Argument as Issue Campaign

As a scholar of argumentation and rhetoric who focuses on issue campaigns it seems appropriate to think about the metaphor Argument as Issue Campaign. As mentioned in a previous post metaphors allow new conceptual constructions and understandings. Thus,  argument as its own construct becomes something new and different within the metaphor Argument as Issue Campaign.

Arguments are typically understood, within Toulmin's framework, as ways "of presenting conclusions that have been discovered prior to the argument" (Kastely, 1999, p. 227). Unfortunately, this typical practice of argument doesn't always acknowledge contradictions and can lock oneself into a system of explanation that is impervious to criticism (Kastely, 1999). But, this is not the only understanding of argument, there are many. One other way to understand argument is through deliberative and/or dialectical argument. Both are centered around a more collaborative understanding of argument that is interested in the other members of argument and debate as well as their ideas and contribution to the topic at hand. It is not based in a win/lose binary, but more associated with both/and thinking that requires vulnerability to the idea of being influenced and shifting of thoughts, as well as finding commonalities that can lead to cooperative solutions and/or paths (Kastely, 1999).

Issue campaigns, are campaigns that deal with issues, such as: policy issues and ballot initiatives. These campaigns are typically performed at many different sites, for example: in policy rhetoric, in political ads, speech rally's, protest rally's, on the bodies of those engaged in the campaign(s), in press releases, on websites, in canvassing efforts, in PR, etc etc.

 After a quick review of what is argument and what is issue campaign we can begin the exploration of the metaphor Argument as Issue Campaign. To think of Argument as Issue Campaign invites us to expand our conception of each individual construct and think of them as a combination, in relationship, as a new idea and understanding, as a new mode of perception (Blumenberg, 1960), and as a mode of thought (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).  

This metaphor invites us to think argument as not only a verbal speech act, but also as something nonverbal, and even visual, marked on bodies, disseminated to masses, interpersonal canvassing, fundraising, as lies, misinformation, fact based claims, value based claims, policy based claims, organizing, viral, technology, statist, punditry, satire, and parody....just to name a few.

Although this is a preliminary inquiry into  Argument as Issue Campaign I hope that it will spawn some ideas about how to think of argument as a metaphor, how to think of this particular metaphor, and how to think of argument differently. I invite you to marinate on this with me for awhile, so that when I return we can add more to this. Additionally, I want to think of this metaphor through a rhetorical case study of the Wisconsin Union Issue Campaigns (for and against WI unions rights to collective bargaining). Thoughts?
 
Blumenberg, H. (1960). Paradigmen zu einer meaphorologie. 

Kastely, J. L. (1999). From formalism to inquiry: A model of argument in Antigone. College English, 62(2).
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By.

Planned Parenthood as Women's Health

Planned Parenthood as Women's Health is a metaphor worth exploring. Metaphor is a mode of thought (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) that has the potential to shape thought, thus by Planned Parenthood connecting its organizations image to that of women's health provides a vehicle for conceptualizing the metaphor Planned Parenthood as Women's Health. In this ad below, by Planned Parenthood (PlannedParenthood, 2011), the speaker identifies herself as a mother and survivor of cancer that states "without Planned Parenthood I wouldn't be here today" (PlannedParenthood, 2011). She shares with viewers that she was diagnosed with cervical cancer early because of Planned Parenthood, also she suggests that because of Planned Parenthood she is a cancer survivor of 30 years. In addition, Carolyn proposes that Planned Parenthood provides a gap to women and girls, suggesting that without Planned Parenthood a gap would not be filled and women and girls health would suffer. A male voice adds to the metaphorical construction by stating that the Senate should stand by Planned Parenthood and Carolyn and put the lives and health of women above Washington politics.

The shifts in meaning that occur with this metaphor are in the combination of Planned Parenthood and Women's Health and arguably the combination is both literal and metaphoric, suggesting that their are both literal and metaphoric constructions within Planned Parenthood as Women's Health.

Literally we can see from this ad that Carolyn's health, and chances for surviving a cancer that targets women, was dependent on Planned Parenthood and its services. She literally was a Planned Parenthood patient and her early diagnosis of cancer may not have occurred without her access to this organization. Additionally, Carolyn suggests that this organization is literally filling a gap concerning womens and girls access to health care, including preventative health care.

Metaphorically we can imagine Planned Parenthood as Women's Health. This metaphor invites people to imagine a connection and new construct that is created through the interaction of these two concepts, to think about their likenesses as well as their unlikenessess (Richards, 1936), to think about the directions which together they influence our living (Richards, 1936) and our understandings, transference (Richards, 1936), and new meanings that arise with metaphoric interaction (Black, 1981). Organizing conceptualizations and understandings around such a metaphor challenges those exposed to think of the presence and absence of this metaphor. For example, in the video it is urged that the Senate should stand by Planned Parenthood as Women's Health and in such a call to action is attempting to paint a world with and without Planned Parenthood as Women's Health. 


The limits of this metaphor for its enabling potential(s) as well as its constraining potential(s) may help to explore & understand the applied function(s) of this metaphor within the Planned Parenthood campaign to keep its federal funding, as well as other functions of the metaphor. Limit work, is thought of as an exploration into what is enabling and constraining about typically gender stereotypes  (Bruner, 1996), and is useful when exploring feminist messages and campaigns for social justice, as well as gendered constructions, including gendered metaphors.

Obviously this work could go on until a book length work is reached. However, I would like to share some brief observations and invite you (the reader) to comment and share your observations. First, I propose that the metaphor Planned Parenthood as Women's Health as a campaign message, slogan, image, construct, etc, is fairly persuasive. For example, it creates a space where to reject planned parenthood is to reject women's health, which is exploitable in a political apparatus or political situation (such as a political conflict centered around the budget and cutting Federal funding for Planned Parenthood). It also reframes the picture that is constructed by anti-abortion advocates who suggest that Planned Parenthood's main purpose is to provide abortions, and who even construct the metaphor of Planned Parenthood as Abortion Providers.

Some of the constraints of this metaphor Planned Parenthood as Women's Health is that this metaphor ignores men, it constructs a metaphor where men are absent. Although this can be seen as enabling a power that shields it from being attacked by "outsiders" "men", it can also limit support by these "outsiders" "men". As a campaign that needs support of men, considering first that the majority of Congress is men and second that men are a considerable portion of the US population, this can be a risky metaphor. As mentioned, it can work because men as the outsiders can be seen as violent if they try to destroy this metaphor, but it could also backfire through their exclusion. Literally we know that Planned Parenthood serves men as well as women, as well as families, and that it serves people regardless of their class, race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and other identities. But, these literal and concrete practices of male inclusion, as well as other inclusions within Planned Parenthood practices and services are excluded, or are at least ignored, with the metaphor Planned Parenthood as Women's Health. 

As we can see from a preliminary exploration of the limits of the metaphor Planned Parenthood as Women's Health it can be both enabling and constraining within Planned Parenthood's campaign to preserve Federal funding.


A future inquiry will be to further explore this metaphor in congressional budget discussions as well as other campaign ads and campaign messaging. As of now defunding Planned Parenthood as part of the recent budget proposal has been rejected (Herszenhorn & Cooper, 2011). But, the attempts to defund Planned Parenthood aren't over and, because of such efforts, I am sure we won't be seeing the end of the use of the metaphor Planned Parenthood as Women's Health any time soon.



Resources
Black, M. (1981). Metaphor. In M. Johnson (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on metaphor (pp. 63-81). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Bruner, M. L. (1996). Producing identities: Gender problematization and feminist argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 32(4).

Herszenhorn, D. M. & Cooper, H. (2011, April 9). Concessions and Tension, Then a Deal. New York Times. Retrieved from  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/us/politics/10reconstruct.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=planned+parenthood&st=nyt

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980).  Metaphors We Live By

PlannedParenthood. (2011, February 25). Planned Parenthood Action Fund TV Ad: Carolyn Telling Her
Story. [Video File] Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJlQ_9_Fufo&feature=related

Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.

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.

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?

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.

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