Thursday, March 7, 2013
Monday, December 3, 2012
Luke Skywalker and the Deadliest Spot
Thomas Rickert writes about the renewed interest in the meaning of kairos which has at least a dozen meanings in ancient texts (71). Essentially it refers to the most opportune time, a penetrable opening or an aperture of opportunity. "...the earliest uses of kairos," he says "were grounded in a sense of place" (73).
In the film "Star Wars: A New Hope" the entire episode hinges on a brief moment in time and "space" where one shot at a small opening in the indestructible enemy Death Star will trigger a series of failures that will destroy the powerful and dreaded star-sized space station. Kairos refers to not just the target, but the weakest penetrable point of the target that should be the point of aim that will, therefore, give the most opportunity for a successful and deadly strike.
This scene from "Star Wars: A New Hope" illustrates this meaning of kairos very well.
We see Like Skywalker, the lone remaining Rebel pilot able to fire at the Death Star using his connective powers to The Force to evade pursuing enemy fighters long enough to approach the vulnerable aperture and fire into it. A chain reaction takes place through out the Death Star and it explodes from within. Kairos also means opportunity of the moment which includes timing and place. Luke Skywalker is in the right time and place and has the opportunity, with some assistance from Han Solo, to strike the deadliest place. This kairos or "deadliest spot" is mentioned in Homer's The Illiad as the place where penetration is easiest. This is the first appearance of the word kairos. (72)
For Sophists kairos was the art of oratorical opportunity. Maximum success could be won through the recognition of the moment of opportunity or kairos (74). Thus verbal jabs could also strike a deadly blow to an opponent. Every politician understands this form of Kairos. Timeliness and decorum are necessary components however (74). During the recent Super Storm Sandy Fox News pundits were lamenting the inability of the Republican Presidential candidate to enjoy the same "photo ops" as President Obama as he visited and comforted the devastated residents of hard-hit New Jersey and New York. Mitt Romney displayed decorum in this case by staying away and allowing the President to promise and send aid to those in distress. UNlike Mitt Romney, Fox News showed a lack of decorum by referring to the destruction of the storm, not as the disaster it was, but as a mere photo opportunity.
Rhetorical Monkeys
To be a little frank, during last class's discussion of rhetoric's place in the social sphere I started thinking about rhetoric in the natural world. Surely, an argument can be made that animals practice in rhetoric. Mocking birds "mock" other sounds, stick bugs look like sticks as a form of defense, my cat meows and blocks the doorway when he wants to be fed; clearly animals persuade one another and even humans to fulfill their needs.
As a result, George A. Kennedy's, "A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric" was an absolutely fascinating read. At one point in the reading I recalled the part from Freakonomics where Dubner and Levitt discuss the 2005 study with Capuchin monkeys and monetary value. Yale economist Keith Chen discovered that they were able to teach these set of monkeys to use coins in exchange for food. Soon, male monkeys began giving their coins to female monkeys in exchange for sex and the female monkeys would then use those extra coins for food.
The Freakonomics explanation:
I thought this example is first related to Kennedy's second thesis, "The receiver's interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker's intent in determining meaning" (7). While Kennedy later makes the argument that "rhetoric is a defense mechanism," this is clearly not the case in the situations of the prostituting Capuchin monkeys. Secondly and more closely related to Kennedy, this study is a great example of Kennedy's point that "among higher animals, rhetorical skills are transmitted culturally by imitation and learning, not genetically" (11). Trading coins for sex was a learned behavior, not instinctive.
This is where I think a fairly important question comes into play for me, where within communication does rhetoric start and where does it stop? Is trading money without rhetoric? Within human society we pretend and build systems to make it seem as though monetary transactions are not personal or susceptible to rhetoric. However, the career path of "sales" is entirely focused on rhetoric. From the customer point of view, just because I give a store owner a dollar does not obligate that store owner to give me a soda. As Kennedy points out that rhetoric is pre-language, body language plays a large role is rhetorical effectiveness.
In other words, are the Capuchin monkeys practicing in rhetoric by exchanging coins for sex? I think Kennedy would say yes, as would I.
As a result, George A. Kennedy's, "A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric" was an absolutely fascinating read. At one point in the reading I recalled the part from Freakonomics where Dubner and Levitt discuss the 2005 study with Capuchin monkeys and monetary value. Yale economist Keith Chen discovered that they were able to teach these set of monkeys to use coins in exchange for food. Soon, male monkeys began giving their coins to female monkeys in exchange for sex and the female monkeys would then use those extra coins for food.
The Freakonomics explanation:
I thought this example is first related to Kennedy's second thesis, "The receiver's interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker's intent in determining meaning" (7). While Kennedy later makes the argument that "rhetoric is a defense mechanism," this is clearly not the case in the situations of the prostituting Capuchin monkeys. Secondly and more closely related to Kennedy, this study is a great example of Kennedy's point that "among higher animals, rhetorical skills are transmitted culturally by imitation and learning, not genetically" (11). Trading coins for sex was a learned behavior, not instinctive.
This is where I think a fairly important question comes into play for me, where within communication does rhetoric start and where does it stop? Is trading money without rhetoric? Within human society we pretend and build systems to make it seem as though monetary transactions are not personal or susceptible to rhetoric. However, the career path of "sales" is entirely focused on rhetoric. From the customer point of view, just because I give a store owner a dollar does not obligate that store owner to give me a soda. As Kennedy points out that rhetoric is pre-language, body language plays a large role is rhetorical effectiveness.
In other words, are the Capuchin monkeys practicing in rhetoric by exchanging coins for sex? I think Kennedy would say yes, as would I.
New Found Agencies Online
Laura Gries discusses relocating agency in a more temporal location. She is particularly concerned about the privileging of human agency. I don't particularly agree with the idea that human agency is privileged over nonhuman agency. However, I do think that the ideas she raises in her article sheds some light on how agency works online, especially when it is used by marginalized groups to shed light on their perspective and put forth they're own voice.
Gries writes, "An ecological sensibility toward agency grounds much of this important work. Especially evident in contemporary theory is the growing awareness that agency is both multidimensional and dispersed among author, audience, technologies, and environment," (67). What I find interesting here is how she discusses where agency is located. Often we think of it as in one location, often with the rhetor. However, I think it shifts, changes and is sometimes located among different agents with varying perspectives. This is where an ecological approach to studying agency can become very important. I sort of started to discuss this in a previous blog post about agency and The Walking Dead. I hope to take this a step further and look at how the internet serves as a place where agency can be multidimensional.
In particular, the internet serves as a vast ecology. For the purposes of this blog, I will look at Tumblr. A place where blogs, text, video, images, thoughts, opinions, etc collide. There are many purposes behind Tumblr and due to its nature, it is easy for various topics to come together. Feminists in particular, have taken advantage of the nature of the blogosphere to not only use their sense of agency, but convey it to others. Many times, I can come across a new found sense of agency because of the texts in these blogs. For instance, it is easy to experience a sort of cognitive dissonance in every day life when much of the make up products advertised for women don't feature women that look like you. It may not seem like a big deal, until you walk into a Target or Walgreens and realize there is no make up that matches the color of your skin. Or that you see characters white washed to fit a so called Hollywood Norm. One Tumblr blogger has had enough. Her blog is called Damn, Lay Off the Bleach.
Her blog is a prime example of agency because she uses this platform to point out how colorism plays out in the media. While some people think it exists in only certain communities, it is in fact very pervasive. She uses a sort of object method for tracking how colorism plays out in anime fan art. The show Avatar (not the major movie) features a dark skinned character that she frequently points out as being white washed in fan art. When people try to counter her critique with arguments about art and creative expression, she's rather merciless in her responses. This blogs serves not only as a place for the blogger to express agency, but also for others to gain a sense of agency about the cognitive dissonance they experience on a regular basis. In addition, grounding her work in objects of knowledges and tracing concrete examples makes her overall message of colorism all that more pervasive.
Examples such as these demonstrate how rhetoric operates on a daily basis in the so called "real world". For us studying rhetoric, its sort of easy to see. But the idea of using objects as a way to ground rhetoric could be one that helps transform the field so that outsiders can see it as valid. Gries writes at the end of her article, "Yet, as I have attempted to illustrate here, discourse is a vital, material force, and if studied from a new materialist perspective, we actually have more basis to account for how actancy unfolds with time via intra-actions between and non-human entities," (88).
Gries writes, "An ecological sensibility toward agency grounds much of this important work. Especially evident in contemporary theory is the growing awareness that agency is both multidimensional and dispersed among author, audience, technologies, and environment," (67). What I find interesting here is how she discusses where agency is located. Often we think of it as in one location, often with the rhetor. However, I think it shifts, changes and is sometimes located among different agents with varying perspectives. This is where an ecological approach to studying agency can become very important. I sort of started to discuss this in a previous blog post about agency and The Walking Dead. I hope to take this a step further and look at how the internet serves as a place where agency can be multidimensional.
In particular, the internet serves as a vast ecology. For the purposes of this blog, I will look at Tumblr. A place where blogs, text, video, images, thoughts, opinions, etc collide. There are many purposes behind Tumblr and due to its nature, it is easy for various topics to come together. Feminists in particular, have taken advantage of the nature of the blogosphere to not only use their sense of agency, but convey it to others. Many times, I can come across a new found sense of agency because of the texts in these blogs. For instance, it is easy to experience a sort of cognitive dissonance in every day life when much of the make up products advertised for women don't feature women that look like you. It may not seem like a big deal, until you walk into a Target or Walgreens and realize there is no make up that matches the color of your skin. Or that you see characters white washed to fit a so called Hollywood Norm. One Tumblr blogger has had enough. Her blog is called Damn, Lay Off the Bleach.
Her blog is a prime example of agency because she uses this platform to point out how colorism plays out in the media. While some people think it exists in only certain communities, it is in fact very pervasive. She uses a sort of object method for tracking how colorism plays out in anime fan art. The show Avatar (not the major movie) features a dark skinned character that she frequently points out as being white washed in fan art. When people try to counter her critique with arguments about art and creative expression, she's rather merciless in her responses. This blogs serves not only as a place for the blogger to express agency, but also for others to gain a sense of agency about the cognitive dissonance they experience on a regular basis. In addition, grounding her work in objects of knowledges and tracing concrete examples makes her overall message of colorism all that more pervasive.
Examples such as these demonstrate how rhetoric operates on a daily basis in the so called "real world". For us studying rhetoric, its sort of easy to see. But the idea of using objects as a way to ground rhetoric could be one that helps transform the field so that outsiders can see it as valid. Gries writes at the end of her article, "Yet, as I have attempted to illustrate here, discourse is a vital, material force, and if studied from a new materialist perspective, we actually have more basis to account for how actancy unfolds with time via intra-actions between and non-human entities," (88).
We are all Responsible
"Society had a crime problem. It hired cops to attack crime. Now society has a cop problem." - Tom Robbins, Still Life with Woodpecker, 1980.
On September 24, 2011, New York Police Officer Anthony Bologna allegedly pepper sprays Occupy Wall Street protestors who have been cordoned off by a police barricade. What wa so alarming to so many was the nonchalant use of excessive force on seemingly unarmed, nonviolent protestors. While the ethos of the video and the producer can be debated, as well as the circumstance that led to the pepper spraying, the attack did occur and it has been captured on video. This incited international outrage and heightened tensions in an already volatile situation in Manhattan. This led to more demonstrations, allegations of police brutality, and even releasing of Bologna's and several other high-ranking police officer's private information by the decentralized hacktivist "collective", Anonymous. In the ensuing mayhem, one had to wonder to whom did the responsibility ultimately reside.
According to Latour, "It is neither people nor guns that kill. Responsibility for action must be shared among the various actants (Pandora's Hope, 180)."
If Latour is correct, and if Bologna is to be tried for his actions, then he is not alone. Bologna's superior officer must also go on trial, as must the psychologist who stated he was fit for duty, as well as the NYPD as a whole. The mayor of New York must also go on trial, as do the citizens who voted him into office. The distributor who sold the pepper spray to NYPD, the manufacturer of the spray, the manufacturer of the can, as well as the person who discovered that pepper spray could be used as a non-lethal weapon. The protestors, as actors in this scenario, must also go on trial, for they were willing accomplices in a crime. The protestor's families, as well as those of the offending parties, must also go on trial, as they are responsible for instilling the respective values in the actors in this scenario. The laws, which were ultimately granted by the Constitution, must also go on trial, as should the authors of such a document. Lastly, you and I should go on trial, for agreeing to live by such laws and to allow a society where people can be pepper sprayed for exercising perceived rights. We are also accountable for the hiring and appointment of individuals who make decisions regarding violent practices and extreme measure carried out on its citizens.
That is quite a burden to bear, especially for something that is non-lethal. As someone who has had the experience of being sprayed with the exact same type of irritant, it is not particularly pleasant, but it isn't particularly harmful. Should we all have to pay the price? Latour thinks so. While this is an extreme example, Latour seems to agree: "That we are never alone in carrying out a course of action but requires a few examples (Reassembling the Social, 44)."
If Latour is correct, then every thing is ultimately responsible in this hybrid assault.
On September 24, 2011, New York Police Officer Anthony Bologna allegedly pepper sprays Occupy Wall Street protestors who have been cordoned off by a police barricade. What wa so alarming to so many was the nonchalant use of excessive force on seemingly unarmed, nonviolent protestors. While the ethos of the video and the producer can be debated, as well as the circumstance that led to the pepper spraying, the attack did occur and it has been captured on video. This incited international outrage and heightened tensions in an already volatile situation in Manhattan. This led to more demonstrations, allegations of police brutality, and even releasing of Bologna's and several other high-ranking police officer's private information by the decentralized hacktivist "collective", Anonymous. In the ensuing mayhem, one had to wonder to whom did the responsibility ultimately reside.
According to Latour, "It is neither people nor guns that kill. Responsibility for action must be shared among the various actants (Pandora's Hope, 180)."
If Latour is correct, and if Bologna is to be tried for his actions, then he is not alone. Bologna's superior officer must also go on trial, as must the psychologist who stated he was fit for duty, as well as the NYPD as a whole. The mayor of New York must also go on trial, as do the citizens who voted him into office. The distributor who sold the pepper spray to NYPD, the manufacturer of the spray, the manufacturer of the can, as well as the person who discovered that pepper spray could be used as a non-lethal weapon. The protestors, as actors in this scenario, must also go on trial, for they were willing accomplices in a crime. The protestor's families, as well as those of the offending parties, must also go on trial, as they are responsible for instilling the respective values in the actors in this scenario. The laws, which were ultimately granted by the Constitution, must also go on trial, as should the authors of such a document. Lastly, you and I should go on trial, for agreeing to live by such laws and to allow a society where people can be pepper sprayed for exercising perceived rights. We are also accountable for the hiring and appointment of individuals who make decisions regarding violent practices and extreme measure carried out on its citizens.
That is quite a burden to bear, especially for something that is non-lethal. As someone who has had the experience of being sprayed with the exact same type of irritant, it is not particularly pleasant, but it isn't particularly harmful. Should we all have to pay the price? Latour thinks so. While this is an extreme example, Latour seems to agree: "That we are never alone in carrying out a course of action but requires a few examples (Reassembling the Social, 44)."
If Latour is correct, then every thing is ultimately responsible in this hybrid assault.
Pre-determined Rejection of Truth in Harry Potter
George Kennedy's second thesis, "The receiver's interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker's intent in determining meaning," was interesting to me because he sets up the theory that it doesn't really matter how persuasive the speaker is because the listener has already decided how they will take the information which will determine if they are persuaded or not. This can also be seen as an audience's bias toward a person or situation; if they don't want to hear or receive something, they won't.
This made me think of this thesis in terms of my final project. I want to focus on truth in the Harry Potter series. In Harry Potter, when Voldemort, the evil wizard who wants to eradicate all except the "pure-blooded" families, comes back to life and is yet again a threat, the Ministry of Magic refuses to admit he's back. Even after Dumbledore, one of the most powerful wizards alive, and Harry Potter, their poster child for all that is good, explain that Voldemort has returned, no one believes them. Newspaper ads are run about how crazy both of them are, and the Minister gives statements denying any presence of evil.
Very few people want to actually hear that Voldemort is back. Their lives have been peaceful since he disappeared, and they don't want to believe he's coming to finish what he started the first time. Because of this, the people Harry and Dumbledore are talking to have already decided to reject their story. No matter what evidence the two present, the majority of people who hear them automatically disregard what they say. In this way, their interpretation is prior to the speaker's intent. The meaning the people give Harry and Dumbledore's words has already been determined.
Of course, once there is no longer a way to deny Voldemort's presence any longer, people start to believe what Harry and Dumbledore have been saying from the beginning, showing the audience must accept the truth they initially rejected.
This made me think of this thesis in terms of my final project. I want to focus on truth in the Harry Potter series. In Harry Potter, when Voldemort, the evil wizard who wants to eradicate all except the "pure-blooded" families, comes back to life and is yet again a threat, the Ministry of Magic refuses to admit he's back. Even after Dumbledore, one of the most powerful wizards alive, and Harry Potter, their poster child for all that is good, explain that Voldemort has returned, no one believes them. Newspaper ads are run about how crazy both of them are, and the Minister gives statements denying any presence of evil.
Very few people want to actually hear that Voldemort is back. Their lives have been peaceful since he disappeared, and they don't want to believe he's coming to finish what he started the first time. Because of this, the people Harry and Dumbledore are talking to have already decided to reject their story. No matter what evidence the two present, the majority of people who hear them automatically disregard what they say. In this way, their interpretation is prior to the speaker's intent. The meaning the people give Harry and Dumbledore's words has already been determined.
Of course, once there is no longer a way to deny Voldemort's presence any longer, people start to believe what Harry and Dumbledore have been saying from the beginning, showing the audience must accept the truth they initially rejected.
The Importance of Delivery
In George A. Kennedy’s essay, “A Hoot in the Dark: The
Evolution of General Rhetoric,” Kennedy breaks down different forms of animal
communication in order to shed light on some general rules, or theses, of human
rhetoric. Kennedy discusses what he calls the “traditional parts of rhetoric”:
invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. According to Kennedy, “… delivery
is prior to the others” (12).
Kennedy defines delivery as physical movements that include “facial
expression, gesture, and tonal inflection” (12). All of these movements are
ingrained in humans from birth. They are natural and subconscious responses to exigencies
that occur throughout our lifetimes and, as such, are a type of rhetoric unto
themselves. Kennedy points out that the delivery of these actions isn’t
restricted to just humans, “Physical motion in response to some exigence occurs
in the earliest and most primitive forms of life, as when an amoeba moves
toward a food supply or away from some noxious stimulus” (12).
Since delivery is such an innate trait in humans and animals, a realistic delivery is one of the most important qualities of successful rhetoric. An audience won't trust a rhetor who they believe isn't being truthful, and a false delivery is a clear sign that the rhetor is lying. A delivery that looks too rehearsed or unnatural is a sure way to alienate an audience.
To show the importance of delivery in the performance of rhetoric, I chose a scene from the movie Stage Beauty. In this clip, the two actors rehearse the murder scene from
Shakespeare’s Othello. I chose this
clip because I thought it accurately illustrates the importance of delivery. Here,
the two actors already know their lines; they aren’t concerned with the
writing. What they are concerned with is how to deliver the lines in a way that
grabs the attention of the audience and shocks them. In order to accomplish
this, they must deliver lines quickly and realistically. As Kynaston tells
Maria, “Don’t act with what isn’t there.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)