I am taking a new class, boys and girls. This one is called Rhetoric and Media
Arts. I feel like it will be worth
posting my thoughts and my findings here, since I haven’t really written much
about politics, but I am still browsing the web and finding cool things. This might end up being a kind of
“flavor of the class” blog.
Do you love me no matter what?
The truth is, after our class on Monday, I felt like I lost
my handle on this topic. I thought
I knew what rhetoric was, but perhaps I have been mistaken. A little background first, some part of
my undergraduate degree was in communications studies. When we talked about rhetoric in those
classes, we were concerned mostly with the idea of persuasion. What tools can you use to get someone
to see and do something you desired?
We talked about communication models that pulled apart sender, message
and receiver. We talked about what
“noise,” cultural and physical there may be to disrupt the transmission of your
message. I managed to lump all of
this together with the study of rhetoric.
I am pretty sure I am not where I need to be and that I have no real
idea what the study of rhetoric entails.
Since my first homework assignment is to right this wrong, I have to go
to Google.
I hate that I always start with Wikipedia. Oh, sure! I tell myself that this is what most people do: start with
the basics and go from there.
Still, I wish there were something a little more reliable. The entry about Rhetoric started me
thinking about rhetoric now vs. ancient rhetoric. I have made a mental note to find out more about Kenneth
Burke. I am starting to feel
excited about our rhetorical decisions around political phrases like “undocumented
workers vs. illegal aliens.” There’s
a lot here to play with.
Since I still feel like I am just dancing on the surface of
this thing, I was very excited to find this video out on YouTube. It has the rather amusing title "In Defense of Rhetoric: No
Longer Just for Liars".
That brought me in, but I stayed for the full 14 minutes because it is a
very good video. There is a lot
here that gets at the heart of rhetoric.
Balancing the message, tools for that message and the intended audience
all while marinating your image. I
think I am starting to understand what got me muddled to begin with because of
this video. I appreciate the idea
that rhetoric is how we come to understand our world, not just the arguments we
have.
While I was out playing on YouTube, I also stumbled on this video. The wonderful thing about this piece is
that it attempts to dissect the use of persuasive language in Obama’s televised
speech after the death of Osama bin Laden. The reviewer notes the mise en scene, the movements of the
speaker, as well as the types of words used and when during the speech. This is the first time I have seen this
kind of dissection. Why is Obama
using his hands here, but not before?
Why an emotional plea at the beginning? Why tell us the history before simply saying something like
“we got him!” and calling it a day?
Very interesting.
One more, sublimely silly, example of rhetoric comes to us
from the fine folks at HuffPost.
In their daily column called “Good News” they are offering up a
pictorial argument that suggests everyone should have a dog. Entitled “21
Reasons A Dog Is The Best Investment You Will Ever Make,” I am adding it
here because I enjoy the structure of the argument. It begins with “are you tired of being let down by
life?” That moves through
emotional appeal after emotional appeal, paired with pictures of dogs loving
and being loved by their humans, with the occasional link to the story to
match. The “21 reasons” title is a
lovely rhetorical device. “Steps”
and things that can be numbered feel very logical and pragmatic. The last “step” is, of course, to do
yourself a favor and follow a link to adopt from the ASPCA. It's manipulative and brilliant. I love it.
That wasn't a rhetorical question, but the way. Do you love me no matter what? Because this could get interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment