Manipulation or Representation?: Glenn Beck and the Ideograph

One of the main components in the ideograph as a rhetorical device involves the notion of “groupthink.” In ideological rhetoric, when one appears to “think” and “behave” collectively one has been tricked, self-deluded, or manipulated into accepting the brute existence of such fantasies as “public mind” or “public opinion” or “public philosophy.”

Beck plays up on the core American values of independence and individualism. Beck presents his case against the common core by using these values to back him up. Beck is suggesting that if one is a true American they will maintain their right to a choice and an opinion. Only the “un-American” let’s important decisions like education be made for them.

glenn beck

 

Another one of the main components of “The Ideograph” in rhetorical devices is that “the exposure of falsity is a moral act.” In Beck’s discourse he explains how the government has been acting falsely because it goes against core American educational beliefs including personalized lesson plans and a focus on classical literature. Beck continues to in the video to point out that unless citizens are willing to take a stand against the common core they are immoral because they aren’t standing up for America’s values.

 

In McGee’s article he explains the ideological perspective in rhetoric saying, “Though we have never experienced a “true consciousness,” it is nonetheless theoretically accessible to us, and, because of such accessibility, we are morally remiss if we do not discard the false and approach the true.” Beck’s call for people to change school districts or transfer their children to private school fit into this notion of “discarding the false and approaching the true.”

 

While McGee suggests the symbol is an appropriate means of capturing the ideograph, I’m starting to wonder if it is possible to view his notion of the ideological rhetoric in a positive way. McGraw uses the term “trick-of-the-mind” to describe this rhetoric and says that the ideograph “deludes us into believing that we “think” with/through/for a “society” to which we “belong.” It seems as if the entire notion of an ideological rhetoric is contingent on manipulation and presenting information either in a bad light or through a rose-colored lens depending on what is beneficial for the rhetorician at the time.

 

After watching Beck’s video and reading through McGee’s concept of the ideograph I’m left feeling pretty depressed. It seems as if the public should always be on guard against the rhetoric style of the ideograph because it is so firmly based in manipulation and twisting the truth. McGee says that “Human beings are ‘conditioned,’ not directly to belief and behavior, but to a vocabulary of concepts that function as guides, warrants, reasons, or excuses for behavior and belief. When a claim is warranted by such terms as ‘law,’ ‘liberty,’ ‘tyranny,’ or ‘trial by jury,’ in other words it is presumed that human beings will react predictably and autonomically.” Beck very deliberately employs such terms in his discourse, using such words as “American,” “moral,” “freedom,” “big brother,” and “oppressive.” I think McGee would say we should read this list of terms as such “guides, warrants, reasons, or excuses” which Beck employs to sway his listeners thinking. So is the whole notion of ideological rhetoric essentially unearned manipulation? Or is there anything more to Beck’s argument?

 

Rather than feeling immediately manipulated and depressed over the use of the Ideograph in popular rhetoric, perhaps McGee means for his definition of ideological rhetoric to be more of a warning than a classification. I think McGee seeks to shed light on the manipulative aspects of ideological rhetoric, but instead of immediately rejecting all forms of ideological rhetoric, which I think McGee is leaning toward, I think McGee’s points are useful tools to measure instances of ideological rhetoric against. We can use his notions to test and see what is true.

 

Image from: http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/14/exposing-common-core-kids-are-being-indoctrinated-with-extreme-leftist-ideology/

Mcgee, Michael Calvin. “The “ideograph”: A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 66.1 (1980): 1-16. Web.

Exploring the Rhetoric in Worried Parents

In “Ideological Criticism,” Foss argues, “Virtually any artifact can serve as an artifact for ideological criticism because ideologies exist everywhere” (Foss 214). So, with that notion I chose to deconstruct the ideology of a video on Generation Rescue’s website.

jenny from the block

 

First, to give fellow bloggers some background, Generation Rescue is the national nonprofit organization led by Jenny McCarthy that hopes to “provide immediate treatment assistance, information and hopes to families affected by autism.” Yet, they are guided by one single, unproven belief that vaccinations, specifically the MMR (mumps-measles-rubella) vaccine, causes autism in children. Foss states, “The first step in an ideological analysis is to identify and focus on the rhetorical aspects of the artifact that provide clues to its ideology” (Foss 214); therefore, we will be analyzing the rhetorical aspects behind Jenny McCarthy’s video and story that are featured on Generation Rescue’s site.

http://www.generationrescue.org/home/about/jenny-mccarthy/

 

Within the first 20 seconds of Jenny’s video, after learning of her son’s diagnosis from the doctor, she states, “I died in that moment; especially to not even be offered a little bit of hope,” and that she finally had “A typical healthy, happy boy,” farther into the video. She continues through the 9-minute long video to use metaphors like Rain Man, “All I knew about autism was Rain Man,” people in institutions, “came out like gangbusters.” The imagery used throughout the video is also very powerful; there are videos of her son forming complete sentences (but only her son),  videos of her son playing (also no other Autistic children are featured), there are clips of women/moms crying (no men), and at the very end the video features Jenny campaigning in front of the Capitol Building. Interesting choice. Not only does the entire video use metaphors and imagery to the max, but the music choice is also noteworthy. The beginning of the video uses slow, single-beat, and dull sounds, but as the video continues and comes to the end (and as the video gains momentum) the music changes to that of an empowering female voice, a song that makes one feel outgoing and pumps them up.

Foss states that “In the second step of ideological criticism, the critic articulates ideas, references, themes, allusions, or concepts that are suggested by the presented elements.” Thus, I will go into a step-by-step analysis of the elements in the video.

  • “I died in that moment. Especially to not even be offered a little bit of hope” – She compares her son’s diagnosis with death. Dying is equivalent to having a child diagnosed with autism. Autism = no hope.
  • Rain Man – Dustin Hoffman is an autistic savant who frustrates his own brother and makes it difficult to travel across the country (at least that’s what I remember the movie being like).
  • “I had a conversation with god” – Only god can help her through this situation; not science or medicine, only something supernatural could lead her to the cure
  • “How to heal my boy” – He is not healed, he is not whole, he is not healthy.
  • Receiving no hope from the doctors vs. hope from Generation Rescue – Paints a picture that all doctors look negatively at autism and have no help or hope to give to parents. People with autistic children have to find it out on their own.
  • “These kids can get better; these kids can recover” – Yet again, the children aren’t healthy, they aren’t good, there is more for them that they aren’t experiencing.
  • Environmental Trigger – Makes it seem like something natural in the environment is causing the autism. Makes it seem plausible…until they bring up the vaccines.
  • Interviews – Shows multiple interviews, including Oprah, where she is arguing that they are not an anti-vaccine movement. Oprah is influential and smart; therefore, the fact that Oprah is patiently listening to Jenny shows how true and important Jenny’s words are.
  • Shows Jenny speaking in front of the Capitol Building –  Authority. She is speaking to the nation’s capital. She is powerful and this is important.

After watching the video and analyzing the content, did you see and hear the same elements that I mentioned? Was there anything that stood out that I didn’t mention; there are a ton of metaphors and elements to choose from. Did you catch different meanings for some of the things that I listed above? How do you think parents who believe in “cleaning vaccines” would see this video? I believe that they wouldn’t recognize that they only talk about her son in the video but don’t offer any other examples of children who have overcome autism.

Now, we move onto Foss’s third step, “articulate ideas, references, themes, allusions, or concepts” (Foss 216). I thought a recurring theme throughout the piece was “hope” and the problem of hope (Generation Rescue) vs. no hope (doctors). Another theme was health and happiness. For Jenny, they go hand-in-hand, which makes sense, but the only way for Jenny’s son to be happy is if he is healthy, which if you have autism you are not healthy. Then, near the end, the video steers into the direction of inspiration and hope; Jenny is in front of the Capitol Building and is with Oprah.

“In the final step of ideological criticism, your task is to discover how the ideology you constructed from the artifact functions for the audience who encounters it and the consequences it has in the world” (Foss 220). To me, the ideology from Jenny’s video would function very well towards eager parents who will listen to anything in order to find answers and help. Even for me, at the end of the video I felt empowered with the inspirational music and the scene of Jenny campaigning in front of the infamous and powerful Capitol Building. So I believe for parents this video would impact their lives drastically. Unfortunately, other than seeing what other parents believe, they show no scientific evidence for any of their accusations. And that is why it’s sad that so many parents will listen to Jenny.

What are your thoughts on the anti-vaccine/clean vaccine movement? Would you be captivated by Jenny’s bright eyes?

 

On a special side note, Jenny McCarthy is ironically the spokeswoman for Blu eCigs. Here is one of the ads that features Jenny smoking and speaking about being a single mom trying to date. I wonder if she thought about how the two campaigns would look like next to each other.

 

 

 

 

Honk If You Agree With My Ideology-biased Bumper Sticker!

Every day of our lives we see ideologies at work. These systems of beliefs are found in countless mediums in all sorts of common situations. Within ideologies are images, values, beliefs, and other principles that make up guidelines that publicly portray private ideals. One medium that encompasses all factors of ideologies are that of bumper stickers. When we see bumper stickers, we are seeing an ideology being publicly portrayed within limited contexts; limited contexts include images, word count, color, etc. Bumper stickers have a small amount of space and time to engage an audience; the sticker may be stuck to an individual’s bumper for as long as the person has the vehicle, but another person driving behind the car has only a small amount of time to see the ideology being displayed, decipher its meaning, and immediately choose a side, agreeing with the bumper sticker ideology of opposing it. As Michael McGee states in his article featured in The Quarterly Journal of Speech, an ideal ideology must contain the isolation of society’s ideographs. When one ideology is isolated, it will be publicly critiqued and privately upheld. An example of this isolated iconography is that of the Jesus Fish. This icon of Christianity was created for an initial meaning. Now, other groups with opposite meanings of the symbol-such as Darwin-ists, or evolutionists-have took the Jesus Fish and added legs to the original body to represent fish “evolving” legs. The tension that is the product of these two opposing ideologies, within in a given environment, is nothing short of rhetorical discourse. It can be drawn from the overarching discourse of the icons that the original Jesus Fish becomes a frame for the modern-day interpretation of the fish symbol. The Jesus Fish symbol has a starting point that is a constant in the ideology of religion and the eventual emergence of Darwinism. “… at any specific “moment” to be a consonant, related one to another in such a way as to produce unity of commitment in a particular context.” (McGee, 16) As the iconography switched within certain groups and organizations, the historical context of the Jesus Fish symbol is still retained through its presence even in a conflict of ideas.  jesus-fish-cross    Mcgee, Michael Calvin. “The “ideograph”: A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 66.1 (1980): 1-16. Online.

The Strength of Melodrama in Environmental Controversies

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

 

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

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.

Binaries in Rhetoric: Problematic or Not? (Part 1 of 2)

For our reading and analysis of Cathcart and Corbett, our discussion was centered on the similarities and differences between “confrontational” rhetoric, and “closed-fist” rhetoric. For class, we compared and contrasted the two, creating a binary — something not wholly unusual in our culture.

In her book, “The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue,” Dr. Deborah Tannen analyzes the particularly Western phenomenon which

…rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done: The best way to discuss an idea is to set up a debate; the best way to cover news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as ‘both sides’; the best way to settle disputes is litigation that pits one party against the other; the best way to begin an essay is to attack someone; and the best way to show you’re really thinking is to criticize (Tannen 3-4)

Going back to Cathcart and Corbett, and analyzing our MeetingWords notes, I cannot help but notice a pattern in our discussion of the two rhetorics. The whole discussion was situated in binaries. Below are the binaries that I thought were emphasized the most in our discussion. Some where plainly stated, others were implied.

Confrontational vs. Managerial

  • Rejection vs. Reform
  • Alienation vs. Acceptance
  • Change from outside vs. Change from within

Closed-Fist vs. Open-Hand

  • Coercive vs. Persuasive
  • Physical/Non-verbal vs. Discursive
  • Immediate vs. Gradual
  • Dominant vs. Conciliatory
  • Ethos vs. Pathos

It was not until we introduced invitational rhetoric that we began to stray from the binary form; however, even when focused on invitational rhetoric, we analyzed it in relationship to confrontational rhetoric, or closed-fist rhetoric. We set it side-by-side with the rhetoric of the open-hand, and contrasted the two, bringing us back to a binary situation. Invitational rhetoric is the subject of Part 2, and as such, I will be coming back to it in relationship to Dr. Tannen’s argument culture.

However, a critical point which I feel the need to make, as Dr. Tannen did, is that confrontation can be necessary. Sometimes, circumstances do not allow for a farewell to the pugnacity of our culture. She questions the automatic opposition, the “knee-jerk nature”, or the hair-trigger response, but says that, “Sometimes passionate opposition, strong verbal attack, are appropriate and called for.” She quotes the Yugoslavian-born poet, Charles Simic, who wrote, “There are moments in life when true invective is called for, when it becomes an absolute necessity, out of a deep sense of justice, to denounce, mock, vituperate, washout, in the strongest possible language” (Tannen 7-8).

It is here that Dr. Tannen and Dr. Cathcart reach a semblance of common ground. Cathcart’s entire definition of confrontational rhetoric sits within the field of social movements; he defines movements by their confrontational form, and says that confrontation is “consummatory.” That is, confrontation is essential for distinguishing true social movements, those movements which, like Simic says, use the strongest possible language.

In conversation with a writer who misrepresented Tannen’s own work, Tannen begged the question, “Why do you need to make others wrong for you to be right?” The writer simply responded, “It’s an argument!” Recalling this incident with her tongue firmly in her cheek, Tannen writes, “Aha… that explains it. When you’re having an argument with someone, your goal is not to listen and understand. Instead, you use every tactic you can think of—including distorting what your opponent just said—in order to win the argument” (Tannen 5).

Tannen explains that it is easy to understand the importance of conflict, and its prevalence in western media and culture.

“Writers of headlines or promotional copy want to catch attention and attract an audience. They are usually under time pressure, which lures them to established, conventionalized ways of expressing ideas in the absence of leisure to think up entirely new ones. The promise of controversy seems an easy and natural way to rouse interest” (Tannen 7).

I must admit that I am (intentionally) guilty of employing this strategy. My title, “Binaries in Rhetoric: Problematic or Not?” sets up the conflict between two rhetorics (confrontational vs. closed-fist / closed-fist vs. open-hand / confrontational vs. invitational) in a way which can only produce a “winner” and a “loser.” A play on words, and on the idea of the argument culture, it serves as a bit of meta-commentary on the discussion of social movement rhetoric.

Why? To call into question, just as Tannen did, the constant need for the frame of war, or the need for a winner. Discourse, as we will see, provides for more productive opportunities. But discourse is not passive; it is not a dismissal of personal convictions; it simply requires mutual respect for the conversation that is happening, and for both all parties involved.

In Part 2,  “Binaries in Rhetoric: Invitation to Conflict” I attempt to answer the question we asked in class: “Is conflict necessarily confrontational?”

 

Works Cited

Cathcart, Robert S. “Movements: Confrontation as Rhetorical Form.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 43.3 (1978): 233-47. Print.

Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House, 1998. Print.

Rhetorical Questions About Rhetorical Movements

Social movements can be studied as a form of “drama,” says Cathcart, but why must everything be so confrontational? The world is full of drama and confrontations, and today it’s very hard to realize that there are other forms of social movements that cannot be compared with drama: closed fist, open fist, and invitational.

It’s hard to think of movements or situations that do not involve confrontational elements. As Cathcart explains, “Confrontation is symbolic display acted out when one is in the throes of agon. It is a highly dramatistic form; for every ritual has a moral aspect, expressing,…maintaining a reciprocal and mutual balancing system” (235). Yet, Cathcart’s accusation, that all movements are confrontational, makes me question many aspects of social movements.

  1. Why are so many social movements confrontational versus invitational?
  2. What’s more natural: confrontation or invitation?

Confrontation is more dramatic, agnostic, and against the system, but is that because of stronger beliefs? Movements can easily be identified with pushing one’s beliefs onto somebody else, but I wonder if that is because they care more about the issue than someone who uses invitational rhetoric. Confrontation and invitational differ in many aspects: corrosion and challenging vs. openness and individuality. With force and emotional people, confrontation seems to be the most obvious choice over invitational. Invitational invites you to discuss openly with one another, and to share opinions – where and when in today’s culture will this succeed? A big problem I saw with the differences between confrontation and invitational is that, other than social movements, how we use them in our day-to-day routines. Why are we stuck on shoving our opinions and thoughts into other people’s brains in hopes of having them agree with us? I noticed this problem with my roommate, she told me she didn’t like S’mores pop-tarts and I was startled. “What do you mean?” I asked her, “they’re the best. You have to like them.” Why was I stuck on this issue of her not enjoying the same delicious, camp-fire inspired pastry? I was using confrontation against my roommate about something I really didn’t care too much about. So why do confrontation movements always seem to care more than invitational movements? This question boggled my mind at first, since they use more force then they must obviously care more about their issue. But I don’t think that’s true after using such force for my stance towards pop-tarts. Today, it seems to be more natural to argue with someone and hope to persuade them than to share opinions and new perspectives. There is something wrong when people would rather force their beliefs on someone than listen to their reasoning.

The invitational approach seems friendly and nice; they want to introduce you to a new perspective. I watched an interesting debate recently that made me wonder if it was an example of the invitational approach. Bill Nye and Ken Ham both have very different viewpoints on the origins of man, but they both express their own opinions and try to share with each other. I thought this was an interesting perspective of the invitational approach because both men are very passionate about their beliefs, and I think this is why it’s invitational but not confrontation, because they both know that they’re unmoving in their views. They chose to share their information with each other, while knowing that neither would risk anything to change their views this far into their careers. Thus, they weren’t risking anything by sharing their views. Yes, it was a “debate,” but I doubt that either of them actually thought they could persuade each other to change beliefs; therefore, they shared opinions, and possibly got upset, but they weren’t risking anything.

So is that the difference, risk? Confrontation movements are risking more; therefore, they need more people to join them and share their opinions. And invitational movements aren’t as dramatic or forceful as confrontation so they don’t experience the same risk. Risk could be a factor, but to gauge the amount of differences between confrontational and invitational we’d need to know why movements choose between confrontational versus invitational. My only guess is that it’s more natural to take time out of your day to persuade others than to listen to others.

Digital Activism and Social Capital: A Reflection on Gladwell

At the heart of every social movement is a series of connections. While it may only take one voice to ignite a change, a movement, a revolution, connections are essential to channeling this spark throughout the masses. In his article “Small Change, Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” Malcolm Gladwell argues that the strength of these connections composes the strength of the movement as a whole. The social ties of those participating in a movement of digital activism seem negligible when juxtaposed with Gladwell’s example of the Greensboro Four, who relied on their deep connections of friendship and trust to combat the certain risk of their form of activism. Gladwell’s argument rests upon the notion that quality is far more important than quantity when discussing social connections and their link to activism.

In his book, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam examines a perceived decline in civic engagement within the context social capital. Social capital

refers to connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a dense network of reciprocal social relations. (Putnam, Kindle Locations 152-155)

Bowling Alone is abundant with examples of studies indicative of the increased civic participation of communities with high social capital—that is, simply, communities in which citizens regularly engage with one another and look out for one another with the expectation that this service will be repaid in kind.

Let us examine digital versus “traditional” activism in terms of social capital. Putnam addresses the Prisoner’s Dilemma, or Free-Rider problem, as a serious deterrent to the resolution of collective problems. Although a community may benefit more as a whole if each individual were to, say, pay 5% more in taxes to allow for better technology in schools, were this tax presented as an option rather than a mandate we could reasonably expect that the vast amount of individuals would opt out of paying as they would assume others would bear the burden. These same ideas can be viewed within the context of social movements. Although an individual may feel a connection to a particular cause, he or she may refrain from actively advocating for it on the assumption that someone else will or already is doing so.

On the contrary, when individuals possess high levels of social capital within their community, it is assumed that the norms of reciprocity would encourage their participation in the tax program. Examining a smaller but not insignificant social movement, the Vermont Workers’ Center organized a campaign based on the experiences of workers within the state, collected from one-on-one interactions and hotline phone calls (Rudiger 3). Those who volunteered their stories built bonding capital (stronger, more personal) with one another and the organization, and developed connections within their community that revolved around the particular cause of developing a universal healthcare system. Therefore, they were more inclined to participate in a cause that not only impacted them, but their fellow community members as well.

Digital activism provides a unique,Catch-22 solution to the above problems. While digital activism allows for a more rapid spread of ideas regarding causes and movements, it also relies on the far weaker bridging capital than more traditional types of activism which can have the effect of “slacktivism,” where individuals profess dedication to a cause but do little to advance it. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, digital activism provides an easy way out, a way to assuage our feelings of obligation toward particular causes while requiring minimal participation. Imagine how may times you’ve “liked” a page on Facebook because it showed up in your Newsfeed without ever having given any of your personal time to help advance that cause. Or consider the number of retweets a tweet from an organization like the Red Cross about donating to a relief fund will get in comparison to the actual number of people who donate. Yes, both of these acts of digital advocacy or activism are somewhat effective in increasing awareness of a particular issue, yet they also allow the participant to feel appeased by their rather insignificant contribution to a cause that, were it not for digital activism, they may have been moved to participate in in a more significant way.

Critics of Putnam assert that “the trend in declining [political engagement] among the young (2004 aside) can be interpreted as not a rejection of public life but a shift in the types of participation in which these citizens are engaging (Zukin et al., Kindle locations 278-279).” Perhaps an increase in digital participation, too, is not attached to a better or worse brand of activism, but only a different form that has developed in response to our changing society.

Works Cited

Putnam, Robert D. (2001-08-01). Bowling Alone (Kindle Locations 152-155). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

Rudiger, Anja. “Reviving Progressive Activism: A Case Study of Vermont’s Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign – See More At: Http://www.nesri.org/resources/reviving-progressive-activism-a-case-study-of-vermont%E2%80%99s-healthcare-is-a-human-right-campaign#sthash.5lAH0Btx.dpuf.” NESRI. National Economics & Social Rights Initiative, Aug. 2011. Web. 22 Jan. 2014. <http://www.nesri.org/resources/reviving-progressive-activism-a-case-study-of-vermont’s-healthcare-is-a-human-right-campaign>.

Zukin, Cliff; Keeter, Scott; Andolina, Molly; Jenkins, Krista; Carpini, Michael X. Delli (2006-04-24). A New Engagement?: Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen (Kindle Locations 278-279). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Gladwell: Right for the Wrong Reasons

In his article “Small Change, Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” Malcolm Gladwell tells us that the digital activism of the present generation is not strong enough to endure the real-world challenges commonly faced in activist movements. He claims that because social networks do not provide the same support as interpersonal relationships formed between friends and cohorts, they must be weaker. He translates this perceived weakness into a lack of any capability — claiming that “in the outsized enthusiasm for social media… we seem to have forgotten what activism is.”

He frames his perception of activism using the Greensboro Four, and their sit-in protests at the Woolworth’s lunch counter. He conjugates their social movement with the violence they encountered, true activism with real risk:

  • “Racial insubordination was routinely met with violence”
  • “The dangers were even clearer…”
  • “Activism that challenges the status quo…is not for the faint of heart”
  • “The civil-rights movement was high-risk activism” (Later in the piece)

He asks the question “What makes people capable of this kind of activism?” Or, to re-situate the question using his previous frame: What makes people take these illegal, violent, and life-threatening risks?

His answer? The participants’ “degree of personal connection to the… movement.”

Up to this point in his article, Gladwell has been fair in describing his own understanding of activism, and how it does or does not function in the digital age. Then he says (in reference to the personal connection needed for “real” activism) “The kind of activism associated with social media isn’t like this at all.”

In 2010, that claim could have been true. Today, (literally, today) it is not.

In the last 24 hours, protests in Kiev, Ukraine have escalated out of hand. From BBC News:

“At least two people are reported to have died in clashes between police and protesters in the Ukrainian capital Kiev in a third night of violence.

Police stormed barricades built by anti-government protestors in the central square.

Mass demonstrations began in November after President Viktor Yanukovych shunned closer ties with the European Union.

The latest violence was triggered by the introduction of new laws passed last week that criminalise [sic] protests, as Daniel Sandford reports from Kiev.”

To sum up: there have been mass protests in Kiev since November. Last week, the government banned protests, and now more people are protesting, and in turn, dying

You might ask, “Thomas, what does that have to do with *digital* activism?”

And I would show you the introduction to an article published not 20 hours ago (Tuesday, January 21st) by Brian Merchant:

“ ‘Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a mass disturbance.’

That’s a text message that thousands of Ukrainian protesters spontaneously received on their cell phones today, as a new law prohibiting public demonstrations went into effect. It was the regime’s police force, sending protesters the perfectly dystopian text message to accompany the newly minted, perfectly dystopian legislation. In fact, it’s downright Orwellian (and I hate that adjective, and only use it when absolutely necessary, I swear).

But that’s what this is: it’s technology employed to detect noncompliance, to hone in on dissent. The NY Times reports that the “Ukrainian government used telephone technology to pinpoint the locations of cell phones in use near clashes between riot police officers and protesters early on Tuesday.” Near. Using a cell phone near a clash lands you on the regime’s hit list” (Emphasis added).

Ukraine’s protests, now under cellphone surveillance. Image: Wikimedia

So, what does this all mean?

In defining activism during class, we agreed that activism was primarily about affecting change. We said that as such, there is a hierarchy of activism. We are able to define the success of activism by the change achieved. However, if we do not want to define success, if we simply want to define activism, what scale do we use?

According to Gladwell, we use Risk. Which takes us back to Kiev.

In class, we discussed the possibility that Gladwell’s thesis doesn’t fit present models. Digital activism is not solely online anymore — the internet, social media, and cell phones have become tools for activists who are marching, side by side, in the streets.

It has also become a tool of exploitation for those, who, seeking more power in a battle against the powerless can turn off the internet, turn off your cell service, or pinpoint your precise protesting location. Brian Merchant says “All of this puts lie to the lately-popular mythology that technology is inherently a liberating force—with the right hack, it can oppress just as easily.”

Although we can say Gladwell was wrong, as we have seen the power of digital activism in the physical world — maybe he was right.

Maybe there is a weakness in utilizing a tool so easily manipulated by the oppressor. Maybe we shouldn’t just “Tweet the change that we wish to see in the world.” Maybe the revolution won’t be tweeted.

Sometimes, it can’t be.

 

Works Cited

Gladwell, Malcolm. “Small Change, Why The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” The New Yorker. N.p., 4 Oct. 2010. Web. 19 Jan. 2014. <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all>.

Merchant, Brian. “Maybe the Most Orwellian Text Message a Government’s Ever Sent.” Motherboard. N.p., 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Jan. 2014. <http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/blog/maybe-the-most-orwellian-text-message-ever-sent>.

“Ukraine: Police and Protesters Clash in Kiev.” BBC News. BBC, 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Jan. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25839446>.

One Ring (of skillful computer vigilantes) To Rule Them All

What is Anonymous? Who is Anonymous? Where is Anonymous? After reading Quinn Norton’s series via www.wired.com on the history, ideology, and evolution of Anonymous, I am still unsure as to what it is; yes, I am not labeling Anonymous with the “they” pronoun.

Norton’s reporting on Anonymous does give way—with evidence—of a successful social movement in respect to Leland Griffin’s article on the determination of a cause and whether or not it has met set goals and tasks. In brief summary to the Anonymous series, Anonymous evolved from a group of pranksters to a group of protesters, while still engaging in their hacking and “prank-ing” roots. Now why did Anonymous shift their practices? Like all movements, one must adapt to its surroundings and Anonymous are no exception to this expression; in order to stay relevant in modern times, Anonymous had to enroll themselves in modern, relevant topics that the world actually cared about.

In their humble beginnings, Anonymous choose their first official victim to be the Church of Scientology, an organization seeded with deception, censorship, and bigotry. Anonymous saw the Church to be a false sense of information to thousands who practice the religion and exercised their powers and skill to have the Church debunked and cast away. Why did Anonymous solely target the Church of Scientology? Why not target other religious sects? It seems unclear (in their beginnings) who their targets were and why, but this reinforce the evidence in Norton’s article that over time, Anonymous found their niche and developed a sense of direction for their turmoil and confusion.

Akin to our discussion last week about social movements and whether or not they consciously or subconsciously elect a leader, Norton engages in the same discussion with Anonymous. In the fourth reading for Jan. 21, “How Anonymous Picks Targets, Launches Attacks, and Takes Powerful Organizations Down,” we hear from the mouth of the lion on the question of Anonymous’ leadership:

“Was it really just a speed bump? It was impossible to say for sure, because Sabu’s arrest cut to the heart of what Anonymous claimed to be, of how it claimed to organize itself.          Or, more accurately: its claim that it did not organize itself, that it had no leaders and yet       boasted participants so innumerable (“We are Legion,” as one of its popular slogans       blares) that no ten or hundred or thousand arrests could ever stop it. But in Sabu the FBI had nabbed an anon who was not easy to replace.” (Norton,             http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/ff_anonymous/)
Even within Anonymous, who declare that they are a mass with no individual leader or group of, it reinforces the fact that every movement must have some guidance, some leadership. Let’s focus on the primary dealings of Anonymous (or what they have come to be known for): internet hacking. Now, within the organization of Anonymous, only a few individuals are responsible for initiating the hacking of targeted companies and their respect websites; not every member of Anonymous—the ones who claim their allegiance to it—have the knowledge and skills to hack into a secured server. Not only is this skill and knowledge available to a select few within the organization, the decisions the organization makes are privately made. A small faction within the organization may want Anonymous to hack the website of Toys R’ Us because they got kicked out for behaving immaturely at a store, but that doesn’t mean the “leaders” of Anonymous will agree to enact vengeance towards the retail store. The “leaders” focus their time and energy into worthy causes that they—the collective leaders and as well as the entire organization—feel are appropriate for Anonymous as a whole.

To wrap up my babbling, Quinn Norton’s article has really hit home the fact that every, Every, EVERY social movement, big or small, has a leader or group of. In the case of Anonymous, the leaders of it are a group of skillful computer vigilantes who do the majority of their work (damage) behind firewalls and command prompts, but broadcast themselves and their ethos in large masses behind Guy Fawkes masks.