In chapter eight of Rhetorical Criticism titled “Metaphor Criticism,” Foss explains that the way “to reframe an issue or a debate in the public realm and thus to create social change involves five steps…” These five steps were suggested by a popular metaphor critic, Jeffrey Feldman and are as follows:

1. Stop repeating their words

2. Go to another frame

3. Build a new frame

4. Break it down

5. Framing is action (271)

Feldman indicates that these five steps allow a person or group of people to intentionally reframe a debate, which Feldman argues is “as real a form of political action as…registering new voters.”

When applying this concept of “reframing the debate” to the political situation in Tibet we run into some challenges. These challenges stem in part from the power of the involved parties, and the initial limitations on exposure.

Throughout Stephen John Harnett’s article “‘Tibet is Burning’: Competing Rhetorics of Liberation, Occupation, Resistance, and Paralysis on the Roof of the World” Harnett references several metaphors that are commonly used in rhetoric surrounding Tibet’s struggle for independence. Most of these metaphors, it seems, come from the side of Tibet including metaphors such as “Tibet is Burning,” and calling the actions of China on Tibet a “Holocaust.” There are also metaphors involving Tibet’s plans for solving the crisis like “middle way,” and “Buddist care.” Some of these metaphors have been in place since close to the beginning of the crisis in 1950 while some are relatively new. Throughout the crisis, China has been using many of the same metaphors and has changed their meanings to suit their needs. This is a common rhetorical tool, but does not work to “reframe the debate” in the way that Feldman indicates is necessary for change. It does however work to maintain the debate, which because of China’s power position is really all the country needs to do.

After years of a lack of success on Tibet’s side it was necessary for someone to reframe the debate if there was hope of progress. This reframing came on March 26, 2012 when Jampa Yeshi ran through the streets of New Delhi with his body aflame in protest over the impending visit of China’s president to the Indian Parliament. This suicidal demonstration on Yeshi’s part worked to change the metaphor associated with Tibet, and to utilize a metaphor that China would have a very hard time changing the meaning of. This public act finally allowed Tibet’s struggle some success in the world arena.

Before Yeshi, there were several others who committed similar acts that received far less attention than Yeshi’s due to China’s controls on journalism in Tibet. The amount of attention that Yeshi’s act received shows that China’s power over Tibet, and the amount of exposure that the country is able to amass on the world stage is a limiting factor in Tibet’s political and rhetorical success in framing the debate.

Yeshi’s success has been important to Tibet’s success, but the act shows that attempting to reframe the debate is not all that is necessary for political action. Any serious attempt needs to be public and the strength behind the metaphor associated with the attempt needs to be enough that it can shock the debate. The more public “shocking” acts become, the more challenging shocking the debate may be. One would think that accusing one country of participating in the implementation of a Holocaust would be enough to get attention, but the overuse and reframing of this word did not allow for success when Tibet used it to describe China’s actions.

An important question regarding the use of metaphors as rhetorical tools is how does one side maintain the meaning behind their metaphors, and what is the impact if the other side utilizes them for opposite meanings? If the only way to prevent misuse of metaphor is to use metaphors that are so shocking the other side cannot re-use it without looking immoral or irrational is that a significant limiting factor on the use of metaphors as rhetorical tools?

In their article “32 Social Movement Rhetoric,” Robert Cox and Christina R. Faust trace the changes in the theory and practice of rhetoric carried out in social movements over time. Though incomplete due to the constantly changing nature of technology and available rhetorical methods in today’s society,  this article provides a useful framework for beginning rhetoricians to reference. The way in which the article summarizes and puts into perspective several early texts that focus on very specific perspectives, like Griffin’s “neo-Aristotelian standards of rhetoric, reason, and persuasion,” and Simon’s leader centered approach, helps the reader to arrive at a place where he or she can view social movements with a critical eye, and ask which techniques are in play. The reader can then take this a step further and ask questions like “which methods may allow social movements more success than others, and how can I tell?”

The history, terminology and concepts that Cox and Faust give us to work with are split into categories within the article:

1. early studies of SMR
2. rethinking the figure of  “social movements”: New Social Movements
3. democracy, representation, and new modalities of social dissent
4. performing resistance: bodies, images, and public screens;
5. continuing challenges for the study of SMR

The article covers a lot of material and history, but I think an important point that Cox and Faust make is the fact that the majority, if not all, of the history of social movements has been studied through a Western lens. I think because of this, the tendency is to believe that other countries are experiencing what Americans have already experienced due to the perception that we are more technologically advanced or have been through more social change, but it is important to really question what can be learned from these international social movements. Do the cultural differences have a significant impact on the way that the social movements are carried out? If so, what does it mean when American groups like Anonymous become heavily involved in international social movements such as the recent revolutions in theMiddle East. Does this ability to more easily gain critical mass because of increased usage of social media make social movements more effective than they were in the past? Or does the concept that Gladwell spoke about in his article “Small Change, Why The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.”  in which ‘computer activists’ help to create real violence from the comfort and security of their couch actually have a negative impact.

In Rebecca Solnit’s article “The Butterfly and the Boiling Point: Charting the Wild Winds of Change in 2011” she attempts to identify the beginning of revolutions from the past and more recently. What she finds is that the beginning is impossible to track. Revolutions such as the Egyptian revolution seem to have been aided by the abilities that the participants gained from social media to plan protests. Solnit makes the point however, that social media was around long before the revolution started. Evidence like this suggests that if people are angry enough, they will have a revolution – social media or not.

I tend to think that this new ability that people have to gain critical mass and get people excited about specific social movements will result in an increased ability to affect global change once people learn to harness the power properly. History shows that humans have adapted to the tools around them and learned to use them in efficient ways. Only time will tell if this digital and technological change in social movements will follow the same pattern.

Works Cited

Solnit, Rebecca. “The Butterfly and the Boiling Point: Charting the Wild Winds of Change in 2011.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com,21 Mar. 2011. Web.30 Jan. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-solnit/middle-east-revolutions_b_838461.html>.