Wisconsin on my brain
Recently revolutions and protests have been filling the airwaves, from Egypt, to Libya, to the United States. Wisconsin has recently (but not for the first time) popped up as being a center for the labor rights debate that has begun, and will continue to spill over across the nation. Unfortunately, as we are seeing the GOP is launching an assault on labor unions, workers rights, and other areas such as women's rights and reproductive rights. Although I will be doing some work on these latter issues, I will focus this particular post on what is going on with the issue of labor rights and unions.
Last night I was watching the Daily Show (1), and his whole first segment was focused on Walker, the protests, and an interview (or hoax interview) that Walker participated in yesterday. Just in case you haven't heard, Walker took a phone call and thought he was speaking to David Koch (a major financial backer of Republican candidates and issues (6) NATIONWIDE)
when in reality he was speaking with reporter Murphy from the blog buffalobeast (3).
This interview between Murphy & Walker (3), when juxtaposed to Walkers recent press statements (2), the Club for Growth Wisconsin, Inc television ad (4), the Americans for Prosperity TV ad (5), and the policy and financial policy that Walker is proposing, shows that there is an attack going on against unions, supporters (including the demcratic representatives), and democratic party values. The attack(s) may be understood collectively as a side to a debate; a sequence of arguments and rhetoric that aim to promote GOP interests, and to negate union interests.
On the other side of the debate we have a recent ad (7) sponsored by Wisconsin AFL-CIO, we have the protests (8), the democratic leaders who have left their states in protest (9), as well as some remarks by Obama (10) stating that what is going on is an assault on unions. Overall, this side of the debate is against Walkers proposal, specifically this side of the debate is against the push to end collective bargaining rights for unions.
Although this a preliminary list of texts that are contributing to larger narratives on each side of this debate, it is clear that there are campaigns on either side to promote the issues that they wish to make salient to the public and that they want to influence public policy. Such rhetoric is worthy of attention and it is my hope to be able to look at these texts to better understand how they function within the debate for and against collective bargaining rights for unions. What strikes me as interesting is the different ways each side seems to be engaging the debate. For example, from the hoax interview we can see that there are some interesting tactics being explored in an effort to end collective bargaining rights- such as infiltrating the protesters and using deceit with Democratic leaders to get what they want. Are these tactics exemplary of popular American debate, argumentation, and rhetorical practices? As someone who has worked on campaigns in the past, I can say that these tactics do happen, but are they dominant forms of practice? Or are they examples of arguing differently? Additionally, how is this interview, an act in itself, performative of arguing differently? Additionally, the efforts by Democratic leaders who have left their representative states in protest- are these examples of arguing differently?
I will return to this blog later, but for now- what do you think about this debate? What other texts should I include for possible analysis? What about all these texts, and each side of the debate do you think are exemplary of traditional American rhetoric and debate, and what about them are not?
1- http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-february-23-2011-donald-rumsfeld
2-http://online.wsj.com/video/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-on-protests/3ACE429A-1DED-41EC-8AD6-0C62F3F8FF48.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
3- http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045
4-http://wispolitics.com/1006/110211_WCFG_Benefits_TV.mov
5- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adX6C01X9TU
6- http://www.truth-out.org/koch-industries-front-group-americans-for-prosperity-launches-ad-to-support-walkers-union-busting67
7- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/first_look_national_unions_lau.html
8- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/wisconsin-protests-_n_826246.html
9-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/us/25states.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
10- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-on-wisconsin-budget-protests-an-assault-on-workers.html
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Arguing Differently in Wisconsin
As I contemplate what I should study this semester in a course titled Arguing Differently, which focuses on alternative rhetorical practices and methods, I can’t help but turn my attention to Wisconsin. In recent days campaigns for and against a legal proposal to change labor union practices have officially come face to face, both have officially crossed “the line” (if there ever was one), or to say more plainly the debate is playing out in front of us (well those that are on the ground there, have a personal connection to those involved, or at least to those of us who have internet &/or tv access). What I am trying to say is that the debate is live! It is happening! NOW.
One side of the argument, which is fueled strongly by Club for Growth Wisconsin, Inc & Republican Governor Scott Walker, is interested in passing legislation to limit the collective bargaining rights of labor unions. Another side of the argument, which is fueled strongly by Wisconsin labor unions and supported by democratic representatives in the state, is interested in making sure this legislation doesn’t pass and that union rights are protected.
Besides this being one of the (arguably) most important issues going on in this time and space, I believe that the multiple rhetorical acts participating and engaging in this debate offers unique sites for inquiry, especially when trying to identify practices of arguing differently. For example Club for Growth Wisconsin, Inc has launched a television advertisement (1) as part of the effort to act rhetorically in favor of Walkers bill. This ad is an example of argumentation and rhetoric and is certainly part of the debate, but is this traditional or alternative? In addition, the policy itself is a form of rhetoric that shapes this debate, and although this is traditional how does it function in this debate space? There is also Walker, who may be considered the face of this side of the debate. Walker has much to offer because he is being presented as a major rhetor of the message(s) for the proposal. Due to the importance of his role in this debate there is now a compilation of recent performances where he rhetorically positions himself in support of the proposal, in a position of power, and constructs the frames around the policy in which he makes some issues regarding the policy more or less salient. Overall, this side of the debate offers multiple sites for inquiry into argumentation, debate, & rhetoric; therefore, there may be opportunities to identify tensions between traditional and nontraditional forms of these practices.
On the other major side of the debate, the actions by democratic representatives (leaving the state, in effect rejecting a vote) as well as the protests are rhetorical sites for exploration. For example, are these traditional debate practices, non traditional, are they widely accepted, etc?
I feel as though, being a past debater myself, that I could find reasons to say that each text, performance, rhetorical act (however you want to think of them), on either side of the debate, is either traditional or not traditional. But my passions for the side of the union movement, along with some background research into rhetoric, social movements, campaigns, and political communication, together suggests that the actions for the proposal are fairly traditional forms of argumentation. Additionally, those acts that are against the proposal, although they are optional paths available through our form of government and not complete anomalies, I want to propose are not traditional, nor are they widely practiced in every debate, and thus may be understood as forms of Arguing Differently.
For now, as I will go back to doing more research on these issues, I want to give my support for those democratic representatives who are both standing up for the unions and also democratic party values as well as those protesters who are (out in the COLD Wisconsin air) giving their time, voice, and body to this important protest movement.
1. http://wispolitics.com/1006/110211_WCFG_Benefits_TV.mov
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Aristotle's Happiness Framework
When people ask me "what are your goals in life" I typically respond by saying that I am interested in being happy. This is mostly because my faith is centered on processes, actions, and practices that work towards relieving suffering and making progress towards happiness. And although I am dedicated to many things in my life, and I don't talk too much about my faith, it is very important to me. So, when I read Aristotle's Rhetoric, I find his discussion of happiness to be quite interesting.
Aristotle states at the start of his discussion that: "For all advice to do things or not to do them is concerned with happiness and with the things that make for or against it" (Aristotle, para 1, Book 1 ch 5). With this he is setting up a framework for advocacy positing that when we make arguments for or against things we are making them in the interest of happiness. To predicate persuasion and argumentation on the grounds of happiness is quite interesting to me, since it seems that would be something that is quite subjective, and means different things to different people. However, Aristotle and I have some differences in what happiness is about and who can define happiness, for example - he believes that people can agree with at least one or more of his ideas of happiness, which are: "prosperity combined with virtue; or as independence of life; or as the secure enjoyment of the maximum of pleasure; or as a good condition of property and body, together with the power of guarding one's property and body and making use of them" (Aristotle, Para 2, Book I Ch 5).
He further adds from this definition that there are particular constituent parts of happiness, such as: "good birth, plenty of friends, good friends, wealth, good children, plenty of children, a happy old age, also such bodily excellences as health, beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honour, good luck, and virtue" (Aristotle, Para 3, Book I ch 5).
Although there are some tenants within his definition, and within his constituent parts that I assume some people can support and get behind, I am going to suggest that argumentation and rhetoric which makes a position for or against something, or to do or not to do things, may not always be based on Aristotle's definitions and understandings of happiness. And, if I may go further, I also suggest that if rhetoric or argumentation is made based on other ideas of happiness, they are to be considered and not rejected on prima facie grounds. If one reads into his ideas of happiness further one will notice that his ideas of happiness seem to be relatable to someone "like him". Thus, if we were to do a close reading of his ideas of happiness and then subjected all rhetoric to Aristotle's happiness framework much rhetoric would be excluded, or at the very least positioned within White heteropatriachy. Additionally, it seems as though his ideas of happiness are distinctly Western, and as such it would seem as though this framework would have tensions with other perspectives, cultures, practices, and ideas of happiness.
When people ask me what I am about, what my goals are, and I respond by stating my desire for happiness it seems as though I get "looks". You know, the "did you just say that" look. The one where the other person was expecting me to say "success" or a "good job" or "a family" or "property" and there is a level of disappointment and sometimes even disapproval as if I didn't meet some social standard, predictable response, and/or acceptable response. From Aristotle's happiness framework I believe I have gained a bit of insight into my "socially unacceptable" response. It may be that it isn't so much that I say I want and desire happiness, but because to respond without defining happiness in Western terms may produce some cognitive dissonance with some, or potentially some general rejection of my vagueness- again because I am not specifically exemplifying what I mean in Western terms.
From Aristotle's happiness framework we can take another look at rhetoric. Are people's rhetoric within his framework, or does it challenge it? And in either case, what does/would that look like? What are/would be/could be the reactions by the audience? And if we are to create new frameworks, such as "Arguing differently" does rhetoric have to be in the name of happiness? Or could a new framework be created? And what would that look like?
Aristotle states at the start of his discussion that: "For all advice to do things or not to do them is concerned with happiness and with the things that make for or against it" (Aristotle, para 1, Book 1 ch 5). With this he is setting up a framework for advocacy positing that when we make arguments for or against things we are making them in the interest of happiness. To predicate persuasion and argumentation on the grounds of happiness is quite interesting to me, since it seems that would be something that is quite subjective, and means different things to different people. However, Aristotle and I have some differences in what happiness is about and who can define happiness, for example - he believes that people can agree with at least one or more of his ideas of happiness, which are: "prosperity combined with virtue; or as independence of life; or as the secure enjoyment of the maximum of pleasure; or as a good condition of property and body, together with the power of guarding one's property and body and making use of them" (Aristotle, Para 2, Book I Ch 5).
He further adds from this definition that there are particular constituent parts of happiness, such as: "good birth, plenty of friends, good friends, wealth, good children, plenty of children, a happy old age, also such bodily excellences as health, beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honour, good luck, and virtue" (Aristotle, Para 3, Book I ch 5).
Although there are some tenants within his definition, and within his constituent parts that I assume some people can support and get behind, I am going to suggest that argumentation and rhetoric which makes a position for or against something, or to do or not to do things, may not always be based on Aristotle's definitions and understandings of happiness. And, if I may go further, I also suggest that if rhetoric or argumentation is made based on other ideas of happiness, they are to be considered and not rejected on prima facie grounds. If one reads into his ideas of happiness further one will notice that his ideas of happiness seem to be relatable to someone "like him". Thus, if we were to do a close reading of his ideas of happiness and then subjected all rhetoric to Aristotle's happiness framework much rhetoric would be excluded, or at the very least positioned within White heteropatriachy. Additionally, it seems as though his ideas of happiness are distinctly Western, and as such it would seem as though this framework would have tensions with other perspectives, cultures, practices, and ideas of happiness.
When people ask me what I am about, what my goals are, and I respond by stating my desire for happiness it seems as though I get "looks". You know, the "did you just say that" look. The one where the other person was expecting me to say "success" or a "good job" or "a family" or "property" and there is a level of disappointment and sometimes even disapproval as if I didn't meet some social standard, predictable response, and/or acceptable response. From Aristotle's happiness framework I believe I have gained a bit of insight into my "socially unacceptable" response. It may be that it isn't so much that I say I want and desire happiness, but because to respond without defining happiness in Western terms may produce some cognitive dissonance with some, or potentially some general rejection of my vagueness- again because I am not specifically exemplifying what I mean in Western terms.
From Aristotle's happiness framework we can take another look at rhetoric. Are people's rhetoric within his framework, or does it challenge it? And in either case, what does/would that look like? What are/would be/could be the reactions by the audience? And if we are to create new frameworks, such as "Arguing differently" does rhetoric have to be in the name of happiness? Or could a new framework be created? And what would that look like?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Reaction to Recent Race Based Hate Rhetoric at Mizzou (MU)
This past weekend the words "Nigger Month" were spray painted on Mizzou's campus. This act of violence is not the first of its kind at Mizzou. Unfortunately, Mizzou has a long history with racism and other forms of discrimination and blatant prejudice (1). Additionally, it was about a year ago, also during black history month, that cotton balls were spread over MU's Black Cultural Center.
As a social justice advocate, as someone who is committed to the black community, as someone who has compassion for those who suffer, and as a rhetorical scholar I am deeply offended by these actions. There are many messages that these acts send. First, it seems as though this hate filled rhetoric, whether it be cotton balls or violent graffiti, are acts of terrorism. Whether intended to or not, I can't imagine how people are supposed to feel safe in such an environment. Thus, it seems that these rhetorical acts send terrorizing messages to black students, and to members of the black community. If you disagree, may I ask: How does this rhetoric not terrorize?
Next, these acts and especially the one from this past weekend literally seem to send the message that to celebrate black history month is wrong and that it is nothing more than giving attention to people who aren't worthy of attention. This 'better than you attitude' is not just offensive and unjustified, it is dehumanizing. Dehumanizing rhetoric aimed at placing particular groups of people as less than others is something that is not a new phenomena. If history & rhetoric has taught me nothing else, it has taught me that the past is filled with dehumanizing rhetoric and acts, that are both violent and work together towards social injustice.
One of the many things of particular importance about this dehumanizing rhetoric, is that it was tagged on MU's campus which is literally home to thousands of students, including minority students, and sends a message to everyone that hate is still alive & present towards Blacks. Additionally, if you happen to be the intended target of that message the message is clear: you are not worthy, you are less than, and you can feel right about yourself if you feel dehumanized.
So, with such a deplorable rhetorical act staring us in the face- what will be the reaction of the multiple audience members? When I woke up today, I wondered where the protest march will be or when the rally will be where I can attend to show my support for the Black/African American community(ies) and show my condemnation of the latest event- only to be disappointed again. It seems, thus far, that there will be no protest. There will be no rally. (I guess I am just too used to being in the SF bay area where such actions would not go without a rallied reaction.) Instead, I am to be content with the MU mass email sent by the Chancellor yesterday informing the MU community of his deep regret for "racial slurs" (may I note, doesn't give the full impression of the actual rhetoric used), the arrest of a suspect, and........
And, I don't know. I don't know if their will eventually be a rally, or if there will be a protest, so for now I am left with the stain that this last rhetoric has imposed upon me and on others. And I, like others, are seemingly supposed to be content with the email and the arrest.
Well, I can say that I am not content.
I may I also suggest, that I am guessing others aren't either.
On a more positive note, if I have also learned anything else about history & rhetoric it is that there are always rhetorical acts of social justice advocacy that come out in reaction to hate based rhetoric. Although there are many acts being posted around the web in reaction to the hate based graffiti, I would like to quote NAACP chapter president Bryan Like when he said
"If Mizzou is really taking a stance on racism, then Mizzou will take its “zero tolerance attitude” for these actions and make measures to educate and scare any undercover racist from making statements such as this one.
1. http://naacpminorityreport.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/racism-strikes-mizzou-again-2011/ ; http://mizzoucollegedemocrats.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/students-stand-up-against-discrimination-and-mu-republican-columnist/ ; http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/03/01/guest-commentary-cotton-balls-black-culture-center-show-racism-still-very-much-alive-mu-campus/
2. http://naacpminorityreport.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/racism-strikes-mizzou-again-2011/
3. http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5570000035.HTM
As a social justice advocate, as someone who is committed to the black community, as someone who has compassion for those who suffer, and as a rhetorical scholar I am deeply offended by these actions. There are many messages that these acts send. First, it seems as though this hate filled rhetoric, whether it be cotton balls or violent graffiti, are acts of terrorism. Whether intended to or not, I can't imagine how people are supposed to feel safe in such an environment. Thus, it seems that these rhetorical acts send terrorizing messages to black students, and to members of the black community. If you disagree, may I ask: How does this rhetoric not terrorize?
Next, these acts and especially the one from this past weekend literally seem to send the message that to celebrate black history month is wrong and that it is nothing more than giving attention to people who aren't worthy of attention. This 'better than you attitude' is not just offensive and unjustified, it is dehumanizing. Dehumanizing rhetoric aimed at placing particular groups of people as less than others is something that is not a new phenomena. If history & rhetoric has taught me nothing else, it has taught me that the past is filled with dehumanizing rhetoric and acts, that are both violent and work together towards social injustice.
One of the many things of particular importance about this dehumanizing rhetoric, is that it was tagged on MU's campus which is literally home to thousands of students, including minority students, and sends a message to everyone that hate is still alive & present towards Blacks. Additionally, if you happen to be the intended target of that message the message is clear: you are not worthy, you are less than, and you can feel right about yourself if you feel dehumanized.
So, with such a deplorable rhetorical act staring us in the face- what will be the reaction of the multiple audience members? When I woke up today, I wondered where the protest march will be or when the rally will be where I can attend to show my support for the Black/African American community(ies) and show my condemnation of the latest event- only to be disappointed again. It seems, thus far, that there will be no protest. There will be no rally. (I guess I am just too used to being in the SF bay area where such actions would not go without a rallied reaction.) Instead, I am to be content with the MU mass email sent by the Chancellor yesterday informing the MU community of his deep regret for "racial slurs" (may I note, doesn't give the full impression of the actual rhetoric used), the arrest of a suspect, and........
And, I don't know. I don't know if their will eventually be a rally, or if there will be a protest, so for now I am left with the stain that this last rhetoric has imposed upon me and on others. And I, like others, are seemingly supposed to be content with the email and the arrest.
Well, I can say that I am not content.
I may I also suggest, that I am guessing others aren't either.
On a more positive note, if I have also learned anything else about history & rhetoric it is that there are always rhetorical acts of social justice advocacy that come out in reaction to hate based rhetoric. Although there are many acts being posted around the web in reaction to the hate based graffiti, I would like to quote NAACP chapter president Bryan Like when he said
"If Mizzou is really taking a stance on racism, then Mizzou will take its “zero tolerance attitude” for these actions and make measures to educate and scare any undercover racist from making statements such as this one.
Just like the cotton ball incident was not just littering, this spray paint is not just vandalism. This is a direct attack on the black students of the University of Missouri, and we will not stand by and take this type of treatment from anyone, seen or not seen(2)".
I admit, as an educator I will not attempt to use this opportunity to scare my students from making racist statement (hopefully education can occur without scaring) , but I do agree with most of this message. First, Mizzou and its community MUST make a zero tolerance stance on racism. Next, we must work to educate about race, race relations, and social justice. Additionally, it is completely inappropriate to suggest that what happened is simply an act of vandalism. Instead, this act should be approached as an act that is "motivated because of race" (3) and therefore merits at the very least a hate crime charge or something equatable. And finally, I like others including Mr Like, will not accept or stand by and take this treatment.
In such times as these, when we are exposed to rhetoric such as this, it is important for people to examine said rhetoric and to flush out its meanings, its effects, its intentions, along with attempting to understand where it comes from, who it comes from, why it happens, and I feel - in this particular instance it is most important to give compassion to the audience, and most particularly the intended audience. I am not claiming to have exhausted all such areas, for what is written here is but a brief reaction. But I want to leave us with the idea, that rhetoric is powerful. In this most recent incident, just in case people didn't know before, we can see that rhetoric can be violent, hurtful, terrorizing, socially unjust, and dehumanizing. Out of this rhetoric, and the pain it's causing- I look forward to more words like those of Mr Like. I look forward to socially just rhetoric that will stand up against violent rhetoric and show support for those who have become targets of hate. And most importantly, I look forward to the fruition of such social justice based rhetoric.
Final thoughts:
To those who don't understand the gravity of this situation- ask questions and seek understanding. If anything, in an attempt to never commit such heinous acts yourself.
To those suffering: My heart goes out to you and I hope that you can find strength to heal. And know that there are people out there who care, even if at times it may not seem like it.
1. http://naacpminorityreport.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/racism-strikes-mizzou-again-2011/ ; http://mizzoucollegedemocrats.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/students-stand-up-against-discrimination-and-mu-republican-columnist/ ; http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/03/01/guest-commentary-cotton-balls-black-culture-center-show-racism-still-very-much-alive-mu-campus/
2. http://naacpminorityreport.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/racism-strikes-mizzou-again-2011/
3. http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5570000035.HTM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
