anhcaocomm380

[anhcaocomm380]

*Foucault: Rhetoric as Power*

In this entry, I will explore the critical questions relevant to Foucault’s theory of rhetoric as epistemic: How does the artifact provide an example of discursive formation and its elements? How does this discursive formation evoke a certain sense of power, and how is this power limiting/constraining/unproductive?

To answer these questions, I chose the dinner-table conversations that happen in Asian households as my artifact. While this artifact is somewhat intangible, the short documentary film No Crying at the Dinner Table was able to capture its essence perfectly and thus, I will be referencing the film as illustrations for certain characteristics of the artifact throughout my analysis. In Asian families, most discussions involving mental health are considered taboo. Since mental health plays an important role in everyone’s life, dinner-table conversations in these families often equate to nothing more than idle chit chat and inevitably create the notion among family members that emotional vulnerability is considered a sign of weakness and should not be shown. This “truth” created by the discursive formation that is the dinner-table conversation is unproductive because it is detrimental to both the relationship between the family members and the wellbeing of the family members themselves.

Released in 2019, No Crying at the Dinner Table is directed by Carol Nguyen, a Vietnamese Canadian. The film features interviews the director conducted with her family, which are subsequently played back for the family as they gather around their dinner table. Each family member was asked to share how they handled the loss of a family member and the relationship they had with said family member when he or she was still alive. Through these questions, the family members were able to express their grief, guilt, and other emotions instead of internalizing them. Some for the very first time. Upon hearing the interviews together, the entire family burst into tears, signifying a sense of relief and liberation from finally having the opportunity to get this off their chest - something they often could not do before. While No Crying at the Dinner Table might not have shown any actual dinner-table conversation, one can infer the nature of these conversations from the comments and remarks made by the director’s family members throughout their interviews. In fact, the title of the film comes from a phrase the director’s parents used to tell her when she was a kid. This shows a disapproval with display or discussion of extreme emotions within the family. Unfortunately, this transcends the director’s family and is a cultural burden that many Asian families silently endure. Members of Asian families, especially those belonging to different generations, typically do not engage in conversations about their emotions or mental health (Kwak & Berry, 2010). Applying Foucault’s notion of discursive formation to the dinner-table conversations that happen in these families will help to explore this phenomenon.

Foucault’s theory of rhetoric as epistemic centers around a type of rhetoric that creates knowledge and truth - discursive formation (Foss & Gill, 1987). There are five units that constitute discursive formation: discursive practices, rules, roles, power, and knowledge. While each of these has their own distinct definitions, in reality they are interconnected and can overlap with each other. 

Discursive practices concern the verbal and nonverbal rhetorics and the scenes in which they happen. They compose the context of discursive formations. For most families, dinner serves up more than just food. It gives the family a chance to sit down together after a long day of being apart and share their stories over a meal. Dinner-table conversations, thus, are an important aspect of kinship as this is when most of the communication between family members happens. These conversations can take on different forms depending on a multitude of factors, e.g., the number of family members dining together, the size of the dining room, or even the food served that day, with some having more pull than others. One thing that does have a significant impact on these conversations is the rules - the second unit of discursive formation.

Whether they are formal or informal, rules dictate the nature of discursive formations in a number of ways. For instance, rules allow for certain subjects to be brought up in a discourse while forbidding others. Each family often has its own implicit rules about what topics not to discuss during a family gathering. Maybe it is a troublesome estranged relative or the divorce of some cousin. For Asian families, one of the topics often considered taboo is mental health. As such, it is not brought up for proper discussion among family members. In No Crying at the Dinner Table, when asked about the death of his brother, the director’s father said: “I’m only telling you because you asked. But I have never spoken openly about this,” he says. “Even to this day, I still feel guilty.” While the director knew about the tragedy, this was her first time hearing her father express his feelings about the situation for it was against the rules in her house for family members to share their feelings and subsequently, mental state. Rules also influence the next unit of discursive formation, roles.

Interlocutors are assigned roles specific to a discursive formation. These roles help guide participants, letting them know what to say as well as when and how to say it. In the context of an Asian family, the roles are often that of parents, children, and grandparents. Besides the multigenerational nature, Asian families also differ from non-Asian families in their emphasis on the status asymmetry between each generation, especially that between the parents and the children (Kwak & Berry, 2010). This results in these two roles having a significantly imbalanced relationship. For instance, the director’s sister mentioned in her interview how she would not ask their parents questions during dinner and that it was always the other way around. Since their parents never asked about their daughters’ mental health, the topic naturally never came up for discussion in their household as it would be out-of-role for the daughters to ask their parents such questions. As for the parents, their roles seem to demand them to appear strong and reliable for their daughters, something that was impossible to do had they talked to their daughters over dinner about the hardships they were still facing and not just ones that they had overcome. This notion seemed to be a cultural agreement as it happens in most Asian families. 

The next unit of discursive formation is power. In Asian families, power often manifests itself in patriarchy. The men are considered the head of the house as they are expected to protect and provide for their families. Because of this, they also have the power over others in their families. As mentioned earlier about how the different units of discursive formation are connected to each other, power allows the men to set up rules about the discursive formations that happen in their house. In the patriarchal system, men are pressured to appear tough and stoic, resulting in discussions surrounding mental health rarely being brought up as this topic or any others that might expose the men’s emotional vulnerability are considered to be feminine or womanly and can undermine the men’s manliness. The power the men hold in Asian families also gives them the opportunity to dictate the knowledge that stems from the discursive formations in their families. This is also the fifth and final unit of discursive formation. 

In Asian families, the knowledge created from the discursive formation that is the dinner-table conversations is that emotional vulnerability is weakness and thus, any topics that can elicit it must be avoided, including the topic of mental health. A lack of discussion about mental health can put a strain on the relationship between family members as they are unable to engage in an open dialogue with each other, causing misunderstanding and miscommunication. Additionally, constantly having to keep their feelings and emotions to themselves will most likely affect the wellbeing of these people in a negative way. Thus, the knowledge and power evoked from the discursive formation that is the dinner-table conversations in Asian families are limiting and unproductive.

Reference:

Foss, S. K., & Gill, A. (1987) Michel Foucault’s theory of rhetoric as epistemic. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 386-401.

Kwak, K., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Generational differences in acculturation among Asian families in Canada: A comparison of Vietnamese, Korean, and East-Indian groups. International Journal of Psychology, 36(3), 152-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590042000119

Nguyen, C. (2019). No crying at the dinner table [Film]. Travelling Distribution.

[anhcaocomm380]

Dramatistic Rhetoric

In this entry, I will examine how symbols were used in the artifact that I chose according to Burke’s definition of man as a symbol-using animal. Furthermore, through the examination of said artifact, I will also look to see whether the use of symbols in this case was productive or unproductive for our society.

To answer these questions, I will be reviewing a clip from Good Morning America. It is worth noting that the rhetorical artifact being analyzed is not the clip itself but rather what is being reported in it - a marketing ploy used by the brand Payless. Through this marketing tactic, which has since been dubbed “the Payless Experiment”, Payless shows how consumers use symbols to create realities about the products they are purchasing. Ultimately, the artifact is productive because it effectively got people to question the validity of social constructs such as “luxury” and “social class” and rethink about the conspicuous consumption trend that is becoming increasingly popular in our society.

In late 2018, Payless, an affordable shoes brand, held a pop up event in Los Angeles, California. The brand, however, went through an entire rebrand for this occasion, adopting a new name (Palessi), a new logo, new store decorations, and even hiring new staff members. Everything was different except for the shoes it was selling. Commenting on the event, the brand said: “We built a fake luxury store, filled it with avant-garde sculptures and displays. We even hired a full team of sales associates, then we filled all the shelves with Payless shoes.” By changing everything surrounding the products but the actual products themselves, Payless hoped to “change people’s perception about what luxury should cost.” Fashion influencers in the area were invited to the event, all of whom expressed their admiration for the shoes being sold, describing them as “very European, very upscale,” “elegant, sophisticated,” and something they “could definitely wear to a Met Gala dinner.” These people unknowingly yet happily paid as much as $645 for a pair of shoes that in reality only costs $35. Eventually, all the influencers were told the truth, got their money refunded, and gifted with the shoes they had bought. While the event shocked everyone present and went viral online, what happened there was not anything new. Humans have always relied on symbols to make sense of their realities. Burke talked about this when he came up with the definition for man in 1989: 

Man is

the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal

inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative)

separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making

goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order)

and rotten with perfection.

The event by Payless probably highlights the first clause of Burke’s definition, “Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal,” the best. It is unlikely that anyone would have described a pair of shoes from Payless as “very European, very upscale.” However, the clip shows that changes in the brand’s aesthetic and shopping experience had an impact on the influencers’ views of the shoes. From the Italian-sounding name Palessi to the glamorous store decorations, these symbols helped Payless push the perception of its shoes being high-end, luxurious, and high quality onto consumers without having to actually improve the quality of the shoes. 

This leads to the second clause of Burke’s definition, “inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative.” Burke argued that humans are the only species who can look at something and think of all the things it is not. While it was not stated explicitly in the clip, we can assume that there had been some negative connotations associated with Payless shoes before the event happened. These very same influencers who praised these shoes at the event probably would not have given these shoes a second look under normal circumstances simply because they were not sold by a high-end fashion brand. People would much rather focus on what these shoes are not than what they are - high quality shoes at an affordable price.

The third clause in Burke’s definition, “separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making,” shows just how ridiculous the amount of money people were willing to pay for shoes that they deemed were high-end or luxurious since shoes are not something that need to be high-end or luxurious to begin with. The main role of this product is to help protect people’s feet, and a pair of shoes does not have to cost hundreds of dollars to do that. Yet, people are still content to pay that price tag because they are paying for more than just the utilitarian value. People have come to view shoes for more than just their practical use, equating the items with aspects of their identity like personal style or social class. People are willing to pay more because they expect more.

As mentioned, shoes can be a way for people to showcase their membership of a specific social class. Why this is important can be explained by the fourth clause of Burke’s definition, “goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order).” Social class is essentially a rank system based on people’s perception of someone’s socioeconomic status, and it is the result of our society’s need to classify everything - people included. The higher someone’s social class is, the more influence and reach they seemingly have. Not to mention, people tend to associate only with people belonging to the same class as them. Jaramillo, Kempf, & Moizeau (2001) finds that “the drive toward spending on an otherwise unuseful good comes from the desire to enter clubs and benefit from the provision of club goods financed by members of a club and from a social status effect.” Basically, spending money on high-ticket items is a common strategy people can employ to climb the ladder of social class by changing others’ assumptions about their socioeconomic status. While influencers like the ones invited to Payless’s event have more reasons to dedicate their time and effort to attaining a high social status, the obsession with social class is not exclusive to just them and is more prevalent in our society than we think.

The importance that our society places on social class and other similar social constructs has many real-life negative implications. Societal pressure put on people to achieve high social class can affect their mental health. Conspicuous consumption, a means to advance and maintain one’s social class, has been found to correlate with low level of self-esteem among members of the high social class (Oh, 2021). It is suggested that whenever these people’s self-esteem is down, they engage in this kind of shopping only to maintain their image to outsiders without seeking the help they actually need. Consumption of luxurious good can also lead people to experience the impostor syndrome, a feeling of inauthenticity. (Goor, Ordabayeva, Keinan, & Crener, 2020). Additionally, sometimes people can even be lured into dangerous situations due to the pretense of high social class. The documentary The Tinder Swindler details how a con artist posing as a rich heir could talk multiple people into taking out multi-million dollar loans for him under their names. Another documentary, Inventing Anna, shows a similar story of how a middle class woman tricked people into thinking she’s an heiress and then subsequently took advantage of them. Both these people were able to leverage the positive human traits automatically assigned to the high social class by society such as “trustworthy” and “smart” to scam people. 

The artifact successfully got people to rethink about how they use symbols to create meanings in their every day life. It also made people questions all the problems that can arise from our capitalistic society’s emphasis on social class and status. Overall, the Payless Experiment was a productive artifact that shows how Burke’s definition of man still rings true even today.

References:

Burke, K. (1989). The human actor: Definition of man. In J. R. Gusfield (Ed), On symbols and society (pp. 56-74). The University of Chicago Press.

Good Morning America (2018, November 30). Payless experiment shows people will pay more for brand name [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJdBNYWG4a0

Goor, D., Ordabayeva, N., Keinan, A., & Crener, S. (2020). The impostor syndrome from luxury consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz044

Jaramillo, F., Kempf, H., & Moizeau, F. (2001). Conspicuous consumption, social status and clubs. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 63/64, 321–344. https://doi.org/10.2307/20076309

Oh, G. G. (2021). Social class, social self-esteem, and conspicuous consumption. Heliyon, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06318

[anhcaocomm380]

Aristotle: Ethos and Logos and Pathos

In this entry, I will be examining the critical question of What is the main purpose of this artifact's message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

The artifact I have chosen is Kerry Washington’s commencement speech at the 2013 George Washington University Commencement. A commencement speech is usually delivered at the end of the school year as a way to celebrate the graduates. Therefore, commencement speeches are epideitic in nature (Herrick, 2013). Using the three artistic proofs that are “logos or the arguments and logical reasoning, pathos or the names and causes of various emotions, and ethos or human character and goodness,” Washington showed how she was able to achieve success in life by stepping outside of her comfort zone and how every other graduate can do the same thing.

Kerry Washington used an ethos appeal to come across as a relatable predecessor whose experiences allow her to both empathize with the class of 2013 and give them advice about the next chapter of their life. She said, “But I have to admit that I am even more proud of the GW degree that took me four years, a lot of sleepless night, student loans, study groups, and more than a few drinks at Lindy’s to earn [ . . . ] So I am standing here today in solidarity with you.” By bringing up her own undergrad journey, Washington revealed information that would help other George Washington students relate to her. For instance, the mention of Lindy’s, which is likely a bar near campus, not only provided a much-needed dose of humor to keep the tone of the speech light but also showed that Washington had some insights into the life of a student at George Washington for she had experienced it herself. Through that one detail, she was able to establish her ingroup membership with the students and have them view her as one of their own.

Still, Washington was not these students’ peer. She was a commencement speaker – a role that implies having a certain level of success over the graduating class being addressed. Hence, it was important for Washington to use an ethos appeal to prove that she was an accomplished individual and gain credibility with the crowd. She did so, however, by showcasing the accomplishments of other George Washington alum. She said, “As a proud alum of this institution, I celebrate you and I welcome you into the great lineage and legacy of GW.” She then proceeded to name several notable alums of George Washington University. By mentioning a great legacy to which she was a part of, Washington spoke about her success without actually having to speak about it. If she was able to get a degree from the same school as all those successful people, then surely, she was capable of giving out some advice to young students about to cross the threshold into the work force.

Washington used a pathos appeal to push the graduates to want to be more in charge of their own lives. She said, “When you leave here today and commence the next stage of your life, you can follow someone else's script, try to make choices that will make other people happy, avoid discomfort, do what is expected and copy the status quo. Or you can look at all that you have accomplished today and use it as fuel to venture forth and write your own story. If you do, amazing things will take shape.” While the former way of live is not inherently bad, Washington framed it in a way that made it seem like it would waste the students’ potential.

Finally, Washington used a logos appeal when she used her hero analogy. She said, “I am here today to remind each of you that you are the heroes of your story [ . . . ] Your life is your story. And the adventure ahead of you is the journey to fulfill your own purpose and potential.” The hero metaphor was used frequently in her speech, and it reached the conclusion of her saying that the students were the heroes of their own stories, and their lives were their stories. Thus, they were the heroes of their lives, and the road ahead will be their chance to fulfill their own potential.

Works Cited:

Herrick, J. A. (2013). Aristotle on Rhetoric. The history and theory of rhetoric (pp. 69-87). 

The George Washington University. (2013, May 19). GW Commencement 2013: Kerry Washington [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl08kKKS1lw

[anhcaocomm380]

*Rhetoric as Narrative*

In this entry, I will look at the white savior trope in mainstream media. More specifically, I will focus on how this narrative of a white person being the hero to other non-white individuals can potentially change the general public’s view of historic events. The critical questions I hope to answer are: What is the white savior narrative in film and what truths does it limit or ignore?

The artifact of my chosen is the 2011 film The Help, which was based on the 2009 novel of the same name. By depicting the white character as seemingly having the solution to the black characters’ problems, the movie – and its source material – creates an unproductive narrative that diminishes black people’s agency and distorts the public memory of the Civil Rights Movement, which can lead people to misinterpret U.S. history and movements like Black Lives Matter.

Set in Jackson, Mississippi in the 1960s – at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, The Help follows three women and their lives during a turbulent period in history: Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny. Skeeter is a young and white aspiring writer that comes from an upper-class family. While not an outcast, Skeeter is ambitious and career-oriented, which oftentimes puts her at odds with her girlfriends and mother, who all prioritize their families over their careers. Meanwhile, Aibileen and Minny are black women working as maids in Jackson. Both face the societal injustice that is racism as well as personal hardships in their everyday life, with Aibileen having lost her husband and son and Minny being abused by her husband. Witnessing the racism rampant in her hometown, Skeeter, with a suggestion from her editor, decides to write a book that encompasses stories of black maids working for white families in Jackson. Skeeter enlists the help of Aibileen and Minny for this, and The Help chronicles the women’s journey to publish the book.

Foss (2004) defines narratives through four characteristics. First, a narrative must include two or more events. Second, though these events need not be told in a chronological order, they must be temporally related, meaning that one event must happen either before or after another. This time sequence is the foundation for a narrative’s third characteristic, which is that there should be a relationship between the events mentioned, be it causal or contributing. A previous event might directly cause or simply be a necessary condition for a later event. Finally, all the events in a narrative must concern a singular subject rather than unrelated, different topics. These four characteristics, according to Foss, are what separate a narrative from a set of random statements. In The Help, the timeline is structured around Skeeter’s return to Jackson, with her arrival seemingly sets into motion the other events in the film.

Murphy and Harris (2017) define the white savior narrative in film as “involv[ing] a White lead character—the hero—who engages in paternal/maternal behaviors to ‘save’ people and communities of color.” Films with this narrative are typically created by and for white people. Thus, they tend to gloss over the cruelties of racism in fear of alienating their white audience.  

One way that The Help perpetuates the white savior narrative is with its decision to include Skeeter as one of the main characters. The film explores the racial conflict between the black maids and the white families they work for in Jackson during the 1960s. Yet, one of the protagonists is a privileged young white woman. While Skeeter means well, she has more in common with the oppressors than the oppressed in this situation. One can argue that this move pushes forward the idea of solidarity but by focusing on Skeeter, the movie takes away screentime that could have been used to further highlight the voices and experiences of the black maids. Though Aibileen, Minny, and other black characters are not necessarily sidelined since they are still a big part of the film, the audience is still made to invest in Skeeter’s story while the focus should have been solely on the black characters, considering the historical nature of the film’s setting. In short, Skeeter and her storyline distract viewers from the black characters’ firsthand experience of racism.

Another way that The Help pushes the white savior narrative is with its portrayal of Aibileen, Minny, and the other black maids. These women are depicted as though they are passive in their own fight. The main event that starts everything seems to be Skeeter’s discovery that her childhood maid has been fired, which leads her to want to expose racism on behalf of the other black maids in her community. She was also the one who has to convince the black women to share their stories. The film’s simplified narrative of white savior implies that without Skeeter, there would not have been a battle for equality in Jackson. In reality, black people have always fought to tell their own stories as a way to combat racism. Not to mention, while they are all at risk for trying to publish the book, the stakes are much higher for the maids who do not have the means to move elsewhere should things go wrong. Thus, to have Skeeter being a hero to these black women undermines their agency and overlooks the nuances of the black struggle for justice.

While The Help is perhaps well-intended, its romanticized retelling of the fight against racism in a Southern town during the 1960s comes across as tone deaf due to its use of the white savior narrative. As such, the film misses an opportunity to educate people on the U.S. history of that period and fails to contribute anything to the fight against systemic injustice.

Works Cited:

Foss, S. K. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration & practice. 

Murphy, M. K. & Harris, T. M. (2017). White innocence and black subservience: The rhetoric of white heroism in The Help, Howard Journal of Communications. DOI: 10.1080/10646175.2017.1327378

Taylor, T. (Director). (2011). The Help. [Film]. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.