, experiencing “agony”, “multiple axes of futility”, and a “net product of fatigue”. In doing so, he draws attention to the less favorable aspects of exercise and comedically illustrates how characters continue to do it even after they understand how supposedly futile it is. 

Pyle brings up this point again in another of his web comics (see figure 3) that looks at the relationships between neighbors and the way that those relationships often go unquestioned because of how society is set up. Again, the characters use dyslogistic language by using phrases such as “unsolicited”, “trespassers”, and “trust based solely on proximity”. Pyle also reveals how comedic the situation is by referring to smiling and the practice of bringing food to neighbors as a gesture of trust. This causes the audience to see the situation in a new, yet funny light, while also helping them to think about the ways these actions actually appear. 

To see more of Nathan Pyle’s Strange Planet web comic series, check out his Instagram page here. 

So it’s been a few weeks since I blogged about my plan to try out manslamming. I did, and the results have been interesting. 

For one, I’ve realized that environment plays a huge role, particularly the higher traffic in the environment, the better. Andrews University is not a high traffic environment. Even after a significant event like university forum, it wasn’t always possible for me to find a crowd to walk against. 

Now I know that I didn’t have to have a crowd to test this out, so I also tried it when there weren’t many people in the hall. In fact, my one really interesting moment happened at a time when there were like three people in the hall. It was me and this guy, and we were heading straight for each other. Just as we got close enough to where it was necessary for one of us to move, he paused, looked me directly in the eye, smiled, and walked to the side. I was a bit shocked. I wasn’t as shocked that he stopped and smiled, but more that I held his eye contact, smiled back, and refused to move. For me, that was a success.

This brings me to another moment, one where I was doing the same thing as I walked down the hall, and another girl passed me. She didn’t move, and I stayed my course. We ended up hitting shoulders pretty hard. While I was honestly slightly annoyed, I was actually pretty interested to see another woman intentionally refuse to move. Yes, it doesn’t mean that she was also trying out manslamming (or in this case, womanslamming), but it was still a clear decision that she made. 

At the end of it all, I think that this act could have been more effective in providing physical results that I could measure and analyze. On a less tangible level, however, I think that the process of thinking and committing to trying manslamming as a feminist rhetorical act really helped me to see the significance of space and the way I move in it as a woman. Even as I walked through mostly empty halls I found myself thinking about my placement, about the fact that I was allowed to take up space unapologetically. It made a difference, not one that I can really measure, but it is one that will stick with me. In the end, I feel that my feminist rhetorical act helped me, as the rhetor, to become more aware of my own agency. It also gave me the chance to reflect on the way that gender dynamics affect my movement, and thereby helped me become more self-aware and resistant. In this sense, then, this act was somewhat rhetorically affective when judged from a feminist rhetorical criticism standpoint. 

One of the goals of feminism is to push back against the patriarchal system that has regularly subordinated women and elevated men. In this system, straight, white men have the most power. This power can be seen in many ways including how society privileges their voices in the literary canon and, more often than not, in the workplace. As a woman in this system, I experience things differently. I have to assert my voice in areas where men’s voices are privileged. I have less time to make a point and a much smaller margin of error for my actions. I have to constantly fight to make sure that my thoughts, my voice, my opinions are not dismissed because I am a woman.  

Even though I know this, I still find myself doing things a certain way because society has taught me that my voice matters less than men’s. This is seen in the way, that I, like many young girls, was praised for giggling or smiling cutely instead of boldly answering questions. I was told to keep my voice down and sit in a lady like way whereas people would look at my brothers and say “boys will be boys.” While these statements may seem innocuous, they create a society in which I, as a woman, have to work to be seen, heard, and appreciated. I have been taught that I can’t make mistakes and that I can’t take up space or make too much noise. 

As a way of pushing back against this sexism, I want to try manslamming. Manslamming, also known as Patriarchy Chicken, is an exercise where a woman refuses to step out of the way of men who are walking towards her. Ideally this should be done in an area of high traffic. There a couple of ways to play it. For one, I could just plow through and avoid eye contact, or I could intentionally look and even smile as I refuse to move. Personally, I would like to do a mix of both. Other women who have done this have had men run into them. Honestly, I am interested to see how this would play out in the environment here at Andrews University. First of all, it isn’t as high traffic of an area and secondly, it seems to be a generally polite environment. Nevertheless, I would like to intentionally do this and see what results I get. Maybe no one will run into me. Maybe no one will notice. Even if they don’t, I still think it’s a great opportunity to check my natural tendency to step out of the way. 

Overall, I think this is a subtle yet physical push back against the way that women are often confined to the margins, whether intellectually, physically, or otherwise. In this way, refusing to step to the side is a refusal to concede. While getting out of people’s ways isn’t something that I was raised to consider a traditional feminine behavior, it is something that seems to regularly happen, especially to then apologize if my refusal to move ends in someone running into me. 

To read about other women’s experiences with this, check out these women’s stories: 

• https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/08/167417/manslamming-experiment-personal-story
• https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2019/02/how-play-patriarchy-chicken-why-i-refuse-move-out-way-men

Recently, I decided to watch the pilot episode for the NBC tv show, Parks and Recreation, originally aired in 2009. After watching the episode and reading about Marxist rhetorical critiques, I thought it would be pretty interesting to do a miniature Marxist critique of the pilot episode.

While Marx had many interesting concepts, the one I am particularly interested in is the idea of “false consciousness” and how to “demystify” a society or individual from this distorted sense of reality. In the textbook, Rhetoric and Human Consciousness, Craig Smith describes Marx’s idea of false consciousness as illusions that are “an outgrowth of the material interests of those in power and can be revealed as false by comparing them to the material realities of the world” (325). This brings us to the process of demystification, which for contemporary Marxists, often involves asking a series of questions designed to help the audience “uncover material realities and those who control them” (327).

When applied to the pilot episode of Parks and Recreation, these questions expose the interesting dynamic between those who have the power and those who don’t. Furthermore, the viewer soon realizes that the show is intentionally engaging with the public’s “false consciousness” towards the government. 

The plot of the pilot episode is as follows: Leslie Knope is the deputy director of the town’s Parks and Recreation department. She and a colleague hold a community outreach public forum. One woman named Anne Perkins stands up and informs them of an abandoned lot on the street she lives in. She asks for them to fill it because her boyfriend broke both of his legs when he fell in. Leslie “pinkie promises” to do it, and she spends the rest of the episode trying to create a subcommittee to not only fill in the pit, but also build a park on that land. Finally, after appealing to higher authorities, falling into the pit herself, and spending more time with Anne, Leslie is given the subcommittee. 

The first few questions for this Marxist critique each deal with the idea of speaking: who gets to speak, who has the power to, who can afford to, and more. Interestingly, the episode starts with Leslie trying to get a child at a park to answer her survey questions about their satisfaction at the park. This already sets up the power dynamic. The child is allowed to speak, but the system is not typically set up in such a way that privileges the feedback of the children in the park. In fact, when the child refuses to talk, Leslie assumes an answer and fills in the survey for them. In this sense, she is controlling their “message” and thereby taking the role as speaker. 

This idea of who gets to speak is revisited again in the community outreach public forum. Technically this event is created so that community members can ask questions. However, as shown by their reactions to Anne’s statement that she doesn’t really like politics, the community seems to be aware that their complaints will only go so far. This is also seen in Anne’s surprised reaction when Leslie actually pinky promises to not only fill the pit, but also to put a park on the land. Basically, by actually listening to Anne speak, Leslie is going against the status quo to a certain degree. She is attempting to align the “material interests of those in power” with the “material realities” of the need to fill this pit.

Ironically, however, Leslie’s own view of government work is a kind of false consciousness. This can be seen in the other character’s responses to her optimism towards government work. She seems to be stuck in an idealistic understanding of local government. Despite this, her attempts to get the subcommittee show that she is aware of the systemic strategies of the local government and that as a participant in that system, there is a hierarchy. Consequently, she appeals to those who can help her gain traction within this system

In the end, this episode’s concern with the power structures of the local government, specifically who can speak and who is privileged, reveal numerous characters who are attempting to deal with this false consciousness surrounding their local government. Ultimately they must recognize the material realities of their situations and of the government structure in order to escape this false consciousness and thereby appeal to or align their goals with the material interests of the Parks and Recreation department. 

Argumentative fallacies are more common than many of us let on. They often show up in arguments and debates, political discourse, tweets, and entertainment. No matter where they appear, argumentative fallacies are not only problematic because of their faulty logic, but in particular because of the actions and ideologies they wrongly portray and promote.

While there are many examples I could address, I feel like talking about Disney. Disney’s 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast is a truly wonderful remake of the old Disney classic. Similar to the old film, one of the best parts about this remake, in my opinion, is the soundtrack. In particular, I want to focus on the “Mob Song”. This song depicts the part of the story where Gaston is rousing people to come join him in killing the Beast. As I listened to this song, I noticed that Gaston employed numerous argumentative fallacies. 

One of the major ones he brings up at the very beginning of the song is Ad baculum. Smith describes this fallacy as one that “substitutes a threat for a legitimate argument” (117). Gaston employs this when he sings, “We’re not safe until he’s dead / He’ll come stalking us at night / Set to sacrifice our children to his monstrous appetite / He’ll wreak havoc on our village if we let him wander free / So it’s time to take some action, boys / It’s time to follow me.” In these lines, Gaston thoroughly paints the beast as a threat. Never once does he mention actual things that the beast has done, rather he merely speculates on the possible violence that the beast is supposedly capable of doing. I actually think that this part of the song is an example of Ad hominem as well, a fallacy that is “an attack on the person in order to undercut the truth of his or her statements” (Smith 117). While the beast is not physically present and making statements, Gaston’s purposeful portrayal of the Beast makes him seem like a threat while Gaston is seen as a voice of reason.

Another argumentative fallacy that is present in this song is Ad numeram, the assertion that “something is true simply because many people believe it is true” (Smith 117). This is clearly stated later in the song when the whole group of them sing, “Here we come, we’re fifty strong / And fifty Frenchmen can’t be wrong / Let’s kill the Beast.” Here each person involved is buying into the idea that since they are all in agreement regarding the Beast’s dangerous tendencies, then they must be right in going to kill him and thereby eradicate him as a threat. 

The implications of these argumentative fallacies are immediate. Even as the song is being sung, the mob goes with Gaston to storm the Beast’s castle. The men fall behind him, fully believing in Gaston’s portrayal of the Beast. They do not stop to think about the fact that the Beast has been shut up in his castle for years and has not actually harmed any of the villagers. Furthermore, Belle’s repeated pleas to the Beast’s sanity and kind heart fall on deaf ears. 

In the end, Gaston leads the crowd to the castle, nearly killing the Beast and forcing the Beast to act in self-defense. The Beast’s understandable resistant behavior only seems to validate the crowd’s irrational beliefs more. 

Clearly this is just a Disney film, but the implications of Gaston’s fallacy filled argument can be clearly seen on the audience. As the rhetor in this situation, he successfully, although by faulty means, establishes himself as a credible, authoritative figure and casts the Beast as a violent, deranged, fearsome animal. He then uses repetition of the Beast’s characteristics as a way to gain momentum for his argument and to incite action. Once the audience is roused to action, he appeals to their large number as a way of validating their actions. 

While we all know that this is a fairy tale and Gaston is a made-up figure, it serves as an important reminder of the way that argumentative fallacies can build on each other to quickly escalate an initially faulty argument to dangerous proportions.

So, I’m just going to begin this by saying that Aristotle made a lot of great points when it comes to rhetoric. I know that not everyone appreciates everything he said, but on average, most people do admit that he was a very influential sophist.

One of the things that Aristotle had a lot to say about was Ethos, i.e. “to be worthy of belief” (Smith 73). According to him, ethos is the most important factor in rhetoric. Consequently, he split up ethos into three main artistic strategies: Sagacity, goodwill, and character. For the purposes of my short critique, I will be focusing mostly on goodwill and sagacity.

In Craig Smith’s textbook, Rhetoric and Human Consciousness, goodwill is defined as a rhetor “demonstrating that [they] have the audience’s best interests at heart” (74). Sagacity is “the use of evidence, the recall of important events, a strong sense of organization, and even proper word choice” that can impact the way an audience “perceives the speaker in terms of expertise on a given subject” (73).

One amusing Super Bowl commercial that I think shows this well is “Not Everything Makes the Cut” by Amazon. The video begins with a woman telling Alexa to reheat her pasta in a microwave. Standing off to the side, a man admits his surprise to a nearby Amazon employee. The employee then goes on to tell him about various ways Amazon had tried, and failed, to put Alexa into numerous products including a toothbrush, a dog collar (for dogs), a hot tub, and lastly in space. 

While my first reaction to everything in this commercial was definitely amusement, the longer I thought about it, the more I realized how this commercial engages with ethos. The first part that made me think about this was the way the Amazon employee admits there have been a lot of fails. This sentiment was only strengthened with each successive example, going from the least concerning to the most dangerous. 

By ordering the commercial in this way, Amazon employed sagacity through their portrayal of these specific events as they were being recalled by the employee. Furthermore, the significant organization of each event shows careful reasoning. 

While at first it may seem counterproductive that Amazon is admitting to its failures, I think it actually shows a certain amount of “transparency” regarding the potential flaws or dangers of their products. Additionally, by acknowledging what has gone wrong, Amazon is painting a picture of their company as one that is self-aware and intentional about making sure they continue to develop their products into the best they can be. 

In closing, I just want to point out that the title of the commercial, “Not Everything Makes the Cut” only shows this more by clearly stating that there is a standard for Amazon products that must be met. 

To view the full commercial, click here.

Having grown up in a Christian home, I was exposed to modesty culture. If you happen to have not heard of it, modesty culture (also part of purity culture) is basically this way of thinking in which women and girls are held responsible for the way their clothing causes men to act. In other words, they are expected to dress modestly and appropriately so they aren’t a source of sexual temptation to men. 

I have a big problem with this. While I could go on to explain all my reasons, I have chosen not to because 1) there are already many blogs written about this which I think explain the reasons quite well and 2) my goal is to show you how this relates to Plato’s perception of truth instead of convincing you to agree with my side of the argument. 

In short, Plato believed in absolute truth. This truth could be found in the world of forms, the noumenal world. In the textbook, Rhetoric and Human Consciousness, Craig R. Smith helpfully posits, “According to Plato, one of the great tensions in life is the battle between reason, which carries the soul back to the ideal, and the senses, which distract the soul and lead it to the phenomenal and material” (54). Plato also believed that “our earthly condition” distracts us from this “attainment of true knowledge from the noumenal world” (53). 

While this may seem like somewhat of a stretch, Plato’s focus on this world and a type of perfect world, reminded me of the all too familiar Christian focus on Heaven. When I was growing up, I always heard the phrase, “be in the world, but not of the world”. This phrase was applied to everything from music, movies, food, and even clothing as a way of saying that good Christians have to be different and set apart. 

Similar to the above phrase is a phrase that happens to be one of the cornerstones of those who support modesty culture: “Don’t be a stumbling block”. This phrase goes hand in hand with the idea that a woman’s/girl’s body is a temple. While these phrases do indeed have positive meanings, they are also used to promote the idea that women must dress modestly or else they will negatively impact their own personal journey and every man’s who sees them. Basically, women must not use their clothing or lack thereof, their sexual appeal, and the shape of their body to in anyway distract themselves or others from continuing on the faithful Christian walk towards Heaven, or in Plato’s words, to the world of absolute truth.

Interestingly, I think the argument between those who are for and against modesty culture also resembles Plato’s idea of the tension between reason and the senses. Per most arguments, proponents of both sides argue that they are appealing to reason whereas the other side is irrational or misinformed. Furthermore, both sides appeal to their rhetorical use, or arguable misuse, of the same key terms such as responsibility and shame. 

In the end, I’m not here to tell you which side you should be on. I know where I stand, and I know that reading Plato made me think of this topic. You may not like that I don’t give more of an answer to this debate, and that’s ok. I will leave you with one last meme…

While my end goal is to talk about Gina Rodriguez’s recent appearance on The View, I must first start this post with a brief dive into the rhetorical theory espoused by the sophists in ancient Greece. These sophists had a wide variety of views. Some, such as Protagoras, argued that humans created a standard for truth, and that this standard was in part created by rhetoric. Others, like Demosthenes, believed that the ability to prompt action was the most important result of successful rhetoric. Still others, like Lysias, focused on adapting their rhetorical arguments to the audience they were addressing. While each of these views are interesting, the one I want to focus on is the way that rhetors display ethos to advocate for truth and change in their audience and society.

In his book Rhetoric and Human Consciousness, Craig R. Smith helpfully addresses the views of Gorgias, an influential sophist who is often portrayed as “the father of ceremonial (epideictic) speaking” (47). Gorgias believed that nothing was permanent, and that rhetoric was helpful for making sense of the surrounding impermanence. As a result of this, he also came up with the theory of kairos, the idea that a rhetor should address their audience at the proper time so that the context around their argument can best suit audience expectations and be persuasive. Isocrates, another well-known sophist, brings up the point that “truth does not speak for itself and is not in itself persuasive” (Smith 51). According to this view, a rhetor must intentionally persuade their audience of the merits, and virtues behind their argument. In other words, rhetors actively participate in the process of producing truth. This brings me to ethos. Antiphon, an orator and statesman, argues, “True persuasion provides evidence of the good of one’s proposition, evidence that is drawn from experience or knowledge” (From A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric by James J. Murphy, Richard A. Katula, and Michael Hoppmann, 46). He also stresses the importance of words used to describe real lived experiences. As a result of the power of words to describe lived experiences, Antiphon emphasized the ethos of the rhetor as being one of the most important parts of rhetoric.

This focus on ethos applies to Gina Rodriguez’s recent appearance on The View (Click here for the YouTube link). A Puerto Rican actress most known for her role as Jane Villanueva  in CW’s Jane the Virgin, Rodriguez recently starred in the action film Miss Bala (to be released on February 1). The first question she answered dealt with her clear support of the Time’s Up movement at the 2019 Golden Globes. When asked about the “Times Up x2” ribbon on the back of her dress (see below), she explained that “the initiative for this year was to double the number…You hire one female, hire two. You hire one female director, hire two. The idea that it’s that easy to create change and push the needle forward.” Prior to giving this explanation of the Times Up initiative, Rodriguez admitted that she was not one of the prominent female leaders of the Times Up movement and thereby should not be considered representative of the entire movement. This type of comment, I feel, strengthened her ethos by showing her awareness of her own position in this movement.

As the conversation went on, Rodriguez began discussing her upcoming film, Miss Bala, which is directed by a female director and features a cast and crew that is 95% Latinx . These facts supported her prior statements about the importance of hiring more women directors. Furthermore, she acknowledged how she hopes that films like Miss Bala pave the road for other Latinx actors to be in main acting roles.

While I could continue providing more examples of the way that Gina Rodriguez adeptly utilizes ethos in this short video, I would instead like to point out how she is doing exactly what Antiphon was suggesting by using her own experiences as a Puerto Rican actor to persuade others of the need for gender equality and racial diversity on the red carpet. In this sense she is using rhetoric to make truth persuasive.

As I was skimming various blog sites for this post, I finally came across an interesting blog called “Ben’s Bitter Blog” (https://bensbitterblog.com). At first, I looked at it, laughed, read a couple posts, and moved on. It was funny, engaging, and more, but I wanted to see what else was out there. However, I found myself returning to this blog because I find it fascinating to see how focused the content is, and how the blogger, Bitter Ben, has managed to engage so well with his audience.

This brings me to Bitzer’s Metatheory, a theory (shocker) about three key components of rhetoric: exigence, audience, and constraints. While it would be interesting, in my opinion, to see how each of these are present in Ben’s Bitter Blog, my role in this blog post is to tell you about one of them: audience. 

Alright. To begin with, the very name and tagline of this blog (“We make bitter better”) are like identifying flags to any prospective readers. When I first stumbled on the sight I took one look at the home page and began laughing. You should enjoy it too…

As you can see, Ben does several things here. First of all, the shades of grey color scheme goes right along with the title and tagline, essentially setting a mood and providing visual support of the themes and topics which should draw in the desired audience. Secondly, the angry bird. Enough said. 

I do have to say (even though I just said “Enough said”), by far my favorite part about this first look at the blog is the list of pages. Even if you don’t click on anything to read, or even if you’re just passing through, it is clear that literally every part of this blog is dedicated to bitterness. In fact, bitterness is being spread through various amusing mediums and about different topics. To me, this is significant because 1) great alliteration with all the “b’s” and 2) this blog is actively creating a space where the audience can determine the author’s rhetorical purpose. Furthermore, if you look through the “About” page, you will see that this entire blog started from an audience noticing Ben’s bitterness and therefore revealing a potential audience that Ben then decided to appeal too. The result: A grey themed blog in which the written content, awkward videos, cringeworthy memes, and Ben’s signature sign off “ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH” work together wonderfully to draw together an audience of fellow bitter humans.

At this point, trying to define rhetoric is like trying to capture the beauty of a sunset in just one photo. Maybe that’s easy for some to do, but I never thought it was that simple. Just like I have numerous cliché sunset photos on my phone, I also seem to have many vaguely formed conceptions of rhetoric. 

Rhetoric is something I’ve always heard about in school. It is one of those concepts that English teachers talk about, one I’ve probably had to “memorize” for a test, and one that I’m sure I’ve used in conversation (especially if I was trying to sound smart). It’s one of those words that I pretend like I know what people mean by it when they use it in a conversation. 

When my mom heard I was taking a class called “Intro to Rhetoric” she asked me what rhetoric meant. An awkward silence ensued after which I haltingly began mumbling words such as persuasion…ummm…speaking….art of….writing….ummm. I stopped trying after I saw her face and instead pulled out my phone to consult my dear friend google. It somewhat helped.

Fast forward to the first day of class, and my thoughts on rhetoric have become only slightly more articulate. Finding words associated with rhetoric is easy enough. Words that come to mind include persuasive, speech, writing, ethos, pathos, logos, politicians, logic, discourse analysis and more. After biting the end of my pen and staring at my relatively empty sheet of paper in slight frustration, the best definition I could come up with was “The art of speaking and writing effectively, logically, and persuasively”. To be honest, this is probably way too simplistic of a definition, but for now I’d like to think it works. 

As this class goes on I am eager to grasp a more complete definition of rhetoric. While I have the definition listed above, I don’t feel like it fully encapsulates the importance of rhetoric. This might be a lofty goal, but it would eventually be great to get to the point where I could give a definition of rhetoric that would get that “oohh I finally (that kind of finally that means totally but doesn’t sound sarcastic) get it” reaction. I’m fully aware that this kind of reaction may be about as rare as me eventually saying “Wow! This is the perfect sunset picture”.