Month: February 2014

The Drama of Blaming and Shaming: My Fault, Your Fault, Our Fault

by

As I’ve pondered upon this concept of melodrama, as it applies to environmental rhetoric, I couldn’t help but to think of the ways that shame and guilt are placed upon participants by the other within not exclusively environmental movements, but social movements as a whole.  Last week, we focused on the ways we identified melodrama within the West Virginia Water Crisis Movement.  This concept of melodrama causes extreme moral polarization as explained in Schwarze’s article “Environmental Melodrama.” As we talked about the WV Water Crisis, I feel that of course the corporations and shareholders hold the responsibility of creating this melodrama to make sense of out of a horrible situation.  They have attempted to RE-MORALIZE the situation by DEMORALIZING the situation that has represented them in a dark light.  It, as we’ve discussed in the past, places the blame of the community’s health on the citizens, not the corporations and shareholders.  This obscures the notion that, in fact, it is the corporation’s fault for polluting the area water.  However, melodrama identifies the extreme power relationship that is the essence of this movement.  Anyone can use melodrama to their advantage, however, as I’ve identified above, it can also work against you as well.

I love this concept of BLAME!  Ok, maybe I don’t “love” it per say, but it opens the door for discussion.  Blame, in thinking about the WV Water Crisis, has lead me to think about guilt and shame.  These corporations involved have potentially made the residents feel guilty for staying in the area that is severely polluted by these corporations.  Basically, It is their “fault” that they are sick, not the corporation’s fault.  WRONG. Melodrama also points out that in these extremes, corporations place blame as to not give themselves a bad name.

As we transitioned from the WVA water crisis to applying melodrama to the social movements we’ve decided to focus on for our archival projects, I thought about how to apply these concepts to the civil rights movements and the Spring of Decent in 1970 on OSU’s main campus.  I’ve decided to focus on the students, and their participation, or nonparticipation in the movement.  I looked to SHAME as a reason for participating in the movement.  Our guest speaker forced me to make the distinction between shame and guilt…a distinction I’ve never actually considered.  Perhaps shame is a result of guilt.  What makes them different? Can we separate the two?  In class, it was mentioned that shame seeks atonement and catharsis.  It is a collective action placed on an individual.  On the other hand, shame is cultural, and therefore is “socially constructed. ”  It is worth mentioning that it confronts “intrinsic qualities” and questions one’s actions that are not congruent with those intrinsic qualities.  The individual and the collective is essential when questioning shame and guilt as they result from participating in social movements and as the result of blame from these movements.  Our guest defined social movements as a set of meanings not a group of people. However, my thoughts are that these sets of meaning are socially constructed therefore the individual can presumably develop a sense of shame that results from the guilt placed on them by their cultural group.  For example, Black students may partially participate in the movement so that they don’t bring shame against their families or themselves.  This makes sense as we consider that with family and cultural groups, comes a set of beliefs that are of the norm.  By not participating, one challenges these beliefs and can feel shame.  Shame is the “I know better” belief.  It may be helpful to think of the courtroom for further clarification.  The citizens (cultural group) find you guilty of disobeying the law of the land, so as a result one may feel shame for separating self from society.

Furthermore, Jensen mentions that the individual is a member within the social. We understand ourselves by means of membership.  Thus, shame and guilt is worth considering in social movements.  In the WV Water Crisis, the corporation finds the citizens guilty of staying there, and thus, they may feel shameful for leaving because that challenges everything their families have invested there (cultural implications).  In civil rights movements, the culture expects one to participate in the fight for equal rights because it is what our ancestors have fought for, and if we don’t, we may bring shame against our families and ourselves.  They feel the same, but their causal is very different.  Think about it: If shame is socially constructed, how can it consider our seemingly intrinsic qualities?  Wouldn’t that mean that our intrinsic qualities are socially constructed too? Isn’t guilt, then, socially constructed too if it seeks atonemetn of some sort, that is often sought according to the cultural standard? Issues lead to action, fear, blame, guilt, and shame.  The answer is: It’s complicated. In our analysis of social movements, let’s consider the risk of participating or not participating in movements.  What is the rhetoric used in the participation in such movments?  Try existing apart from membership. Confrontational? Yes.  Invitational? Maybe.

The Blame Game

by

Jensen and Jensen both explain their dangers of living in a neoliberalistic society in their articles.  Within their articles, rhetoric used by corporations in times of crisis, such as the BP oil spill, have implemented guilt and shame within people; leading to the consumer mindset that they have caused/contributed to the problem.  Thursday’s class was dedicated to highlighting this rhetoric strategy in respect to the environment.  I think that we should further extend the analysis of this rhetoric and examine it through a non-environmental lens.

bayer-hivScreen-Shot-2013-02-21-at-8_09_16-PM

In the 1980’s Bayer made a medicine designed to clot hemophiliac’s blood.  Bayer made the medicine using a blood pool consisting of at least 10,000 donors.  Bayer did not test donors for AIDS.  After much of the medicine had been made, the AIDS epidemic exploded.  Despite knowing that some of the blood pool participants could have had AIDS, Bayer sold the medicine anyway.  This is perhaps the most telling part of the entire story: Bayer stopped selling the medicine in the States, but it continued to sell the medicine in Latin America and China.  Bayer had made a new product to sell in the US in 1984 because of overwhelming evidence that the medicine was defective and dangerous.  Bayer needed to do something with the millions of bottles of defective medicine, so Bayer continued to ship it overseas.  Bayer also continued making the old medicine several months after starting to make the new medicine because “the company had several fixed-price contracts and believed that the old product would be cheaper to produce.” (Bogdanich, Koli)  Like BP, Bayer claimed that they did no wrong.  The fault rested with the donors and the people who took the medicine; Donors donated contaminated blood and ignorant people took the medicine; Bayer did nothing wrong.  Yeah, okay.

By placing blame on donors, Bayer is placing shame on them.  Essentially, they are saying that the deaths of hemophiliacs in the United States, Latin America, and China happened because blood donors donated blood infected with HIV and AIDS.  The donors with HIV and AIDS should be ashamed of themselves, not Bayer.  They should be ashamed of themselves because they have an incurable blood disease.  The people who took the medicine are at fault because they took the medicine.  Those people should feel guilty about their actions, not Bayer.  Sounds pretty crazy, huh?

I think that this situation contributes to our discussion in class.  It is important to recognize that this “blame game” corporations play is present in all playing fields, not just the environmental ones. Both articles fail to mention the existence of the blame game outside of environmental crises. The over lap of the “blame game” really bothers me; it makes me feel like I live in a world of deceit.  The following is an alarming fact about this situation: “While admitting no wrongdoing, Bayer and three other companies that made the concentrate have paid hemophiliacs about $600 million to settle more than 15 years of lawsuits accusing them of making a dangerous product.” (Bogdanich, Koli)  It seems to me that Bayer has more than enough money to keep people quiet.  This leads me to another thought…what other companies have enough money to keep people quiet?  A lot more companies than I initially thought. Why will people keep quiet for money? A lot more people than I thought.  Here we have a company based around the idea of making people feel better, and it knowingly made people sick.

“In a statement, Bayer said that Cutter Biological had ”behaved responsibly, ethically and humanely” in selling the old product overseas.” (Bogdanich, Koli)

Learning about this situation has also made me think about how American Corporations treat people of other countries.  To Bayer, the livelihood of people living in Latin America and China did not matter.  The millions of dollars they made producing a cheap, dangerous product was all Bayer was thinking about.  Those people are just dollar signs to Bayer.  It concerns me because I know that  situations like this have to happen all the time, we just don’t know about it until after the fact. We have undeniable rights as humans; it is time that these rights come before cash.

Works Cited

Bogdanich, Walt, and Eric Koli. “2 Paths of Bayer Drug in 80’s: Riskier One Steered Overseas.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 May 2003. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.

Handley, Andrew. “10 Evil Corporations You Buy From Everyday.” Listverse. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.

 

 

Jensen & Jensen: Re-framing Environmental Discourse

by

Tim Jensen’s piece titled “On the Emotional Terrain of Neoliberalism” is a full frontal assault on market based capitalism and its neoliberal underpinnings. Jensen begins his essay by positing the question “Could obviously ecocidal (and therefore suicidal) behavior on a collective scale take place so easily, so efficiently, and so prevalently without mass emotional disorientation?” (T. Jensen 231). Jensen then answers his rhetorical question with a simple “no” and then uses the rest of his paper to present the many different ways that corporations, governments, and other powers that be have used individual’s desire to have a positive impact on their environments to propagate a nonsensical approach to solving the earth’s glaring environmental problems. Problems which Jensen is quick to point out are beyond the capabilities of individuals to rectify with simple market economy inspired quick fixes through the changing of certain personal habits like recycling, driving less, conserving water, etc.

To get consumers (which is how corporations view people instead of as individuals) to buy into the fallacy that it is the individual who is ultimately responsible for environmental degradation corporations and governments (the real culprits of environmental depletion) use a number of rhetorical techniques to further their agenda. Jensen elucidates one of these techniques in his piece by presenting a PSA from the 1970s which showed an image of a person littering and a suffering environment as its direct result after which the PSA bluntly stated “People cause pollution. People can stop it” (Jensen 235). It should be noted that this PSA is from 1971, an era which saw the highest number of civic engagement from American citizens. It seems as though from the very beginning of corporations have sought to frame the discourse in a way that as Jensen puts it by “placing the onus on the individual consumer, who is positioned as the cause of the problem and thus the solution’s origin too” (Jensen 235). Jensen goes on to point out that this ad is credited with directly launching the Earth Day festival and giving nationwide prominence to the “Keep America Beautiful” campaign. To examine the success of corporations in co-opting the message of environmentalism to propagate Neoliberalism all one has to do is to see the number of environmentally conscious individuals who take part in or otherwise support Earth Day and other corporate sponsored events without giving much thought or even being aware of their complicity in further entrenching the very system that is destroying the environment that they intend to protect.

Derrick Jensen’s piece also addresses some of the same concerns as Tim Jensen but Derrick’s article (to distinguish between the two authors, I will refer to the second Jensen as Derrick), expounds more on the almost negligible impact that the average individual has on the environment when contrasted with corporations and governmental agencies. The central theme of Derrick’s article is the notion that, “Personal change doesn’t equal social change” (D. Jensen). As could be gleaned from this statement, the crux of Derrick’s argument is that individual-specific actions are not sufficient to solve the immense problems that are staring us in the face and if not addressed, promise to bring about the ultimate destruction of the earth. To support his claim that individuals contribute very little towards environmental destruction, Derrick presents empirical evidence which supports his claim. To prove his point Derrick takes the example of An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary that was produced by Al Gore. Addressing the efficacy of the solutions presented in the documentary Derrick states, “Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide” (D. Jensen). Derrick points out that even the ostensibly progressive Al Gore only presents solutions that are targeted to individuals and what they can do to help the environment. In this way Al Gore’s piece serves to continue the discourse on environmentalism within the same framework that has been constructed by corporate interests. Derrick then criticizes Al Gore’s documentary as performing in the same way as the PSA that Tim Jensen discussed in his text.

Both Tim Jensen and Derrick Jensen utilize the rhetoric of melodrama to highlight the differences between true environmentalism which would require a complete dismantling of the frame through which issues relating to the environment have been discussed thus far. They then use close fisted rhetoric to challenge what they view as the culprits behind environmental destruction.

Good and Bad

by

Schwarze’s article focused on melodramatic rhetoric and its advantages utilized by environmental advocates.  It is useful that Schwarze highlights melodrama’s prominence in environmental movements, but I think it is useful to examine the use of melodrama in different situations. Examining melodrama in different instances complicates the rhetoric style and the way it is thought about.  Schwarze explains the inherently good results that melodrama can bring, but he does not mention the potential harm the rhetoric can do.  In this blog post I will be examining George Bush’s implementation of melodramatic rhetoric after the September 11, 2001 attacks and its effect on the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The way the September 11th attacks were explained limited the way people could comprehend the attack.  Politicians used moral polarization, a component of melodramatic rhetoric, to create unity among the American people (Schwarze 244-5). For example, in this YouTube video [h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A], George Bush reminds us that there was no tolerance for neutrality in regard to the terrorist attacks.  The no tolerance attitude made people questioning the attacks, like the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, vulnerable to hateful reactions from fellow Americans.  The 9/11 Truth Movement was created after the attacks because people felt the destruction of the buildings were insufficiently explained.  The movement encouraged Americans to question the findings of the government investigation.  In 2014, they now are advocating for new September 11th investigations (911truth.org).

The 9/11 Truth Movement faced much hatred; many members were regarded as terrorists or conspiracy theorists.  Like environmental advocates and Bush, leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement use melodramatic rhetoric to explain their ideology.  It uses melodramatic rhetoric to explain that the 9/11 attacks have been “demoralized by inaccuracy” (Schwarze 250). Its website displays many resources and videos that explain the scientific aspects on theories of how the buildings were destroyed.  Speeches given by members of the movement explain the inaccuracies in plain language. Its website also has links explaining how to get involved with the movement.  It is crucial to note that the 9/11 Truth Movement does not claim the government is to blame for the attacks.  Since they are not blaming our government, I am wondering why they have gotten so much backlash from fellow Americans.  Other crises are questioned by people, so what makes 9/11 different?

george-bush-wordle     [http://infographicsfordummies.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/george-bush-wordle.jpg]

 

I think that this Wordle sheds light on the previous question. The word terror is much larger than the words freedom, people, and protect.  The melodrama rhetoric employed by Bush made people terrified compromising their basic rights as citizens.  I believe that Schwarze explains relevant information about melodramatic rhetoric and how it is used by environmental advocates.  However, his focus on environmental advocacy and melodramatic rhetoric limits how melodrama is perceived as a whole.  Melodrama, moral polarization specifically, is arresting.  The moral polarization implemented by Bush in response to the attack shocked the people to a point where they feel that questioning any form of the attack is considered terrorism. I feel as though this complicates Schwarze’s argument that melodrama “remoralize[s] situations that have been demoralized by inaccuracy, displaying concerns that have been obscured by the reassuring rhetoric of technical reason (250).  If melodrama can remoralize a situation, then melodrama must also have the power to demoralize it.

 

Works Cited

Steven Schwarze (2006) Environmental Melodrama, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92:3, 239-261

Rhetorical Melodrama: The Frame of Modern Social Movements

by

Melodrama is a rhetorical technique that is most at home in today’s fast paced and hyper polarized world with its myriad of worthy social causes and almost equal number of movements that are fighting to affect change. Steven Schwarze his piece presents Melodrama as the missing piece from the theories of rhetorical reasoning espoused by Kenneth Burke. Schwarze is of the opinion that Melodrama is a needed addition to Burke’s comedy and tragedy as a frame to discuss rhetoric. Schwarze, however, seems to limit his presentation of Melodrama as being confined or best suited to environmental causes or other issues where sufficient controversy abounds when he describes Melodrama as being, “potentially productive category for interpreting the framing of public controversies” (241). This interpretation serves to limit the scope of Melodrama as a frame that is most useful in only certain conditions where there is a polarized atmosphere that is already in existence.

Although it is correct that rhetoricians would be well served by the utilization of the melodramatic frame to examine issues where the battle lines have been clearly demarcated such as the controversy that surrounds global warming or other environmentally related causes, however, Melodrama could perhaps even more than the other frames, be used to examine other critical events and movements in American history. Movements such as the struggle for civil rights, women’s rights, and even the more recent hot button issues like marriage equality. Even seemingly fringe movements such as Anonymous and the often ridiculed “Birther Movement” utilize elements of Melodrama to rally their base to take concrete actions in defense of their stated positions. Schwarze quotes Robert Heilman who defines Melodrama as being “for victory or defeat” (244). Heilman’s simple definition of Melodrama as being concerned with existential issues as they relate to the groups that espouse them casts a far wider net than Schwarze’s own definition of Melodrama.

In another place in his piece Schwarze quotes Heilman as stating one of the central distinctions between Melodrama and tragedy as being the focus on “…conflicts between individuals and some external opponent” (243). This definition again reinforces the understanding that Melodrama is indeed more flexible in its application to a variety of social movements then perhaps Schwarze realizes. To take the case of Anonymous, the primarily virtual based hacker collective that has taken on and often taken down a number of highly formidable organizations and institutions. This group of individual hackers superbly employed the rhetoric of melodrama to arouse national and even international attention to their causes. One of the more notable examples of Anonymous utilizing the rhetoric of Melodrama has been in the rape case of a 16-year-old girl by a number of high school football players in the small city of Steubenville, Ohio. Using the rhetoric of melodrama and a number of illegal acts Anonymous was able to bring the rape case in an obscure Ohio town that most Americans had probably never heard of to the foreground of most national news reporting and not only that but Anonymous again using Melodrama was able to galvanize many thousands of people to converge on the sleepy town of Steubenville for a march in support of justice for victim and punishment for the culprits including the ones who unsuccessfully tried to sweep the entire incident under the rug.

Certainly in the Steubenville case and many others like it Schwarze would be expected to agree with his own assertion that, “Promoting division and drawing sharp moral distinctions can be a fitting response to situations in which identification and consensus have obscured recognition of damaging material conditions and social injustices” (242). Steven Schwarze posits a number of undeniable points in advocating for the consideration of Melodrama as an essential frame through which rhetoricians may study social movements, however, in his attempts to find acceptance of his argument by the wider community of scholars of rhetoric and reasoning, Schwarze perhaps undervalues the strength of the rhetoric of Melodrama in framing the social movements of today.

The Strength of Melodrama in Environmental Controversies

by

In Steven Schwarze’s essay, “Environmental Melodrama,” the audience learns that “melodrama is a recurrent rhetorical form in environmental controversies.” In Schwarze’s eyes, environmental controversies seem to be the only type of social/political movements that require melodrama; in some aspects melodrama is very crucial to environmental controversies versus other movements. This is important because environmental movements are much different than any other type of movement because they cause concern for the audience’s public health and for earth’s health. Although people react stronger when it comes to his/her health, or the nation’s health, they all have a “oneness of feeling” says literary thoerist Robert Heilman, we all care about our own future and to care about our own future means to care about the earth’s future. That’s why I think melodrama works particularly well in environmental controversies, we all feel horrible for our own personal, problematic contributions, and it inspires “a motive force for collective action” (244). For example, if you do not support gay rights then a new documentary will probably not make you change your mind. Sure, you may feel respite from your “personal inner struggles” but you will not feel like rising in action against the bad side, your beliefs will not change. Whereas with environmental movements you could feel bad and start to form a group about the problem because everyone should be concerned with the future of earth. No one is not affected. You can’t ignore it, like if you were against gay rights, you must face it and accept that it affects everyone’s lives equally.

Thinking of environmental controversies, I try to think of examples that do not use melodrama, and it’s very hard. A recent documentary, If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, uses every single melodrama tactic that Schwarze describes in its trailer alone.

  1. Melodrama can situate conflict on the social and political plane, clarifying issues of power that are obscured by privatizing rhetoric.
  2. Melodrama can reconfigure social relationships
  3. Melodrama can remoralize situations that have been demoralized by inaccuracy
  4. Melodrama can encourage a unity of feeling
  5. Melodrama has the capacity to complicate and transform

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL2qN-hjZ40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRwN-crcQrI#t=37

After watching a short clip about the documentary the audience cannot help but notice that there was “a focus on socio-political conflict, [a] polarization of characters and positions, a moral framing of public issues, and [a] development of monopathy” (245). The audience feels outraged for seeing so many trees cut down – they are mad at the social and political reasons for cutting down so many trees. Then we see peaceful protesters having their eyes pulled open so that they could be pepper sprayed, we all experience a unity of disgust, pain, and fear. Within minutes this environmental documentary complicated and transformed the audience’s perception of who the Earth Liberation Front really is. That is why environmental controversies succeed with melodrama – it affects everyone, even if they are not getting pepper sprayed, they do need the trees.

Melodrama most certainly “promotes divisions” (243) that are important for one side of the story, but isn’t that the point of social and political movements, to promote divisions and shine light on certain sides of arguments? Although melodrama could be used in other social/political movements, it rises above through environmental controversies. Environmental controversies are the only ones that everyone should agree on because it affects us all. “[Melodrama] critically interrupts dominant modes of argument and appeal that obscure threats to the quality and future of life on the planet” (245). Thus, I wonder if melodrama would work so quickly and powerfully in a different movement’s documentary like it did in the short clip about If a Tree Falls, or if it would fail because it couldn’t reach a mass unity of “oneness.”

 

Steven Schwarze (2006) Environmental Melodrama, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92:3, 239-261

 

Gay Liberation- Ever changing values

by

Throughout his piece, “From ‘gay is good’ to the scourge of AIDS: The evolution of gay liberation rhetoric, 1977-1990”, James Darsey demonstrates the change in values within the gay rights movement.  My first reading of the article I grasped more of his chronological explanation of the movement.  He moves through the years beginning in 1948 with the first publication of an article about homosexual behavior.  He continues to cite events that occurred within the next few decades that spurred on other events.

These series of catalytic events grabbed my attention.  I looked further into the event in Dade County with Anita Bryant.  I found this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS91gT3XT_A, where three gay men throw a pie in Bryant’s face.  I think it’s interesting to relate this back to Darsey’s argument that there was a continuous change in value rhetoric.  Using the codes he highlights throughout his paper I would identify this event as strength, unity, and achievement.  These three men came together and demonstrated strength over a woman who wanted to abolish homosexuality.  Further, the capturing of this on video is public achievement.

Reflecting back on the discussion in class I began to question the role of assigning codes of value to rhetoric.  Darsey lists his codes in order of prominent value.  I am wondering what this means to other social movements and even within the gay liberation movement.  Does it mean that other codes were valued less? How can all of these values exist at the same time? This became more confusing when distinguishing between safety and security.  I think that through class discussion it became evident to me that the structure of the values was not necessarily important, but rather the labeling.  For example, during Period VI unity is the most prominent value and remains in this position in Period VII.  Therefore, the focus on unity has not changed, but rather there are more values introduced into the rhetoric.

The catalytic event I would have liked to spend more time discussing was in Period VIII; AIDS.  In 1981 the New York Times claimed there was an outbreak of cancer in homosexual men (55).  While it may begin the social movement, I cannot find many other movements that have a health crisis develop while the movement progresses.  This is the first period where Darsey identifies “truthfulness” as a value.  This truthfulness is a sense of public understanding of AIDS.  It served as a way for the gay community to shine a light on the misconceptions surrounding homosexual lifestyles.  Further, it gave them exposure even if it was bad exposure.  Darsey calls this value appeal “double edged” (57).  This resonates with the idea that social movement rhetoric changes within and outside of the main group.  For gay liberation these men and women now had to face the truthfulness of their personal relationships while also confronting misconceptions from the public.

In conclusion, I think Darsey’s article formulates evidence for ongoing catalytic events within social movements.  In class we have been debating with the question of how to determine a successful social movement.  I think to Darsey this would be an ultimate value narrative that leads to no more catalytic events.  In other words the action would cease and tolerance would be the final value appeal.

Gay Liberation & First Wave Feminism

by

In his comprehensive essay, Darsey intricately timelines the rhetoric of the gay liberation movements through segregations of periods in which different values are emphasized (i;e: achievement, strength, determination, etc). Subjectively, I found it one of the easier rhetorical movement studies to follow I have read in a while. Darsey eases into his research by beginning with catalytic events, of which he believes there to be seven. He regards the decline of McCarthy as a period of somewhat progress after stagnant ‘establishing groundwork’ (47) in which acts of homosexuality became decriminalized. He emphasizes the impact of Anita Bryant and religious fundamentalists’ work, the latter whom became the most threatening menace to the progress of the movement up until period VIII, when the focus of discrimination was not religious based but AIDS fueled.

I found interesting the notion Darsey suggests regarding the gay liberation movement perhaps had the tools it needed to succeed from the beginning, and simply needed to pursue the difficult task of gathering dedicated individuals that would seek unity and not walk out when the going either got tough or redundant.   Darsey notes there is an advantage of being, historically, ‘the political facet of a subcultural milieu’. Furthermore, he introduces transgeographical consciousness; a concept he believes to be absolutely paramount to the movement, emphasizing that the provinces and hubs of the gay subculture are scattered so substantially throughout the nation that it gives the illusion of a fluidic collective, in which a threat to one province is essentially a threat to the whole. This vision of solidarity strengthened the cause immensely and created simple avenues in which allies could join and support the cause as well. Similar to the idea of fluidic unity is the disappearence of binaries; that is, either gender may participate in the movement and be seen as just as powerful. As John Rowberry comments, ‘there are no differences between gay men and gay women that matter when both face annihilation’ (52).

I would perhaps like to challenge Darsey’s idea I previously expanded on by cause of something I remembered while writing about it. Darsey’s notion of the readily available tools and fundamental advantages preceding the movement reminded me of the theories of first wave feminists, i;e liberal feminists. Liberal feminists interpreted women’s oppression to be a reflection simply of policy; and if said policy was reformed, women would naturally have the tools and opportunity to smash patriarchy. As a third-wave feminist, I challenge this. I believe women must conquer essentialist notions and patriarchal social constructions that have historically internalized within society before we can even get near breaching the walls of inequality. Furthermore, the gay liberation movement was (and is) working inside a society that has historically marginalized and silenced them; therefore I do not believe the movement begun with intrinsic advantages. The progress of the gay liberation movement can be attributed to the zealous gains, determination and strength of everyone resisting heteronormativity.

Evolution

by

photo

In response to Darsey’s article, From “gay is good” to the scourge of AIDS: The evolution of gay liberation rhetoric, 1977-1990 we diachronically mapped out catalytic events specific to the gay liberation during Tuesday’s class.  As we were mapping this out in class, it became obvious that history plays an enormous role in how social movements are executed and considered.  I think that the most important notion to take away from Darsey’s article is that historical events directly impact social movements.  Historical events are the reasons that social movements and rhetoric have evolved.

I have connected the importance of historical events in terms of social movements to David Harvey’s book The Condition of Post Modernity.  Obviously this book is not about social movements, but in chapter two Harvey makes an interesting point that I think applies to the leaders of social movements.  Harvey argues that authors living through modernization have the responsibility of creating Avant Garde art that is appropriate to the historical period people are living in (17).  In the sense of the book, modernization is the transformation of all societies into capitalist economies.  The process demands that authors create new types of art that captures the essence of humanity considering the process of modernization.  This concept applies to social movements because the atmosphere of the social movement determines how and by what means the leaders and participants mobilize and create change.  In terms of social movements, leaders have to change their rhetorical styles and implement catalysts in order to create change while keeping in mind the social norms currently in place.  The gay rights liberation is an example of Harvey’s argument because the liberation movement was a response to the events that were happening during this time.

While we were diachronically mapping the movement in class, it because obvious to me that what people are living in at the time of the movement directly affects what is important and what isn’t.  For example, during the gay liberation, work becomes more important in 1987 than in 1981, more than likely because of the increase of participants.  One thing I noticed that stayed the same was unity.  Unity is always essential in regard to social movements.  I agree with this.  You cannot have a successful movement unless the participants are unified.  To me, this just makes sense.  I think that some of the facets of movements can be missing or replaced with something else: like tolerance or justice.  On the other hand, unity cannot be replaced.  I believe it must be present in all movements.  I also have come to the conclusion that unity is the once facet of a movement that will not be affected by the historical period the movement is taking place in.

I think it is equally important to note that the perspective of history is important to.  As we have discussed, history is written in two perspectives: the victor’s perspective and the victim’s perspective.   In terms of the gay liberation, I think we could consider that the perspectives of this particular history are documented through the ignorant people and the victims of the ignorant people.  Homosexuals have consistently been victims of an ignorant society.  Some people didn’t even know that gays existed until the AIDS epidemic.  The gay liberation movement compliments our discussion because the history of homosexuality and the struggles homosexuals went through are uniquely theirs.

I think that the gay liberation has somewhat set an example for other social movements. Since the gay liberation has implemented determination, tolerance, unity, and safety, social movements preceding the gay liberation must answer to these facets and build upon them.  It is the responsibility of the leaders to consider previous social movements and their tactics and repurpose them in order to cater to the time and needs of the people and social movement existing at that specific point in time.  Social movements and the tactics they employ are plastic; they can be molded to accommodate the specific historical period.

 

Works Cited

Darsey, James. “From “gay Is Good” to the Scourge of AIDS: The Evolution of Gay Liberation Rhetoric, 1977-1990.” Communication Studies 42.1 (2013): 43-66. Web.

Harvey, David. “Modernity and Modernism.” The Condition of Postmodernity. N.p.: Basil Blackwell, n.d. 10-38. Print.

Binaries in Rhetoric: Invitation to Conflict (Part 2 of 2)

by

Is conflict necessarily confrontational? Or Controversy?

I would venture to say that it’s not. Indeed, controversial subjects and particular areas of conflict do not equate to confrontational rhetoric.  Foss and Griffin seek  to explicate a new rhetoric, “built on the principles of equality, immanent value, and self-determination rather than on the attempt to control others through persuasive strategies designed to effect change” (Foss & Griffin 4-5).  They claim that while persuasion is often necessary, there is a legitimate alternative which exists when the control of others is not the rhetor’s goal — invitational rhetoric.

Certainly there are occasions where opinions could not sit further on the spectrum from each other, but disagreements are as much a part of invitational rhetoric as they are a part of confrontational rhetoric. Rhetors who abide by invitational standards are not free from differences of opinion strictly because they believe in respecting all members of the conversation. By its definition, invitational rhetoric is an invitation to understanding! It is free from judgment and denigration, and it attempts to appreciate and validate the perspectives of audience members, even if different from the rhetor’s own perspectives. There could be a great deal of difference between my stance on gay marriage and someone like Senator Ted Cruz’s stance, but it is critical to remember, that difference, that conflict, is allowed.  Foss and Griffin explain that invitational rhetoric is…

…not always red of pain. In invitational rhetoric, there may a wrenching of loose ideas as assumptions and positions are questioned as a result of an interaction, a process that may be uncomfortable.  But because rhetors affirm the beliefs of, and communicate respect for others, the changes that are made are likely to be accompanied by an appreciation for new perspectives gained and gratitude for the assistance provided by others in thinking about an issue. (Foss & Griffin 6)

In our class discussion, we raised the question, “What about the audience?”

Since the interpretation of any artifact (by an artist, or rhetor, or political figure) is left to the audience, what happens when they feel that an act is confrontational? Rather, why does conflict connect directly to confrontation in the hearts and minds of audience members? Is it a cultural phenomenon that an audience should oppose conflict, rather than engage it? That is the question to answer.

Of course the audience is critical; but I would say that they do not claim the sole privilege of deciding what constitutes invitational or confrontational rhetoric. It comes down to intent.

Rhetoric is controlled primarily by the author. Yes, it can be interpreted by the audience in any number of ways — but they are not the only ones responsible for deciding the meaning of an artifact. Just as the architects of social movements define a cause and its successes, so do the authors and creators of controversial artifacts  determine their meanings and define their places in the world.  After all, that is the author’s job, the rhetor’s privilege. It is most certainly about intent.

The poet William Blake said in his book The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, “Without contraries is no progression” (Blake 7).  Because of rhetoric’s nature as what some would call the “art of persuasion” and what others would describe as an “invitation to understanding”, it sits between two frontiers: confrontation on one side, invitation on the other, and conflict the border between them.

Without crossing the border of conflict, without contrary ideas, opposition, and healthy, respectful debate, progress is impossible. Invitational rhetoric works because of its ability to use conflict appropriately. A good rhetor extends an invitation to conflict.

Conflict invites change.

 

Works Cited

Blake, William. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Boston: John W. Luce and, 1906. Archive.org. Web<https://archive.org/stream/marriageofheaven00blak/marriageofheaven00blak_djvu.txt>.

Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.”Communication Monographs 62 (1995): n. pag. Web.