Idiocracy and Refuting Brawndo

The above videos are an advertisement for the beverage Brawndo and a discussion that roots out the cause of a fictional future America’s widespread dustbowls. In Idiocracy’s dystopian United States, corporate advertising (along with rampant reproduction, a broken education system, etc.) has led the people, both base and noble, to believe Brawndo is the ultimate source of liquid nutrient for anything and everything. They even literally believe in the drink’s slogan, “It’s got what plants crave!”, and have applied it to their crops for years thus causing the deterioration of once fertile soil and the nation’s shortage of food. In Gorgias, Plato’s Socrates says the bad rhetors “strive for gratifying the citizens and, for the sake of their own private interest, make light of the common interest, and associate with the peoples as if with children, trying only to gratify them, and giving no heed to whether they will be better or worse because of these things” (502e). The US in Idiocracy functions in intemperance and those in charge, the unrestrained and profit-hungry manufacturers of consumer goods like Brawndo, encourage this lifestyle to secure their own financial gain. Socrates would look at the marketing of Brawndo, its consequence, and the state of the nation with contempt, blaming it all on the shameful flattery of the bad kind of rhetoric.  

Although Socrates spends much of his time in Gorgias criticizing the sophists, he does not believe rhetoric is completely useless. Like it is primarily used, it is abused for selfish reasons in the way Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles describe to pursue/preserve power and to defend oneself. Rhetoric’s proper use is not a matter of might or superiority or security, for these all partake in hiding what is true... according to Socrates, the just use for rhetoric is “to not hide the unjust deed but bring it into the open” (480c). For the rhetor to be useful to the people, he/she must be like a doctor to a body. Socrates suggests this when he asks Callicles, “Is it that of fighting with the Athenians so that they will be as good as possible, as a doctor would do, or as one who will serve and associate with them with a view to gratification?” (521a). Callicles’s choice to serve is wrong. One must fight and refute what is not good regardless of whether this will please or not.

Luke Wilson’s character in Idiocracy functions this way when he is continually confronted by the effects of abused rhetoric in the future. When he challenges the use of Brawndo, he challenges a convention developed over time by the drink’s manufacturer. He does not care about what pleases the people of this future because he recognizes Brawndo’s exploitation of their indulgence in pleasure is utterly wrong, unhealthy, and unjust. Wilson, then, is what Socrates would consider a good rhetor not because he can speak well and persuasively but because he is adamant on what will be best for the people despite being discordant to popular opinion. 

Plato. Gorgias. Trans. James H. Nichols Jr. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. Print.

The Sophists and Socrates vs. American History

The Declaration of Independence, one of the most famous documents in American history, can be closely connected with the convoluted debate of the ancient rhetors in Gorgias; despite Kasttely's claim that Plato strongly disagreed with Democracy.  It has been commonly said that America’s democracy mirrored the politics of ancient Greece and Rome,  I had never examined the pre-democratic documents which allowed  America’s progression towards a democracy and have influenced the nation ever since. When reflecting on Declaration of Independence one  will usually immediately think of the quote: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."While Socrates and Callicles  debate whether men are actually created equal or if there are superior men, they do agree that justice is equal for all; “So then are the lawful usages of these people fine according to nature, since they are stronger…don’t the many customarily hold…that having an equal share is just…” (Socrates 489a pg80). While the United States’ Declaration of Independence does state that “all men are created equal,” there are still hierarchies present in our present society as discussed by the ancient rhetors. Much of our class system today is designed around levels of education as Socrates and Callicles assert: “Aren’t you saying that the more intelligent man is superior?”  To further show common class systems, while the US’ current society does not hold slavery in high regard (to put it mildly) at the time of its inception, many of the writers of the Declaration owned slaves , as did the ancient Greeks .  In fact, Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration originally described slavery politics in relation to the soon-to-be sovereign States, however these contents were unfavorable among the signers.

"He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred   rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."  (Library of Congress)

Thomas Jefferson was reportedly that the entire paragraph of the draft Declaration was removed. Under the Gorgias discussion it was recognized that slavery was a bad thing for men under tyranny .The Declaration and Gorgias both discuss “Laws of Nature” in reference to men and justice. There is also the commonality in the discussion of justice for the good of the many and the good of the individual:

“Or do these men too strive for gratifying the citizens and, for the sake of their own private interest, make light of the common interest, and associate with the peoples as if with children, trying only to gratify them, and giving no heed to whether they will be better or worse because of these things.” (Socrates 502e  pg99)

Perhaps one of the most apparent commonalities is the discussion of happiness and what it means to be happy: “He who wishes to be happy must, it would seem, pursue and practice moderation, and each of us must flee intemperance as fast as his feet will carry him; and one must most of all prepare to have no need of punishment but if oneself or some of their of one’s own—whether private man or city—needs it, one must apply the just penalty and punish, if he is to be happy.” (Socrates 507d pg105) Pursuit is a key word in both the Declaration and in Gorgias. This pursuit must not be inhibited by an overlord in either document; that in order to protect such pursuits those under tyranny should be able to speak and rebel:

"That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its  powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In Callicles’ words:

“It is therefore in reference to themselves and their own advantage that they set down laws and praise their praises and blame their blames .”(483b pg73) “Since how would a human being become happy while being a slave to anyone at all? No, this is the fine and just according to nature, which I am now telling you outspokenly: the man who will live correctly must let his own desires be as great as possible…Because for those for whom it is possible from the beginning to be either sons of kings or themselves by nature sufficient to supply for themselves some rule of tyranny or dynasty—what in truth would be more shameful and worse than moderation and justice for these human beings, and that they, who can enjoy the good things…should impose a master on themselves, the law and speech and blame of the man human beings? “ (492b pg84)

Popular movie which references
 the Declaration of Independence
Disney 2004)

The impact of the Declaration of Independence is astounding. It is quoted constantly by politicians, in movies, and by the general public as a document many consider a great American “Truth.” After reading Gorgias it amazes me that the founding fathers of the United States had the foresight to create another monumental document, The Constitution , as a living document; capable of being changed for a different way of thinking.  From the  analysis of the Declaration in its likeness to this Socratic Dialogue, perhaps some of the founding fathers’ prudence is due to the respect of the Sophists' for different cultural views. 

Works Cited:

"Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence | Exhibitions - Library of Congress." Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence | Exhibitions - Library of Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Sept. 2012. <http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffdec.html>.

Plato, and James H. Nichols. Gorgias. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1998. Print.

United States. The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. Washington, DC: U.S. G.P.O., 2009. Print.

Evil Rhetors in The Lord of the Rings 

In J. R. R. Tolkien's epic fantasy trilogy, The Lord of the Rings there are several types of communicating dark and evil characters. They may be primarily divided into two groups, each of which is rhetorically distinctive from the other. The first and lowest level group is the brutal and rhetorically crude foot soldiers of the powerful, such as Orcs, whose names, harsh voices and speech are unpleasant to hear. These lovers of cruelty and killing do their master's bidding relentlessly, but have no rhetorical skills, display the basest emotions and often fight among themselves. Sam was able to rescue Frodo from imprisonment in the Orc tower when the Orcs holding Frodo began killing each other in anger and jealousy.

The second level of evil characters are the Rhetorical specialists who use speech to manipulate, control and ensnare others with their verbal webs. They are close advisers to the powerful and the powerful. Who ever first said, "work smarter, not harder" could have been talking about these types. These fictional and non-fictional speech weavers are the ones who give the Sophists' view of rhetoric a bad name. For example, Bernard Madoff, now serving a 150 year prison sentence for running the largest Ponzi scheme in U.S history, must have been a master of Sophist techniques. As a former non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange he had the credibility and rhetorical skill to convince his wealthy clients to believe in him and give him billions of dollars with the expectation of probable further enrichment. Poulakos notes that, according to Robert L. Scott,  "...rhetoric moves beyond the domain of logic and, satisfied with probability, lends itself to the flexibility of the contingent." A film currently being made by HBO about Madoff is called The Wizard of Lies and is based on the book of the same name by Diana Henrigues.

The Wizard Saruman and his subordinate Grima Wormtongue, however, both use their speech and voices to usurp power and manipulate others. "...in the case of speeches," says Gorgias in Enconium of Helen, "...some distress, others delight, some cause fear, others make the hearers bold, and some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion." Gandalf describes Wormtongue's effect to King Theoden just after Wormtonge's expulsion from Theoden's court, where he had been the King's advisor. "And ever Wormtongue's whispering was in your ears poisoning your thought, chilling your heart, weakening your limbs, while others watched and could do nothing, for your will was in his keeping...he was crafty: dulling men's wariness, or working on their fears, as served the occasion."

In The Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric, John Poulakos states, "For the most part, what compels a rhetor to speak is a sense of urgency." "...during times of stress, we feel compelled to intervene and with the power of the word, to attempt to end the crisis, redistribute the justice, or restore order." Gandalf warns Pippin as their party approaches the Tower of Orthanc where Saruman is contained after his defeat by the Ents. "What's the danger?" asked Pippen. "A wild beast cornered is not safe to approach. Saruman has powers you do not guess," explained Gandalf, "Beware of his voice!" Then Saruman, in "crisis" and anxious to "restore" his power, "spoke low
and melodious, it's very sound an enchantment....it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves....none rejected it's pleas and commands without an effort of mind and will, so long as it's master had control of it."

In The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers the primary heroic characters often sing and recite poetry as a mark of their intelligence and nobility of character. No Orc would recite an epic poem. Bilbo Baggins is a writer of repute, and in The Hobbit won the Ring from Gollum by means of cleaver speech. These forms of communicative arts are a mark of gentility and goodness.

In The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Tolkien used various rhetorical styles and Sophistic themes and techniques to mold his "evil" and "good" characters in the world of Middle Earth. The beauty of the speeches, poems and songs capture the reader's imagination regardless of generation. The enduring popularity of the trilogy is a testament to the success of his rhetorical genius.

Realizing the "possible" with Yoda

According to Gorgias, speech “can stop fear and banish grief and create joy and nurture pity” (45). Speech is powerful, and perhaps not even Helen of Troy could escape its grasp. As a Sophist, Gorgias promotes rhetoric as a force to be reckoned with and also as a highly stylistic art form. It is not just what you say but how you say it. Many have argued for and against the sophistic movement, and where all the different points converge is around the idea of truth. The author of Dissoi Logoi goes to great pains to reveal what is good and bad, just and unjust, etc. depends on context. The Greeks may have done something a certain way, but the Thracian culture was completely different. The same idea can be applied to speech. Different audiences call for different modes of speaking. Waiting for kairos-that “opportune moment”-is essential for one to be effectively persuaded (Poulakos, 40).   

The rhetorician takes a risk when he speaks to a certain audience; he must choose his words wisely in order to show the listener the possible truths of what may come. Yoda displays this in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back as he trains Luke Skywalker. His words are inverted which stylistically adds thoughtfulness to everything he says. The master causes Luke to question his inability to complete what seems like an insurmountable task. Even with a statement such as “Do or do not. There is no try,” Yoda urges Luke to reconsider the ideas the young Jedi has already established in his mind. Luke must “unlearn” what he has already learned and think beyond what he has been taught. Through this speech, Yoda persuades him to “use the force.” 

But in order to persuade, there must be an element of truth present. Isocrates casts a negative light on those who “pretend to search for truth” and “attempt to deceive us with lies” (72). Can truth be found in something other than fact such as a passionate display of words? Or is truth always just in a firm statement? Isocrates admits that the ability to know the future cannot be found among humans. However, in a general sense, the Sophists take words too far and promise potential students that through Sophistic study “they will know what to do in life” (72).

I believe the Sophists would respond to this claim with the idea presented by Poulakos in that they aim to discover the “possible” of a situation (36). Man may not be able to immediately recognize what is “possible” if his views or thoughts are clouded. He is caught between the present and the future. Poulakos reveals “the rhetorician tells [him] what [he] could be” (43). From this viewpoint, truth becomes situational. Truth comes with kairos and in a way that cannot be predetermined. As noted before, Yoda presents Luke with what is possible. He causes the young Jedi to question his original thought. Luke still had to make a choice, but the power of Yoda’s words helped persuade him. In Poulakos’ words, the possible “rejects permanence and favors change; it privileges becoming over being” (44). This change occurs across the spectrum of situations, and it is up to the rhetorician to determine how he will make the most of that change.  

The Rhetorical Drugs of Breaking Bad

Breaking Bad, scene from episode 507 "Say My Name"

I am splitting this clip from last week’s episode of Breaking Bad at 3:30. My discussion of this scene, and vaguely the series, will cover the dialogue between Walt White and his competitor/potential distribution partner Declan from a Sophist perspective as well as an analysis of Walt’s alias ‘Heisenberg’ as logos.

According to Gorgias, “The effect of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies” (Encomium 46). Ironically, my subject of choice is the dialogue between two men who deal with methamphetamine, the infamous cook Heisenberg/Walt and the distributor Declan. Drugs modify the body in some way, particularly when it is inflicted with some sort of problem. There are a variety of reasons one would use meth, but those are not my concern. In this dialogue, Declan is comparable to an inflicted body, Walt to the drug. Declan’s infliction is exploited by Walt: distribution of a lower quality product than can be made; Walt can modify Declan’s business: supply of the highest quality product on the market. Obviously, Declan’s reason to use Walt solves a problem.

But is Walt selflessly selling himself?

Of course, Walt is not concerned with Declan’s problem. The cook has his own issues to solve. Walt realizes that he needs Declan to continue cooking, to further his empire... and he also realizes that Declan needs Walt for the same reason. Perhaps it is better to say Walt is not concerned with Delcan’s problem insofar as he can use it to his advantage.

Poulakos explains, “the rhetor is asking the audience to discover at least one reason why the conclusion suggested should not be the case. Should they fail, they ought to adopt what he says; should they succeed, they have grounds on which to reject what he advocates” (46). Walt’s speech follows this to a T. He begins blatantly by stating he needs distribution. He is rejected immediately but proceeds to focus on Declan’s needs, suiting the conclusion for his own problem to fit the distributor. Walt asserts the faults in Declan’s product, playing with to dynaton. He pushes actuality onto Declan, then tells “[him] what [he] could be, brings out in [him] futuristic versions of [himself], and sets before [him] both goals and the direction which lead to those goals” (Poulakos 43). This occurs when Walt states, “you already ate my product at every turn, but now you have the opportunity to sell it yourself” (“Talked”). Returning to the drug/speech analogy, Walt as the rhetor is the drug and Declan as the audience is the body... Walt identifies the infliction, the problematic actuality within Declan’s business and his product... then suggests a solution, the exclusive opportunity to sell the ultimate product in the near future.

Moving on to the second portion of the above video, Walt uses ‘Heisenberg’ as the final driving force in his and Declan’s dialogue. Walt associated himself with the name Heisenberg since the first season of the show, and its meaning has come a long way from ridiculous to respect, or even fear, since then. But what is ‘Heisenberg’ if not logos? Gorgias states, “logos arises from external things impinging upon us, that is, from perceptible things . . . logos is not evocative of the external, but the external becomes the revealer of logos” (On the 46). According to Gorgias, ‘Heisenberg’ is not something external, but rather, an evoker of external things. For example, for meth consumers, the DEA, the Mexican cartel, or other meth distributors in the world of Breaking Bad, the blue stuff would evoke ‘Heisenberg’. To each, ‘Heisenberg’ is inapprehensible because it is something both same and different to each along the same lines of dualism in The Dissoi Logoi. I would go so far as argue that ‘Heisenberg’ isn’t even a person, but instead, the collection of externals and actions that have come to be associated with the alias. ‘Heisenberg’ does not exist but is evocative of existents.

In conclusion, Walt White is successful, in this particular circumstance, because of his grasp of a sophistic rhetoric... one which understands the situational power to exploit possibility against actuality and logos. However, this is just a four minute sample from a longer episode from an even longer series, and Walt/Heisenberg is far from the perfect rhetor. Even in this episode, Walt falters under others’ logical speech and even his own irrationality. 

Gorgias. Encomium of Helen. The Rhetorical Tradition, 2nd Ed. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 44-6.

---. On the Nonexistent or on Nature. The Older Sophists. Ed. Rosamond Kent Sprague. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001. 42-49.

Poulakos, John. “Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 16.1 (1983): 35-48.

“Talked About Scenes Episode 507 Breaking Bad: Say My Name.” Breaking Bad. AMC. Web. 3 September 2012.

“Worst Responders”: Rhetoric of The Daily Show

Before taking their winter hiatus in December 2010, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart produced a nine-minute segment that addressed the Senate Republican filibustering of the Zadroga Act. The Zadroga Act, officially the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, would provide health care to 9/11 first responders, many of whom suffer from cancer and other illnesses that are a direct result of their exposure to toxic chemicals during their relief efforts.

The Daily Show: "Worst Responders"

Although the act would eventually be signed and enacted by President Obama, at the time of The Daily Show’s airing of this segment, the Act had only passed in the House and was being filibustered (delayed) by the Republican Party in the Senate due to their objections over how funds for the bill ($7.4 billion) would be raised (Hernandez).

In “Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric,” John Poulakos defines the practice of rhetoric as “the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible” (36). Poulakos then breaks this definition down into criteria for rhetoric using three Sophistic terms: kairos, to prepon, and to dynaton. These three criteria can be found in this Daily Show segment, and, in fact, their presence makes Stewart’s message even stronger. 

Kairos, or the opportune moment, addresses the timeliness of the speech. According to Poulakos, for rhetoric to be persuasive, the rhetor should feel there is a “sense of urgency” (39). In this case, The Daily Show writers and Stewart believed that the major news networks weren’t giving the issue the coverage that it deserved, and unless they informed their audience, the Senate Republican party would continue their filibustering, and the act wouldn’t pass.

Stewart also mentions at the beginning of the segment that this show would be the last before The Daily Show went off the air for their Christmas break. The coinciding of the coverage of the event with the Christmas season might just be a coincidence, but it still gives a heavier emotional impact than if the coverage was, say, in the middle of June.

To prepon, or the propriety of the speech, depends heavily on its context. While Stewart has, on many occasions, referred to The Daily Show as just a comedy show, there have been many instances where the tone turns serious. For example, Stewart’s first post-9/11 address and his criticism of CNBC’s Mad Money host, Jim Cramer. The inclusion of serious topics on the show is not unfamiliar to its audience and can definitely be seen as appropriate. In fact, since the show mainly deals with humor, when it does take the time to focus on more serious topics, it seems to bring more weight to those issues.

To dynaton, or the possible, is the aspect of this particular speech that makes it special. Stewart and the writers of the show saw an opportunity to not only call out major news networks on their lack of coverage, but they also realized that they were in a position to bring attention to a serious issue. On January 2, 2011, President Obama signed the Zadroga Act, putting $4.2 billion dollars into the World Trade Center Health Program, five years after the first bill failed to pass (Barrett and Bash). The White House credited The Daily Show for reigniting the push to pass the act (Madison).

Sources:

Barrett, Ted, and Dana Bash. "Congress Passes Revised 9/11 First-responders Health Benefits Bill." CNN Politics. CNN.com, 22 Dec. 2010. Web. 3 Sep. 2012.

Hernandez, Raymond. “Republicans Block U.S. Health Aid for 9/11 Workers.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 9 Dec. 2010. Web. 3 Sep. 2012.

Madison, Lucy. “White House Lauds Jon Stewart for Pushing Passage of 9/11 Health Bill.” Political Hotsheet. CBS News, 21 Dec. 2010. Web. 3 Sep. 2012.

John Poulakos's view of Rhetoric in Harry Potter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr1q8C1SPlA

The moment I want to focus on begins at 2:50 in the video when Neville steps forward to challenge Voldemort.

In John Poulakos's article "Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric", he says that

 "what compels the rhetor is a sense of urgency. Under normal circumstances, that is, under circumstances in which we are composed and things are 'under control,' there is no pressing need to speak. But during times of stress, we feel compelled to intervene and, with the power of the word, to attempt to end a crisis, redistribute justice, or restore order...When a rhetor speaks, he responds to a situation. But the fact that he speaks now, the fact that he has chosen this moment over another reminds the listener that the situation is ephemeral, urgent, and, by implication, significant" (39-40).

For those of you who have never seen Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2, the boiled down plot is that Harry has to kill Voldemort. At the point of this video, Harry has given himself up in order to save everyone else because he has just learned that only with his death will Voldemort effectively be killed. Voldemort, being a tyrant without mercy or love, brings Harry's dead body before the crowd of Harry's allies and friends, trying to sway them to join the forces of evil since their champion is now dead. It can be argued that Voldemort is not an effective rhetor because he uses fear and force to try and persuade instead of appealing to logic, and the right kind of emotion. His use of rhetoric is based entirely on hate and fear.

Neville, the character whose speech I would like to address, is a coward for much of the Harry Potter series. Though lovable, he is not the brave soul many perceive Harry to be, which makes this moment even more impactful. His speech is short and to the point, and given under urgent circumstances, which is, according to Poulakos, what really compels speech.

 The goal of Neville's speech is to rally the troops, to make everyone keep fighting against the evil that's before them. As someone who never stands up to speak, he is the only one who sees the need for a voice of reason in the time of doubt and fear. His cry "Harry's heart did beat for us! For all of us! It's not over!" is a huge appeal to the emotion of all the listeners, and ultimately brings Harry back into the fight as well.

Another reason that Neville's speech is an example of good rhetoric according to Poulakos is that it isn't rehearsed. "Prepared speech texts betray our insensitivity to and insecurity about all that is contingent in the act of speaking...an accomplished speaker has no need for notes or a text, rehearsal, or presituational practice" (40). Neville did not spend time writing out his speech, nor did he think ahead of what he was saying. He let the moment dictate his response, and as a result, instilled his whole heart into what he was saying. The same cannot be said of modern politicians, however, that is a post for another time.