Dialogue- A Surfers Horizon

When I pause for a moment and look around I am reminded of the humility that I feel whenever I get on my board and paddle out past the breaks.  In the moments before I pass the breaks, my arms are paddling as fast as they can, my legs are kicking as fast as they can, and sometimes (depending on the power of the surf) I am praying that I will make it before the next wave comes crashing down. And I am nothing compared to the power of the ocean. I am at its mercy. I could be beat down with the crash of one wave, swallowed up with one wave, I could become a meal for a great white, I could lose my breath under water never to surface with life again, I am but one body that can be broken with the smallest dose of power that the ocean holds. 

This humility that the ocean has taught me stays with me as I exit the water and I live my life on land.

Unfortunately, it has been some time since I have been able to ride a wave, but the lessons I have learned from the ocean and riding waves stay with me.

Humility, for me is a reminder that I can be swallowed up at any time. Not just by the surf, but by nature, by words, by competition, and lots of other things, but the point is that life can swallow me up and spit me out. 

With the realization of humility comes compassion.

When I think about dialogue, I think about these things. I think about things that are greater than myself, I think about a communication activity that is greater than what we could ever hope to accomplish. It is an ideal that we can strive for with humility and compassion. It is something that can be practiced, it can be attained, but not with hubris and without compassion.

These past few weeks I feel a bit of sensory overload because of the attention being given to the massive suffering around the globe. And, it isn’t like much of this is new, it just seems that many climaxes are happening at the same time. It kinda feels like I am trying to head out past the breakers and I can’t. The surf keeps getting bigger and bigger and I am realizing that I am not as young as I once was. I am loosing my breath, my muscles are tires, and I am running on pure faith and adrenaline. But, like always as I go over a wave and as I am on the peak I can see past the sets of waves, I can see the horizon, and that sight gives me the strength to keep paddling.

Similarly as I see people making concerted efforts to starve social programs, bombs being dropped overseas, nuclear tensions rise, millions without clean water, a country in a state of national emergency, tsunami’s, earthquakes, tornado’s, and violent words I also feel like I am unable to pass the breakers. I feel a bit stuck, out of breath, tired, and running on pure faith and adrenaline.

What I am left with is this drive to keep going, to make it past the set of waves to the calm of the ocean, where I can watch the sun set into the water, where the sky and the ocean meet, where people are not suffering, where people are helping others, and where compassion and humility live. The space where I can sit on my board and daydream, where I can hear the waves, where I am reminded that I am mortal. It is in a space such as this that I believe dialogue can occur and it is in such a space that I encourage others to enter.  

Presidential War Rhetoric: Obama, Libya & Stewart- A Tribute to Satire

One of the traditional ways that a rhetorician can critique a piece of rhetoric is through a generic criticism, otherwise known as a criticism that, in part, talks about rhetoric and how it fits within a certain rhetorical genre.  Last night I was watching The Daily Show and Stewart had a bit called “America Not at War- Obama’s Communication Gap”.  In this bit Stewart criticizes Obama for his communicative performance regarding the latest American actions in Libya. Stewart says he understood what Obama has said about the US presence in Libya, but that he kinda doesn’t know the rational for the actions in Libya and that there seems to be a communications gap.

I also have recently read a chapter from Campbell & Jamieson (2008) which outlines the genre of Presidential War Rhetoric and in this chapter they outline 5 main characteristics of war rhetoric (p. 221):

1-      Every element in it proclaims that the momentous decision to resort to force is deliberate, the product of thoughtful consideration

2-      Forceful intervention is justified through a chronicle or narrative from which argumentative claims are drawn

3-      The audience is exhorted to unanimity of purpose and total commitment

4-      The rhetoric not only justifies the use of force, but also seeks to legitimize presidential assumption of the extraordinary powers of the commander in chief; and as a function of these other characteristics

5-      Strategic misrepresentations play an unusually significant role in its appeals

So, having recently read a chapter that talks about the genre of Presidential War Rhetoric, and then having watched Jon Stewart talk about the weaknesses in Obama’s communication with “the public” about our actions and presence in Libya -it seems that a traditional rhetorical approach could be to compile the Presidents rhetoric about Libya, particularly the recent rhetoric which has been specific to US intervention, a no fly zone, and multilateralism when it comes to intervention, and do a generic criticism of the Presidents War Rhetoric when it comes to US intervention in Libya.

However, if we want to think about different ways to approach this subject, different ways to do rhetorical criticism, and ways to approach argument differently- I would say that Jon Stewart- is doing this. His bits are rhetorical criticisms: They are alternative ways to approach rhetoric. For example, he uses satire. Satire is “the ability to attack power and pass judgment on the powerful while doing so in a playful and entertaining ways that makes satire a particularly potent form of political communication” (Gray, Jones, & Thompson, p. 12). And in this particular bit Stewart uses satire to attack and judge Obama’s rhetorical performance of war rhetoric.

Using satire to approach rhetoric, and as a method of rhetorical criticism is an important and worthy alternative to traditional rhetorical criticism for a few reasons. First, it approaches rhetoric differently from traditional forms, which may be important when trying to think of ways to talk about rhetoric. Also, satire can mock the rational, which may not always be appropriate or possible with traditional methods of rhetorical criticism. Next, it is inherently critical and thus provides a different way of thinking about something which can open up different ways of understanding. Although this brief list isn’t exhaustive, it does provide some ideas of why satire may be a nice alternative to traditional methods of critique.

Overall, when thinking about rhetoric and argument and trying to think about it differently - satire may be something to consider- especially when being applied to such as things as war rhetoric and rhetoric that is trying to gain uncritical support.  For example, if one wanted to critique Obama’s war rhetoric in regards to US actions in Libya one could critique alternative rhetors, mediums and channels such as bits aired on The Daily Show, or other satirical and parodic examples, such as: The Onion, The Colbert Show, and South Park (to name a few). And people may also consider these and other related shows and rhetors within these shows as models for how one could go about critiquing rhetoric and argument in differing ways.

Campbell, K. K. , Jamieson, K. H. (2008). Presidents Creating the Presidency: Deeds Done in Words.

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Gray, J., Jones, J. P., Thompson, E. (2009). The state of satire, the satire of state. In J. Gray, J. P. Jones, &

E.Thompson (Eds). Satire TV: Politics and comedy in the post-network era (p 3-36). New York: New York University Press.

Stewart, J. (2011, March 22).America not at war- Obama’s communication gap. [Video File]. The Daily

Show with Jon Stewart. Retrieved from http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-22-2011/america-at-not-war---obama-s-communication-gap

Symbolism in Wisconsin- Considering Bodies of Senators & Protesters

I was recently struck by something that Sharon Crowley said in her book Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric & Fundamentalism. She said

            “Symbols represent belief, but they also produce it” (p. 65).

This quote is something worth marinating on for a little bit. As mentioned in previous blog posts I am interested in political campaigns, and specifically the current campaigns going on in Wisconsin. When I think of this quote, I immediately think of the symbolism(s) of the union protesters and the democrat senators who left the state. 

When Walkers proposal became a real thing to be considered and the democrat senators left the state, I believe that the removal of their bodies from the state, from their posts, from their place at the capital was very symbolic. First, the removal of their bodies suggested that something wasn’t/isn’t right- it was a call to pay attention. Next, the removal of their bodies was a symbol that the democratic process was/is being threatened. Also, the removal of their bodies was a symbol to others that these senators need some support if their efforts weren’t to be in vain; for example- the self removal of the democratic senators from Wisconsin invited others who support their efforts to also stand up- particularly the union protesters. 

The protesters are also symbols- like the democrat senators who left the state, the protesters also represent the beliefs and ideologies of union workers, democratic values, and working class Americans. The protesters, every day that they are visible, every moment that they gain attention, and every body that is there are symbols. Their bodies are symbols. In addition to the brief list just mentioned, protesters are also larger national symbols. They represent democracy in action, they represent voices to be heard. The represent American values of protest, civil discourse, and democracy. 

In addition to all the symbolism involved with the bodies of the democratic senators and the protesters it also seems that these symbols which represent certain beliefs, also produce beliefs. As mentioned, the symbol of the democrats leaving the state represented belief in their causes, their ideologies and these symbols also produced other symbols- for example- they helped to produce the union protesters. Without the act of leaving the state, without the removal of the bodies, and without the time and space that was gained from these actions it is questionable if there would have been such large protests and media attention. So, although we can’t say for sure that the protesters wouldn’t have been present without the symbolism of the absence of democratic senators bodies-  we can speculate at the very least that this symbolism  did help to produce an environment/ an atmosphere conducive to allowing for protest. Without the senators leaving it is most likely that the budget  (with the stripping of union bargaining rights) would have been passed, and thus minimizing the opportunity for protests to occur. 

This is just one scenario that I immediately thought of when I read this quote. Obviously there is room to talk about the many symbolic acts that are occurring, and others that are being produced. I will leave that for a different day.

Black Power Mixtape: 1967-1975 - An Invitation for Rhetorical Exploration

I recently had the privilege and pleasure of watching “Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975”. This film is great for a number of reasons. I was excited to see different perspectives, representations, and voices from the black power movement in the late sixties and early seventies. One of my favorite things about this film was the rhetorical displays by Angela Davis and Stokely Carmichael. These two people, and their rhetoric in this film, are inspiring to say the least. I am enamored by them, and even more so when I get to see rare footage of them in this film. A particular scene in the movie shows Angela in jail being interviewed. During this interview she is questioned about violence and her answer is inspiring on a number of levels, and speaks to a number of different audiences.

She said “that’s why when someone asks me about violence I just I just find it incredible because what it means is that the person who’s asking that question has exactly no idea what black people have gone through, what black people have experienced in this country since the time the first black person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa” (1).

This excerpt from her response is just a glimpse but highlights some very important things.

First, when we think about rhetoric of movements, and particular the rhetorics of the Black Power movement(s) there are people then and still today that find these rhetorics inherently violent. But why? Studies of whiteness may suggest that some whites, for example, fear Blacks movements, rhetorics, and empowerment rhetorics, because those rhetorics threaten white placement in society and white power. Also, for those who may not fear these rhetorics but may still see them as violent, I believe as is suggested by Davis, that these people don’t understand. And, in a sense- for example, how could a white truly understand the experiences of Black racial suffering from oppression? Is it possible? I don’t know. But it seems that sometimes discourse and rhetoric that may seem violent to some, isn’t (as is evidenced in this film). And although people outside the communities may not be able to truly understand, they can seek their best to be compassionate to, listen to, and understand what they can.

In fact, as the film shows or suggests, the rhetoric by these leaders was uplifting, mobilizing, empowering, important, of value, and not inherently violent.

On the other hand, this film also shows White rhetorics and it seems as though, the more we can uncover about the history and current practices of white communities and power structures we can see that their have been rhetorical, as well as practiced, structural and institutional oppressions that in themselves are inherently violent. For example, in the film it talks about the police abuse that was directly targeted at Blacks and without this context one may not understand why a group would speak about gathering arms and protecting themselves. But, with this context, it seems quite reasonable to want to be able to protect yourself, family and friends. In fact, is this not what the US believes is reasonable, considering our large defense budget?

This film offers what a lot of the textbooks in K-12 do not. It provides more context. It provides rhetorical examples from great black leaders besides the well known Dr King (not to in any way diminish him, but to highlight the need for people to be exposed to more Black leaders than a single one), it provides Black narratives, it humanizes the Black power movement, it exposes some of the problems with the state and white privilege, and it does so many more things that can’t be adequately addressed by listing them.

Finally, when thinking about rhetoric and argument differently this film offers room for exploration into: “normalized rhetorical practices”- what that means, and why we should step outside of the box when thinking about rhetoric, movements, argument, and power.

1-      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJJI6YkmxQ

 

Wisconsin Republicans Passed Bill Without Democrats

Tonight Wisconsin republicans passed legislation without the democrats.

Footage of the evening, available online and which has been circulating on the media, shows our democracy in crisis (1). In a state that was part of the birth of the labor movement (2), legislation has been passed that not only strips pubic unions of their bargaining rights (3), but the way it was passed should be a wake up call (you know, just in case you have been pushing snooze).

I talk about politics all the time, and I can have lots of different opinions on a lot of different things. But I will say here, what I have said before: One of the things I love about our country and our political values is debate.

The chance to allow competing voices to be heard…it is a beautiful thing.

What I see in this video should wake us up. And when I say us- I am suggesting people who care about the practices of debate and dialogue in our political system.  

1-  The Joint Committee on Conference met on March 9, 2011 at the state Capitol. The Republicans approved to adopt a revised budget repair bill, Special Session Assembly Bill 11. http://wiseye.org/Programming/VideoArchive/EventDetail.aspx?evhdid=3885

2-  http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-030/

3-  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wisconsin-20110310,0,13926.story

Go Big or Go Home- The Republican Campaign Machine vs the Democrats

My last couple blog posts talked about some of the important events going on in the nation right now, the Wisconsin debate, and the Planned Parenthood debate. It seems, in both situations, that in the face of economic & financial concerns republican values and democratic values have officially squared off for a dual. The republicans are targeting unions and social programs that directly influence women’s health, and framing these attacks as both a return to republican values and being “the only financial option”.  In Wisconsin the republican values that are driving the campaign in support of Walker are the anti-union position of the Republican Party as well as their position to be the economically responsible party.  Their economic values could also be used to explain their proposal to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, but it is their pro-life values which are really fueling the efforts here. Some of the strengths that the Republicans have with these campaigns are that they are relying on the values of the Republican Party to help gain support. These values are in some ways linked to Lakoffs argument about the “tough father” who is needed to get its family into shape, to make them good, and to get them to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. But generally, these value laden political actions are able to gain a lot of support from their bases because these actions are consistent with the republican platform. Additionally, the republicans are also doing well in its organized campaign efforts. In Wisconsin, for example, the republicans are- in my opinion- winning the ad war. First, they have three different ads by three different organizations- one of them being the RNC. The fact that the RNC has come out with an ad speaks volumes to the commitment by republicans. Next, each ad is clear, it is timely (about 30 seconds), and they are persuasive.  In the Planned Parenthood debate, I also believe they are in a good position. First, they have a majority in the house which gives them power to pass policy. Next, they have organized campaign efforts targeting Planned Parenthood on multiple fronts. What I am getting at, is that the Republican party and republican organizations are successful campaigners. They stick to their values which are fairly similar across organizations and therefore allow a cohesion and coordination between campaigns- thus bringing them together as a united front. They go big or go home. And this is standard practice for them. It is with this acknowledgment of their successful practices that I am concurrently showcasing the weakness of the left.  

These weaknesses frustrate me. I want to see the Walker proposal fail and Union collective bargaining rights remain. I also want to see that Planned Parenthood, at the very least, gets to keep their federal funding. But, I am nervous that the organizations on the left are going to hand everything over the right, which is something I believe they do well. I am not saying that a lot isn’t being done to defend the left and its values from a full frontal attack by the rights, but what I am saying is that the campaigns need to go big or go home. And that means doing more than just protesting or creating internet awareness campaigns. The left needs unity, it needs to win the ad war, the DNC needs to get with it, and the left needs to take control and frame the debates (instead of letting the right frame the debates).  The left, needs to argue differently.