Art and Love on the Island of the Birds

Every creature is so beautiful they can only be the present culmination of a once celestial Eden.

"The sky was set over the earth, the land was ringed by the sea, and empty void retired to its own place; the forest received wild beasts to keep, and the air birds; ye lurked, ye fishes, in the liquid waters" (Ovid 99).  

Instantaneous. A crystal prism scatters a single shaft of light out in rainbows. A brain receives, then interprets, trillions of sensory data input into a workable contrivance. Similarly, the rhetorician is also a vessel in which an ineffable universe is decoded, and whose fundamental aim is to disassemble, and then re-translate, reality for the purpose of invoking perception. In this way, all facets of the conceivable world -- the furnishings in our house, the clothes we wear, the people we know, how we interact with them -- are all in reciprocal flux and transference with every other rhetorical artifact whose interior contains essential, coded motes by which reality is conjured up. Creation is all one great rhetorical bacchanalia.    

"Then mankind wandered in the lonely fields; brute strength was theirs and forms uncouth; woodland was their home, their food grass, their bedding leaves; and for long none knew his fellow" (Ovid 99).

And the vessels we are, drifting, unanchored ships, presently find themselves awakened as their hulls bury into a sandy shore. There is suddenly birthed before us a prolific expanse of verdant flora that house many winged, tropical creatures flying to and from each branch in a cacophony of screeches and bright dancing feathers. Sir David Attenborough narrates from an unseen vantage, as if the whole of life were previously inscribed in a book, or in the brushstrokes of an elaborate painting... 

Dancing. Actio. Every creature is so beautiful that is all there is worth doing. The flick of a feather, the flourish of a quill, a frolic in the ink and the incantation has been writ. This is how writing happens, how reality is conjured up. It is also how love happens; on the island of the birds it is a rhetorical performance. The male displays a colorful plume of feathers, puts on his dancing shoes, and coos softly. When the dance has been done, the letters of love delivered, the male waits hopefully for the female's reply. Linda Wong, in her article Rhetorical Performance: Performing the Rhetoric, says "the dancer’s body is in its own right a piece of art work, but, like oratory, can also fluently speak with total silence, with motions. Actio is a means for the dancer to transcend the legalistic manipulation of the bodily movements, and helps free himself to explore deeply and intellectually on man’s passions and creative potential" (Wong 192).  

A peacock on display

Mating rituals, whether animal or human, are performances. When we play the dating game, we are rhetorical birds playing the mating game. And just like every ritual, there is some intention behind it. The male peacock does not display his tail feathers before the batting eyes of a female because they need stretching. Similarly, clubbers don't gyrate and thrust their hips at the local dive because of bad ball and socket joints that need regular movement to keep the bearings greased; you don't lean in with your elbows on the counter to flirt with a cute barista because it's loud in the coffee shop, or because you're a bit jaded and enjoy teasing the service industry. Love is rhetoric on display, heart thumping hopelessly in the throat and dancing.

Beguiling pleasure is said to have softened those fierce spirits: a man and a woman had tarried together in one spot; what were they to do, they learnt themselves with none to teach them: artlessly did Venus accomplish the sweet act" (Ovid 99).

Daphnis and Chloe

If to swoon an audience is your purpose, then your performance must come equipped with just the right amount of stimulating logos, raw, sexual pathos, and a graceful, eloquent ethos. Even Plato is pinning his toga a bit higher above the knee these days because we all – well, most of us – inherently know how to grab the attention and draw in a potential spouse, lover, spontaneous dance partner, ad infinitum. But how does one learn to act this way? Where do we find our audience? How do we win them over? 

The Art of Love, Ovid's guide to dancing and dating in ancient Greece, takes the approach to love as a craft that must be perfected. He says, "by skill swift ships are sailed and rowed, by skill nimble chariots are driven: by skill must Love be guided" (Ovid 13). Just as the birds of paradise don't attract their curious partners by haphazardly flapping their wings and bouncing around, so we don't write with our quill a song of love without first learning how to direct our passions. In short, we must first learn to artisans, rhetoricians of love. Conjuring up love " is not meant to be [a] savage brush of gross movements, but decorous, with grace" (Wong 191). As rhetoricians, lovers who wish to create in the object of affection a certain perception, flashing our colorful side "does not mean 'mere display,' as though orators simply were exhibiting their skills" as Lawrence Prelli argues in his introduction to Rhetorics of Display, "rather it means making manifest or highlighting the fleeting 'appearance' of excellence in human experience that otherwise would remain 'unnoticed or invisible'" (Prelli 3). It is a chase and the birds know this. The dance of love is not so much a game of persuasion through aesthetic appeal or sentimental entreaties. It is a narrative that must gradually unravel itself, whose qualities of attraction have more to do with "the dynamic between revealing and concealing" (2).  

This is not to say that merely dancing in place will attract hoards of potential lovers and partners to your doorstep. The narrative is rather an active process with a specific object in mind. It is about pursuit of love, and direct action on the part of the performer. This familiar scene from Disney's Lion King serves as a good example. Their back and forth dance, a constant interplay between revealing and concealing, eventually develops into a chase. Despite the walking-in-slow-motion-with-a-chorus-of-angels-singing-in-the-background image that we have often been shown in popular culture and film, Ovid is wise to warn us that "she will not come floating down to you through the tenuous air, she must be sought, the girl [or guy] whom your glance approves" (15). 

It would seem that love-as-rhetoric is not about persuasion, but about the artful invocation of a tangible pathos through ritualistic dances and performances, as well as the spontaneous creation of narrative between two lovers that has no apparent ending or conclusion. And why?

  

Every creature is so beautiful. "As many as are the flowers that the new-born earth produces." Everyone is a rhetorician, whose existence is brought about by language (in all conceivable forms) creating and interacting with language. There must be "a god in us; we are in touch with heaven: from celestial places comes our inspiration" (Ovid 131).

Prom

Princess Bride

Bonnie and Clyde

Ken and Barbie

Final Paper Proposal

There is a high enough chance that, come Monday morning, I will forget to print this thing off. So I'm posting it here in case that happens:

This is a proposal for a final project about proposals – in a way. The proposal I'm referring to, however, is not like typical proposals, like the one you are reading now. Rather, this deals in a type of persuasion rooted in the traditions of romance, sex, and lust: the mating ritual, specifically.

The performance of every ritual, whether animal or human, verbal or visual, religious or pagan, romantic or war-like has at its core a history and weight of some rhetorical significance. The male peacock does not display his tail feathers before the batting eyes of a female because they need stretching; clubbers don't gyrate and thrust their hips at the local dive because of bad ball and socket joints that need regular movement to keep the bearings greased; you don't lean in with your elbows on the counter to flirt with a cute barista because it's loud in the coffee shop, or because you're a bit jaded and enjoy teasing the service industry. The mating ritual is rhetoric on display and dancing.

If to swoon an audience is your purpose, then your performance must come equipped with just the right amount of stimulating logos, raw, sexual pathos, and a graceful, eloquent ethos. Even Plato is pinning his toga a bit higher above the knee these days because we all – well, most of us – inherently know how to grab the attention and draw in a potential spouse, lover, spontaneous dance partner, ad infinitum. But the question remaining is why? How does one learn to act this way? What do these signifiers signify?

This is what I hope to address in my final paper. Through a series of familiar social exhibits that appear in the subtle positioning of bodies in bars, colorful shows in nature, and even in conversations at your local fine-dining establishment, I hope to identify whatever exigence these scenes demand through an analysis of the interactive rhetoric we use every single day. This could be studied in more general ways if that works better for the paper. Or, I thought it might be fun to do some work directly in the field (as a casual observer, mind) and narrow my focus to the question of What is the rhetorical situation of the Bozeman mating ritual? How do the residents of Bozeman (human and Big Sky fauna, alike) go about their rhetorical performance in situations ranging from just getting laid to seeking out a life-long companion?

Using nature as a necessary framework (because animal rituals meet the demands of biology before rhetoric) I will compare how our biological desires are fueled by, and translated into, rhetorical rituals. And depending on what direction I take my paper, these could be real or hypothetical.

Because I don't have the luxury of time to theorize about what makes the whole clock tick, I will take generous advantage of the fact that others before me have probably already asked the same questions that I have, thought about it longer, and made smarter arguments than I could, and use that a starting off point. Some links and sources that look promising:

Rhetorics of Display

Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture

http://ijh.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.26/prod.1313

In the chance that you know of any good publications about the topic off the top of your head, I would appreciate your feedback.

Just Your Everyday Bag of Carrots (Penises)

This is a bag of carrots I recently bought from the store. And with the way I go grocery shopping I can only imagine that, walking down the vegetable aisle, I glanced at my list, read "carrots," and got what was on sale without a second thought. At first it seemed like your everyday bag of vegetables: crisp, delicious, healthy, orange; all the delightful snacking qualities a carrot should possess. But it was only after taking a closer look at the bag itself that I was confronted with how obviously phallic and suggestive it is...and also that, according to market research, I may or may not be repressing a lonely, inner housewife that I am apparently unaware of.

Now I'm not sure what telling expression of human nature that Aristotle would have come up with about this, but I think it's fair to say that this bag is literally dripping with pathos. It is the language of the Freudian slip made tangible, and fully realized, then gallivanted about in the sensual dressings of a commodity.

Let's break down this visual narrative being told to our audience of consumers:

I've always noticed that certain advertisements like to anthropomorphize woodland creatures to get personally private concepts across more subtly. For example, imagine if the Charmin commercials showed humans with clumps of toilet paper on their rear ends instead of cuddly cartoon bears, or if the rabbit on this bag was replaced by a real woman. It would not only seem crude to most shoppers, but a lot of them would probably even be disturbed and offended by it, and therefore less likely to purchase the product.

This particular anthropomorphism, the face of this product, relies on double-entendre, and is definitely catered to a specific body of shoppers. We have "Bunny-Luv," your typically attractive rabbit-next-door. She is fairly satisfied with her life, except that Mr. Luv is frequently gone on long business trips, and it sometimes gets lonely in the rabbit den at night. Or perhaps she hasn't found her Mr. Luv yet, and is beginning to lose hope. Either way, the nice farmers at Grimmway Farms always seem to be there for her, and have been more then accommodating in these lonely hours.

 Most of the logo is made entirely of hearts (a symbol of passion, romance, and infatuation), three of which make her face beam with adoration as she bashfully turns it into her shoulder, but can't yet manage to break that lusty, inviting eye contact with the large, unusually attentive carrot staring her right in the face. Instead of reaching for the Ben & Jerry's, she grabs a healthy alternative, at the base, awkwardly, with both hands...

I don't think I need to continue on this train of thought because I'm sure at this point in the sales presentation all the department heads at Grimmway Farms were lighting victory cigars for another upcoming quarter of great sales: sex simply sells. We can't be sure where this image may mentally lead one's fantasies while in the middle of a public supermarket, but I can assure you, at the end of this narrative it seems less and less that I bought an everyday bag of carrots, and more a decadent brand of aphrodisia that an aptly named porn star might sell door to door like girl scout cookies.

Binders Full of Women

"Important topic, and one in which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state. Because I had the chance to pull together my cabinet and all the applicants seem to be men. And I went to my staff and said, 'How come all the people for these jobs are all men?' They said, 'Well these are the people that all have the qualifications.' And I said, 'Well gosh, can't we find some women that are also qualified?' And so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' And they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my cabinet and my senior staff that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America."

If this "concerted effort" sounds more like an epic fantasy of patriarchy, remember that we're talking about Mitt Romney here, and pat yourself on the back for being correct:

Picture this: teams of thousands of frantic men in shiny black shoes, sweeping the American countryside with magnifying glasses, microscopic lenses, and a crack squad of investigators, searching under every rock and cranny, in every supermarket and church and bar, pinpointing possible locations via overhead satellite in search of the elusive "qualified woman." There had been many tales and legends told of such a creature, but few had ever spotted one. After much searching and repeated discouragement, all hope was almost given up. Until one day Mitt and his merry band of travelers came upon an oracle at a women's group who gave them a long sought after treasure: the Magic Binder of Women. It was told that whichever man possessed this sacred manuscript would have access to all the qualified women his heart desired: women perfect for "the job." For days the men hauled in stacks upon stacks of nicely binded paper in wheelbarrows for Mitt to study and "learn a great deal about" so he could finally demystify the mysterious feminine psyche and employ them in his cabinet.

What Romney does in his attempt to promote women's rights is to actually miss the point entirely. The idea of women being cataloged, archived, and distributed among men is in itself an objectification of women in the workforce. But not only does he "bind" them up, he also uses them for statistical purposes, as a means for bragging among his other fellow men that, "we have the most women in our leadership positions." This is not treating women as an equal part of the workforce. It is treating them as sexualized statistical possessions used to leverage themselves into a facade of social progress. Even the word "binder" has so many negative connotations of confinement, management, categorizing, and an obsession with administration that is proof of the sickening products of Western thought.

Electing Ourselves

DISCLAIMER: Even with just a vague knowledge of rhetoric, the following photos may become suddenly transparent, contrived, or lose their intended persuasive effect on some viewers. Proceed with insatiable curiosity.

"Hey, he owns tractors just like us. We should clap for him."

Obama: Bold. Discerning. Competent. This Rain Sucks.

Sitcom idea: Presidential hopeful and spunky blond toddler hitchhike across America and learn something about life, friendship, and themselves along the way.

Really looks like he's facing the wrong direction in this one.

Ahh...the simple joys of team spelling.

"Many cult supporters of Obama described him as being 'graced by a supernatural light,' as if 'the Messiah had descended once again to liberate the poor with promises of universal health care.'"

Romney supporters really showing them how to party on Game Day

What a wonderful day for eloquent speaking!

One of the few photos of Romney from Obama's website that just happened to catch him in a moment of obliviousness, unpreparedness, and generally scared shitlessness...

as opposed to Obama, who has only ever known that million dollar smile.

In a fashion and magnitude similar to celebrity tabloids, or frenzied paparazzi hoping to expose the dirty laundry on a cultural heavyweight, the lives of politicians are ruthlessly, and microscopically probed during the campaign season by a cultural spectatorship that is equally obsessed with picking apart the personal minutiae of its dignitaries and implanting its own preconceptions. This is a social environment that equates self-approval with a range of sanctioned behaviors and values, and then sensationalizes and ostracizes its eccentrics. So much so that voters identify themselves not just politically -- taking a stance on various issues -- but go so far as to superficially select a candidate whose particular lifestyle mirrors their own personal representation of values -- as if visual, material appearance and character are two interchangeable ideas.

Roland Barthes argues something similar in his essay Photography and Electoral Appeal where he looks at how the candidate engineers a mutual bond of trust and admiration between himself and the voter by turning his physical appearance into a statement, or representation, of an ideology. He states, "a photograph is a mirror, what we are asked to read is the familiar, the known; it offers to the voter his own likeness, but clarified, exalted, superbly elevated into a type...the voter is at once expressed and heroized, he is invited to elect himself." The effectiveness of constructing a visual ethos in today's political world boils down to the candidate's ability to transcend his own singular identity, and match one that is intensely personal, yet extensively national. 

To win over the hearts and minds of the majority there must be an appeal to a focus group that is versatile enough to attract a wide range of voters, but exclusive enough to suggest a common, domestic identity. The ideal candidate must display himself as the red-blooded every-man whose averageness is highlighted, yet not blinded, by his uniqueness. He must seem established enough in himself as to stand out and appear grounded, but amorphous enough as to be the blank face upon which voters project themselves. He must rationally poise himself on a web of ideological extremes so as to not seem too predisposed or biased to one system of action, yet not spread his image so thin as to appear ambiguous or flaky. This is the social rhetoric of politics that emphasizes the orthodox over the unusual, and one effective way to relay these subconscious messages to the voter is through the orchestrated craft of photography.

The social pressures that call for imitation of this kind are so strong that the candidate seems to undergo a process of depersonalization, where instead of representing himself as an individual, he becomes merely just a product or projection of his culture's values. When we see this happening in photography, Barthes argues that,

 "what is transmitted...are not his plans, but his deep motives, all his family, mental, even erotic circumstances, all this style of life which he is at once the product, the example, and the bait. It is obvious that what most of our candidates offer us through their likeness is a type of social setting, the spectacular comfort of family, legal and religious norms, the suggestion of innately owning such items of bourgeois property, as Sunday mass, xenophobia, steak and chips, cuckold jokes, in short, what we call an ideology."

Below are some  more official campaign photos taken from Obama's site as well as Romney's that I feel are of significant enough note to talk about in more detail. I want to take a look at how the different social contexts of these images construct the ethos of the candidate, and what we think about him (in terms of the above mentioned), subsequently touching on how pathos is often a vital component to the construction of ethos, as well. 

Exhibit A:

Looks like someone told a funny joke. Wish I could have been there!

"Oh...nothing. I was just chuckling to myself about that time we bet Ryan he couldn't put a Lego up his nose."

In these photos, we see a depiction of the husband and wife dynamic in a dining room setting that would be familiar to most Americans. Here, the implied premise is one of mutual respect toward the spouse, as well as a warm hospitality that invites the viewer to sit, chat, and stay a while in this friendly domestic setting. It is a humbling sort of admission for one with so much influence to say, "Hey, even though we may seem like big-wig Washington cronies, we're really just a normal family. We sit down around the table at the end of the day, put all our business aside, to eat dinner and talk -- just like you." The public especially admires this brand of humility because not only does it relieve them of the suspicion that wealthy aristocrats live much more luxuriously than they do, but it also forges a bond of trust when the socially elite can easily admit, without humiliation, "what a pleasure it really is" to freely mingle among the working class again. 

The subtleties of technique between these two photos are slightly different, though the ethos created in the couple is essentially the same. Mr. and Mrs. Romney's photo offers up to the voter, once again, the image of himself, down to its furthest, blurred peripheries. One sees typical appliances and items of "bourgeois property" (.mp3 player, kitchenette sets, coffee maker) which adds yet another layer of domesticity to the scene. At a more distinguished and clear distance we have Mitt resting against the bench seat, sleeves casually rolled up, with an arm around his wife. By placing himself in the background of the photo in this posture, a bodily position is suggested that portrays Mitt as the supportive husband who isn't always seeking to be in the spotlight while his wife disappears behind the scenes. Strategically speaking, this offers a harmonizing reassurance for Romney supporters since his platform has often been attacked as "anti-woman." Any wavering female voter might possibly gain some sense of internal security from this picture, for we have, finally, in the culmination and foreground of the image, a radiant breath of clarity that draws the viewer's eye immediately to the most important subject: Ann Romney. However, I'm not so sure how well this portrays her as an independent female, since the setting and background seem to accent the familiar items of a homemaker or housewife.

Obama's photo, on the other hand, seems to acknowledge no gender role or power dynamic between him and Michelle, and seems to rely on a separate set of traditions that can be described as altogether nostalgic: a plentiful, home-cooked meal that one might see in a Norman Rockwell painting. Instead of focusing on him and his wife's relationship, Obama emphasizes a "friendly neighbor" sort of appeal by portraying a decidedly active and social role in dinner conversation. He displays the sort of genteel wittiness that is charmingly naive to any apparent economic or class boundaries. He even leans forward in his chair in an extra effort to make definite eye contact with any potential votes that might slip through his fingers. An easily-humored demeanor has, for a long time, been employed as a technique to build charisma among one's peers. On his lecture about friendly feeling, Aristotle writes in his book On Rhetoric, that people are friendly to "those who are ready to make or receive a joke; for in both cases they are intent on the same thing as their neighbor, able to be kidded and kidding in good sport" (126).  

Exhibit B:

My, what a beautifully firm, masculine handshake you have

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: that-spells-Ry-an-and-Rom-ney

"Tortures Children in Spare Time to Relieve Campaign Stress." -- The Huffington Post 

Pleasantville must be pretty crowded, because there wasn't enough room for the obligatory apple pie in this shot. Otherwise I'm sure they would have tried to fit a slice or two in there somewhere.

Here we see the Romney campaign fully geared up for a specific audience: the conservatives and traditionally minded voters who want to see a restored balance between civic and familial duties and morals. As Barthes put it, "some candidates incidentally, beautifully manage to win on both counts, appearing for instance as a handsome hero (in uniform) on one side of the handout, and as a mature and virile citizen on the other, displaying his little family." But "little" is kind of ironic here. In the four photos as a whole there is an interesting parallel presented that assigns the viewer a specific ideology of how the male is supposed to be perceived in the context of his family, and the context of his country.

Specifically considering the paternal content of the last photo, what Romney is doing is promoting and sustaining patriarchal values in which the male father figure is the ruler and head authority over his "clan" or his lineage. Barthes was wise, however, in choosing the phrase "virile," as that it is exactly the quality of masculinity that Romney's approach to family requires. With the uniform dress, and matching color patterns in the youngest children, the viewer is also given a rigid, formal separation of gender identity and gender roles. It would not be much of a stretch to even argue that Romney seems to be representing an ideal family, or ideal individual to his voters that is a direct product of socially engineered youth. But where patriarchy is the dominant mode of familial organization, it is kind of appropriate that such a distinction in gender roles should be introduced at an early age.

There is an interesting contrast in the third photo where the viewer is introduced to a less organized household. Coming off as a stern dictatorial figure is definitely not an attractive quality to have, either. This photo still keeps the perspective on family, but this time he portrays himself as a more informal, fun-loving grandfather who the kids love, and who can still hang out, eat pizza, and watch movies with the best of them. After all, no one wants to vote for a hard ass who doesn't like kids. 

To complement his paternal appeal, Romney sheds the father figure shell and adopts the "handsome hero" archetype. While not in uniform, he is still displaying wearing a deep respect for the military by acknowledging and thanking those who served in it. The main thing I want to point out here is that Romney is, in both photos, making sure that he is seen with not just the greenhorns, but the old veterans, too. To span this age gap of young and old, while still giving and receiving respect throughout the whole gamut is an important quality to the every-man, especially in Romney's patriarchal appeal where respect for and from authority is such a vital value to have in your rhetorical tool belt.

Jobs Vs. Work: An Overlooked Distinction

I'm trying to avoid taking any openly political stance in this class, but I found this image and thought it was worth noting from a political and rhetorical perspective, or in the very least cause some good discussion and reflection:

A hot-button topic for the debate this election is obviously unemployment. But whether it is Romney or Obama talking about their plans to stimulate the economy and create jobs, I feel their discussion is ignoring a crucial distinction in terms that is going unrecognized. In other words, there is an enthymeme present here: "create jobs." What does that mean? 

The implied premise is that work is dependent on jobs; taken as something that needs to be created through some external force outside itself, this implies a false relationship between profit and need in the minds of the audience. However, what goes unnoticed is that creating jobs is not really creating work; the work was already there to begin with. Job creation is not about creating work, it's about creating profit. The need for jobs is simply the need to make a wage, but the need to work is something that will never disappear, regardless of the economy, and as long as humanity requires a certain amount of resources to survive.  

I feel the real topic of discussion in the debates should be, "there is obviously much work that needs to be done, and many things that need to be improved around here. What exactly is stopping us from accomplishing this?"

My Abstract Abstract

The topic of this paper focuses on the photography of the 2012 presidential campaign between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, and how visual elements affect the connection to voters, and subsequently, their opinion on the candidate's future potential for office. Using photos from both candidates' official websites I will look at how rhetoric functions in the techniques of electoral photography; by analyzing how candidates visually create positive pathos and establish an ethos of trust and confidence toward voters, I will discuss the strategies that politicians use to shed themselves in a light of charismatic normalcy and social decorum, according to the mass population's definition of what “the everyman” looks like. The particular media used for this argument will come from official campaign photography, Aristotle's text On Rhetoric, and Roland Barthes' essay “Photography and Electoral Appeal” from his book Mythologies.

Mad Style

Here's four rhetorical terms that I find especially interesting.

Dendrographia-- creating an illusion of reality through vivid description of a tree:

He sits down at the base. Its trunk is thick and confident with boughs that sway heavily in the wind; yet in the right light, its gold leaves shimmer like glass and fall fragilely to the ground.

Scheme-- an artful deviation from the ordinary arrangement of words:

(In Yoda's voice) "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not, hmmm?" 

Litotes-- Deliberate understatement, especially when expressing a thought by denying its opposite:

It's not that there's anything "wrong" with you, exactly. All I'm trying to say is...you're kind of a giant bitch.

Intimation-- Hinting at a meaning but not stating it explicitly:

Alright, alright, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it in that way. It's just that -- if I were to ever see you stranded on the side of the highway during a rainstorm, I would probably swerve and hit all the mud puddles as fast as I can.

Proposal for Presidential Rhetoric

Several semesters ago, in a literature class far, far away, I remember reading a short essay by Roland Barthes called Photography and Electoral Appeal. Focusing on the effects that subtle photographic elements have on the appearance of political candidates, and how these appearances relay subconscious messages to the voter viewing the photo, Barthes argues that these elements are meant to translate into a specific ideology about the candidate's stance, as well as creating an image that appeals to a national consensus of "normal."

We talked briefly about photographic rhetoric in class the other day and it immediately reminded me of Barthes article. So I decided that for this assignment I would like to focus on exactly that subject, and do a rhetorical analysis of photos from the campaign, using Barthes' work, and concepts from Aristotle in my rhetorical tool belt. And by the nature of the analysis I would assume that most of it would focus on the ethos of the speaker (or in this case, the visual candidate). 

Am I Doing It Right?

I like analyzing these commercials between Tester and Rehberg because there's nothing I hate more than seeing them everywhere I go. Revealing the dog and pony show technique has a certain satisfaction to it. I did Tester last time, so to be fair, here's the link to Rehberg's video.

Enthymeme: "Since Obama came into office, Montanan's have lost thousands of jobs." The premise this statement is relying on here is that people need jobs to feed and support their families. However, the unstated premise that the viewer hears is that Obama is not doing his job correctly since the economy is not improving. Perhaps because he doesn't care, or perhaps because he is incompetent. It isn't readily stated so the viewer gets to make any connection or assumption they want based on the claim.

Rehberg gives the viewer an object to displace their anger and frustration at, and creates a target out of Obama. And during this moment of vulnerability and apparent safety he jumps at the opportunity to reveal his plan to boost the economy, create more jobs, and be the problem solver in the situation.

 

"People like Others Who Smile a lot While Standing Next to Barns"

If Aristotle lived in Montana, this statement would have surely been presented under his topics of kindness and friendly feeling, so as not to leave any stone unturned, and since he fancies himself to be the "Appropriator of all Possibilities, Ever." I like to imagine him adding, "If the speaker owns a piece of farm equipment, broken or otherwise, it would be an added touch, and advantageous for his purposes, if he could make it apparent that he owns one; for all Montanans relate to, and find virtue in farm equipment -- and broken stuff that needs fixin'."

Exhibit A:

Aristotle's presumptuousness and imagined comprehensiveness aside, Tester is fully using to his advantage the praise-creating force of epideitic rhetoric, though he disguises it by using an implied premise of healthful apathy to instill into the thoughts of voters, an enthymeme:

 "Montanans don't care which party gets the credit or the blame, that's why I'm focused on doing what's right for Montana."

In saying this, he immediately absolves himself from any charge of misusing rhetoric and epideitic speech to sway the public opinion. He isn't playing the praise and blame bi-partisan game; he's in it to do what's right, and to pursue the needs of the people.

 For the purpose of getting more votes he tries to portray himself as the "once-was-blind-but-now-I-see" politician, who moved from the corrupt world of Washington politics to gain a new "perspective" and appreciation for his fellow Montanans. He becomes a more trustworthy figure for his audience, and removes himself from the political pedestal. He cares about rifles, smiles at barns, and likes hokey country-western music as much as the next guy. Though in my opinion, his folksy intro at relating to the public is a terrible failure as he states what is readily obvious to almost anyone with a brain:

"The combine doesn't care if you're a senator. It breaks down when it wants to break down."

How's that for enlightened perspective?

In terms of pathos, Tester tries to create friendly feelings among his voters. He says he shares the concerns of every Montanan and wants to create companionship, and not for any personal agenda. He also inspires a feeling of kindliness by being the voice of the people and setting up an Us and Them mentality. Through stating his disillusion with the social bureaucrats, showing warm, familiar, rural landscape, attacking the wealthy on Wall Street, and returning to a back to basics type of platform, Tester tries to mask the line between ruler and ruled.

Obama's Subtle Literary Technique

I'll be the first to admit my firm subversion to politics and politicians -- American and otherwise. Luckily for me this is a rhetorics class where we will be analyzing discourse and oration...not the cult of personality and celebrity spectator sport of politics. To the relief of my classmates I will try and elaborate on technique and methods employed, not my opinion on the matter (which I'm sure all of you are just dying to hear).  

All extremes aside -- whether you have enshrined Obama as the second Jesus, or avidly denounced his platform as nothing more than polished-up socialism -- I think it's pretty agreeable among everyone to say that he is an excellent public speaker. He consistently proves his charisma and talent for oration, the most recent of which was displayed at the Democratic National Convention. 

Beyond the typical campaigning and crowd-stoking, I discovered an inkling of joy when I noticed Obama ever-so-subtly uncovering and celebrating a rich history of beautiful American poetry behind his speech. As an English major not caring much for politics this defined my emotional peak (pathos) of the speech. To this effect, Obama was all the more successful in his use of rhetoric in that while he may not have changed my mind, he at least softened its hard edge by appealing to my aesthetic interests -- for the purpose of his speech, it's a good start. To know that one's current President might at least have some basic knowledge, if not appreciation, of literature may be enough to slightly, or dramatically, sway the opinion of voters. Furthermore, as all literature has its own rhetorical methods used to evoke emotion from its readers, it's not a bad idea for a speaker to employ that particular audience's own popular culture, as well as using its same literary methods, to further the ethos and pathos of the  speech.

Some poetic snippets from Obama's address:    

"We can gut education, or we can decide that in the United States of America, no child should have her dreams deferred because of a crowded classroom or a crumbling school."

Reaching out to a minority population who respect his diversity and upbringing, as well as celebrating his own ethnic roots, Obama made prime use of the popular phrase "dream deferred," first coined by the Harlem poet Langston Hughes in his well-known poem.   

"I'm hopeful because of you. 

The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter — she gives me hope.
The auto worker who won the lottery after his plant almost closed, but kept coming to work every day, and bought flags for his whole town and one of the cars that he built to surprise his wife — he gives me hope.
The family business in Warroad, Minnesota, that didn't lay off a single one of their 4,000 employees when the recession hit...they give me hope.
I think about the young sailor I met at Walter Reed Hospital still recovering from a grenade attack that would cause him to have his leg amputated above the knee...He gives me hope."

It could be a stretch, but in this quote Obama's rhetorical device of using quick, photographic snapshots of the Everyday American Life is quite relatable to the public, as well as reminiscent of the rhetorical style of Walt Whitman, one of my absolute favorite poets. This is especially effective because Whitman is widely regarded as one of thee defining American poets -- a lover of democracy, equality, and of people from all ethnicities, religions, education, and wealth (though his love, and poetry, extend far beyond the political realm). And Obama really uses this to his advantage when put in the context of unemployment and economic crisis: the image of the average, struggling American worker...gives him hope; it's something that uncertain families are searching for. Notice Whitman's similar technique from his transcendent book, Leaves of Grass:

"The one-year wife is recovering and happy, a week ago she bore her first child,
The cleanhaired Yankee girl works with her sewing-machine or in the factory mill,
The nine months' gone is in the parturition chamber, her faintness and pains are advancing;
The pavingman leans on his twohanded rammer -- the reporter's lead flies swiftly over the notebook -- the signpainter is lettering with red and gold" (Whitman, Song of Myself)

On Encomium of Helen

Alright, so I might need to brush up on my Homer, and maybe I'm looking into this with too much of a modern perspective instead of looking at the context of the times, but...

I felt that Gorgias summed up his argument for Helen's innocence in his Proposition where he states, "For either by fate's will and god's wishes and necessity's decrees she did what she did or by force reduced or by words seduced or by love induced" (Kennedy, 253).

However, I feel that both of these options are a bit reductive and sexist towards women, as both arguments assume that Helen has to be a victim of forces greater than herself to leave for Troy. He paints Helen as this defenseless female who has no ability to think for herself, or control her own emotions; her destiny is utterly at the whim of everything except her. How do we know Helen didn't decide on her own terms to go to Troy with Paris? Maybe she was pissed off at her dad about something.

Also, I feel like playing it off as an act of divine will is kind of a cop-out. Whether or not it's true, you can't prove something like that. I mean, that sort of discourse would never fly in today's courtroom where freedom of choice is the accepted philosophical stance: "It's alright that this man murdered his entire family. God made him do it." But then again, times could have been different back then.

Like I said, maybe I shouldn't be looking at this with a modern perspective. Maybe Homer made it clear in The Iliad that Helen was, in fact, forced to go.

But either way, isn't Gorgias being a little one-sided in his assumption that Helen didn't want to go to Troy, or that it was persuasion that made her do it? Was it really an issue of strong forces overcoming weaker forces, or is Helen an able-minded woman capable of thinking for herself?

I am very confused...

Pre-writing, and Other Bad Advice

To be brutally honest, all the pre-writing advice I've ever been given in school has proven hopelessly confining, rigid, and a fantastic way to dry up every last bit of personality and creative potential in the most systematic and "practical" of ways. Even the idea of dividing the writing process into separate stages seems absurd to me. "Okay class, I think fifteen minutes of brainstorming is all we have time for today. Why don't we move on to the next step where you squeeze all your thoughts and imagination into this bulleted outline. And remember, good essays fit into five paragraphs!" Who are the geniuses coming up with these rules and techniques for writers?

End rant.

This is not to say that the organization of thoughts is not a vital step, but almost every single teacher that's insisted on brain mapping, thought bubbles, or any other technique has also had a devout, and religious relationship with the five paragraph essay, formulaic outlines, or any of their flat, box-nosed cousins. And my writing never improves, I only hold it to a pre-determined standard of greatness -- it's never worked for me.

My "pre-writing," if I should really call it that, is more like a shotgun burst barreling into my head that splatters my thought process onto a piece of paper, napkin, notepad -- whatever happens to be around at the time. Disregarding structure, I just quickly jot down every single important thought, tidbit, concept, whatever, that comes to mind, or that I think I may want to include in my writing. The process may start after a certain intense, or revelatory thing that's happened to me. But more often than not, I'll just  be thinking, thinking, doing more thinking, thinking about nothing at all -- then it hits me and I need to record it before it escapes. My muse has always been a violent, hammer-wielding bitch who only arrives via freight train at the exact hour I'm in the middle of something, and I deal with her accordingly. That's the pre-writing that works best for me.

And just in general, the only writing advice I've ever returned to time and time again, regardless of what "stage" of the writing process I am in, has been boiled down into one nicely refined word: "Write." That's all there is to it, just write...something.