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
No comments:
Post a Comment