mollybath

[mollybath]

*Counterpublics*

In this entry, I will examine the following critical question: How does this artifact exemplify an overall productive OR unproductive way to talk across (counter) publics in terms of rhetoric, timing, and circumstance? 

To investigate this question, I will be looking at an Instagram post from June of 2022 on the account “@christian_calligraphy_,” which addresses how those with Christian beliefs should treat Pride Month. This post uses the overarching message of “Love them anyways,” the assimilation of homosexuality to everyday mistakes and wrongs, and a tone of pity to mask its undertones of homophobia and prejudice towards LGBTQ+ people. This exemplifies an unproductive way for a public to talk across a counterpublic because it limits the LGBTQ+ counterpublic and further marginalizes them from the public sphere using rhetoric backed by Christian beliefs and ideals on a platform in which users do not universally follow Christianity.

The artifact I am analyzing was posted on the public Instagram account @christian_calligraphy_ on June 5th, 2022. This Instagram page has a following of 180,000 and consists of many posts similar to the one being examined, with art featuring positive quotes and affirmations relating to Christianity. It has posts and story highlights dedicated to other controversial issues pertaining to Christian beliefs, such as abortion, as well. The bio of the account reads: “Sharing the love of Jesus one letter at a time.” The specific post I am focusing on features one image: an artistic graphic with the phrase “Love them anyways” lettered in 9 different colors. It has received 5,822 likes. The post I am examining specifically is a statement by the creator of the page in which they share their thoughts on how they believe homosexual people should be looked at by Christians and how Christians should respond to the events of Pride Month. The post is labeled under a plethora of hashtags, including ones such as “#prolife”, “#procreatecalligraphy,” “#positive,” “#love,” “#forgiveness,” “#bible,” and “#lgbtqpride,” all of which can make the post visible to people who have interacted with these hashtags.

The artifact being examined exemplifies a public talking across a counterpublic. Habermas defines the public sphere as "a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed" (Habermas 49). It is the assembly of private citizens into a public body (Habermas 49). The idea of a public sphere originated in Europe during the Middle Ages, when the bourgeois represented the public sphere which could bring the needs of the people to the state (Habermas 50-51). It claimed to be open and accessible to all citizens (Habermas 49). A group of people are said to be a public when they have the ability to engage in unrestricted discussion with the freedoms of speech and assembly guaranteed to them. It can be said that Christianity is a public. In fact, Habermas stated that the representative public sphere was first linked to feudal authorities, one of them being the church (Habermas 51). In a world where Christianity is a dominant religion, Christians represent a group of private citizens with the ability to converse freely in the public sphere and bring their discussions to the state. This is seen specifically when religion gets involved in political issues, which happens frequently in the pro-life side of the abortion debate.

Counterpublics, however, are not as privileged. According to Felski, the counterpublic is “an oppositional discursive space” (Felski 155). Members of counterpublics share the commonality of having experienced oppression or marginalization of a sort and do not concern themselves with the ideologies and majority opinion of the public sphere (Felski 167). The LGBTQ+ community is representative of a counterpublic due to its marginalization from the public sphere and the way it has challenged the status quo of heterosexuality through protests, marches and movements to achieve equal rights in society. Similarly to how participation in the discourse of the bourgeois public sphere claimed to be accessible to anyone (Habermas 165), Christians claim to be welcoming of anyone into their religion, or the Christian public. However, just as gender and class severely limited the number of people who could truly participate in the bourgeois public sphere (Habermas 165), the Christian public sphere also has implications for who can and cannot enter, with homosexuals historically being excluded and marginalized from the public with the belief that God created marriage between a man and a woman. The artifact I will examine is an example of how the Christian public uses rhetoric to claim to open their arms to the LGBTQ+ counterpublic, yet still prevents them from being accepted into the public sphere.

The primary way this artifact conceals and validates its marginalization of the LGBTQ+ counterpublic is by centering itself around the theme of love. The calligraphy in the post’s graphic reads “Love them anyways.” A Bible psalm is incorporated into the caption to reinforce this theme, which quotes “‘A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.’ -John 13:34.” Referencing the Bible, the creator gets the message across to Christian users that people must be loved unconditionally. However, the way that the creator views love is not universal: in this post, love is correlated with the following of God. The way the post claims Christians should love the LGBTQ+ community is by leading them to adopt their beliefs. The caption states, “The Bible is clear. Our job is to love others. To lead them to Jesus. To show them His love.” In this circumstance, repetition of the word “love” is problematic because it takes on a meaning in this artifact that is not applicable to those who do not follow the religion. By making use of a strongly positively-connoted word like “love,” it is easy to mistake the message of this post as friendly and inclusive towards the LGBTQ+ community. However, there is no mention of providing love in the form of support, recognition, or resources, the things that are necessary for marginalized counterpublics to sustain their well-being. Instead, the creator contradicts their claims to care for the LGBTQ+ community by saying that the key to loving these people is convincing them to change a part of themselves. Therefore, the true meaning of the word “love” in the context of this post makes it an unproductive use of rhetoric due to the fact that it only suggests ways of loving that coincide with the beliefs of their own Christian public and not with the LGBTQ+ counterpublic who they are claiming to love. 

Another way this post appears to be inclusive of the LGBTQ+ counter public but actually rhetorically limits them is with its comparison of homosexuality to the mistakes that Christians and heterosexual people make on a daily basis. The creator begins this comparison by prefacing “Homosexuality is a sin,” a common belief of Christians that comes from the Bible’s claim that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. The caption later appears to counter the judgment of homosexuality by asking users to consider their own sins as equivalent or just as sinful as theirs. The creator writes, “When is the last time YOU sinned? What sin do you struggle with most? What have you done wrong in the first 24 hours?” By affronting Christians in this way, it appears that the intentions of the creator are to lessen judgment toward the LGBTQ+ community and foster a sort of equality between the public and counterpublic. The creator goes on to say, “ALL sins are equal in God’s eyes. They ALL lead to death. Your constant gossip is no better than somebody else’s homosexuality. You are NOT more worthy of heaven because homosexuality isn’t a sin you struggle with.” Here, the creator calls out the hypocrisy of hatred towards homosexuals for committing a sin when in reality, Christians commit sins as well. As much as this could be viewed as a productive use of rhetoric for taking some of the heat off the LGBTQ+ community, it is still not productive in terms of improving equality between the public and counterpublic. Comparing attraction to the same sex with mishaps such as talking badly about someone behind their back is still harmful to the LGBTQ+ community and continues to transmit the ideology that homosexuality is wrong. If Christians and others interacting with this post receive the idea that being homosexual is a mistake, the LGBTQ+  counterpublic will continue to be looked down upon and become further separated from the public sphere. This kind of analogy could also be damaging to the self-esteem of any LGBTQ+ identifying person who stumbles upon this post, who will see that their sexual identity is being deemed as a screw-up. 

The tone used in the caption of this artifact comes across as pitying and patronizing with the intent supposedly being to show sympathy towards the LGBTQ+ counterpublic. In reality, it comes across as condescending and still reveals oppression of the counterpublic. In concluding the caption of the post, the creator suggests that the readers of the post “Pray for their hearts. That they would meet Jesus and that He could fill that empty void that is in their hearts.” In this statement, the creator uses wording that makes it seem as if LGBTQ+ people are victims suffering from a sort of condition (i.e. “empty void in their hearts'') that Christians are responsible for curing them from. By advising people to pray, it seems although they care deeply for these people and their well-being. However, the seemingly caring and concerned dialect being used when discussing members of the LGBTQ+ community in this post is only confirming their lower status in society. Patronization is also at play when the creator uses the term “struggles'' in reference to the homosexual lifestyle. An example in the post reads, “HE is greater than any of their struggles.” Typically, when someone is struggling, human instinct tells us to help them be rid of their struggles. By telling the audience that homosexuality is a struggle, it characterizes those in the LGBTQ+ community as victims who need to be rid of their sexual identity. Choosing this sort of tone for this post enables the creator to come across as caring while they simultaneously tell the audience that homosexuality needs to be exterminated. Praying for and pitying same-sex lovers is simply an extension of homophobic feelings, and hoping that their identities will change and they will become Christian is not a productive way to show love and inclusivity to the counterpublic. Feeling sorry for those in the LGBTQ+ counterpublic is only further isolating them from the public sphere.

Social media and other online spaces are typically places for counterpublics to take part in oppositional discourse and challenge the status quo without as much interference from the public and the state (Lo 140). Iris Po Yee Lo’s “(Dis)Engagement with queer counterpublics: Exploring intimate and family lives in online and offline spaces in China” is a study which discusses the role of Internet in the LGBTQ+ counterpublic and the factors to which Chinese lesbians, or “lalas,” either find empowerment from or find themselves wanting to distance themselves from the online counterpublic. The definition Lo uses in the article is similar to the definition used by Felski. Lo says counterpublics are “discursive spaces that enable groups who are aware of their subordinate status to articulate and develop their identities, interests, and needs in opposition to the dominant group and norms” (Lo 140). In a place like China where homosexuality is still not widely accepted, Lo wanted to discover how online experiences of “lalas” impacted their family lives and romantic relationships as well as the constraints imposed on their exploration of their sexuality online (Lo 141). Lo claims this study differs from existing studies of the online LGBTQ+ counterpublic, which focus mainly on political engagement, by focusing on everyday life and notions of family and tradition (Lo 150). The study found that while online counterpublic presence helped some participants challenge heterosexual norms and come out to the public, some distanced themselves from these online spaces due to wanting to focus on themselves or their careers or due to participants feeling as if the familial and societal obstacles they were presented with in China prevented them from achieving the same successes (such as same-sex marriages) shown online (Lo 145-149). The study concluded that “any counterpublics facilitated by cyberspace continue to be subjected to the mainstream, still-heteronormative social environment” (Lo 150).

 This study supplements my argument that the Internet is not always a place for those in the LGBTQ+ counterpublic to be shielded from the views of the public and the state. The dominant, heteronormative Christian values disseminated and normalized by the artifact are limiting to the LGBTQ+ counterpublic in a similar way that the prevailing Confucian values of traditional family structures in Chinese society limit Lo’s participants from partaking in the online counterpublic space (Lo 142). Lo’s study revealed that offline factors such as societal pressures dissuaded Chinese lesbians from taking part in the online counterpublic (Lo 142). If the pressure to conform to heterosexual norms offline is enough to discourage homosexual people from having a voice in the online counterpublic, then the exposure to strongly heteronormative views in online spaces as well, such as in the artifact I am examining, is sure to cause these marginalized people to stray away from being part of the counterpublic altogether. The rhetoric that the creator of the post on @christian_calligraphy_ uses builds onto the existing stigma around homosexuality and the LGBTQ+ counterpublic by normalizing and even romanticizing the preservation of heteronormativity and the isolation of homosexuality from the public sphere. In places where same-sex relationships and marriages are still frowned upon, whether that be in Confucian China or Christian America, this artifact would both contribute to the further isolation of the LGBTQ+ community from the public sphere and disassemble the safe space that they have created to challenge the ideas of the public sphere online.

Today, people are turning more and more to social media platforms to seek the information they need to form opinions and make decisions in their daily lives. People of all demographics and cultural backgrounds visit these platforms. Despite the rhetoric that the creator of this post uses to claim that the Christian public is loving of anyone regardless of their sexual orientation, the post remains an unproductive way of talking across the LGBTQ+ counterpublic due to the fact that its creator took advantage of their large following on a platform with a multitude of users to spread the idea that homosexuality should be viewed as wrong. The post’s central message of “love” does not promote acceptance and inclusivity towards homosexual people, it rather promotes guiding them towards the love of their God and attempting to conform them to Christian ideals. The comparison of homosexuality to other “sins” like gossip does not soften judgment toward homosexuality, it further reinforces that homosexuality is wrong. The tone of pity towards the “struggles” faced by homosexuals does not arouse sympathy for the oppression they face, it characterizes their sexual identities as a malformity or disease that homosexuals are victim to that needs to be cured. If the post were to truly promote the message of “love them anyways” during Pride Month, the “anyways” would be excluded to say that the LGBTQ+ community should be loved, recognized, and given the same resources without having to conform to the individual beliefs of others that are projected onto them.

Works Cited

Felski, Rita. “The Feminist Counter-Public Sphere .” Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, pp. 164–174.

Habermas, Jurgen, et al. “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964).” New German Critique, no. 3, 1974, pp. 49–55., https://doi.org/http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-033X%28197423%290%3A3%3C49%3ATPSAEA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z.

Lo, Iris Po Yee. “(Dis)Engagement with Queer Counterpublics: Exploring Intimate and Family Lives in Online and Offline Spaces in China.” The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 73, no. 1, 22 Jan. 2022, pp. 139–153., https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12913.

Sam [christian_calligraphy_]. “Love Them Anyways.” Instagram, 5 Jun. 2022, https://www.instagram.com/p/CebM8AyryWU/?next=%2Fchristian_calligraphy_%2F&hl=en.

[mollybath]

*Aristotle: Ethos and Logos and Pathos*

In this entry, I will examine these critical questions: 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?

To investigate these questions, I examined Barack Obama’s Weekly Address on Opioid Addiction with Macklemore. In this artifact, Macklemore uses the Aristotelian proofs of Logos, Pathos and Ethos to achieve his purpose of raising awareness about the growing problem of opioid abuse and encouraging people to support Obama’s plans for making treatment more accessible for those struggling with addiction. The way that these appeals are used is ethical because they help the audience understand the seriousness of a growing public health epidemic, with the intention of preventing more lives from being lost. 

In this speech, hip-hop artist Macklemore joined then-president Barack Obama to talk about the growing issue of opioid and prescription drug addiction in the United States. The Weekly Address was given on May 14th, 2016, when the epidemic of opioid addiction was at an all time high, with a sharp increase in deaths (“FACT SHEET”) as well as forty-four percent of the American population stating that they knew someone who had an addiction to painkillers (Firth et. al). Macklemore, a well-known figure, had struggled with opioid addiction himself and spoke alongside Obama in this Weekly Address speech about his experiences with prescription painkillers, his recovery, and other losses he experienced as a result of drug addiction (“Barack Obama Weekly Address”). The speech occurred three months after Obama proposed $1.1 billion of funding in his budget going towards better access to treatment options for prescription drug abuse and to build on state-level overdose prevention strategies (“FACT SHEET”). Obama brought in Macklemore as a recognizable public figure who could further explain to the public why his proposal, and other efforts in addressing the addiction crisis, were so critical. 

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle would have labeled this speech by Obama and Macklemore as deliberative oratory, one of the three rhetorical settings he recognized. Herrick provides explanation for these rhetorical settings as well as Aristotle’s other views on the subject of rhetoric. He explains that Aristotle defined deliberative oratory as speeches concerning the future, and aiding in the decisions for what kinds of things should be done to address issues (Herrick 76). As part of deliberative oratory, the audience, or krites, judge, based on the speech, which policy or plan is the most beneficial course of action, or sympheron, for the community to achieve well-being, or eudaimonia (Herrick 75-76). Examining the artifact of Obama and Macklemores’ Weekly Address Speech, it precisely fits Aristotle's definition of deliberative oratory. The krites, or audience of the speech, make the judgment of whether or not to adopt Obama’s policies and plans of action for addressing the U.S. problem of opioid addiction, which are what Obama deems as the best plan of action, or sympheron, to improve well-being, or eudaimonia, by providing more treatment options to those in need. The overall goal of deliberative speaking was to establish policies and form plans of action towards achieving this well-being (Herrick 76). In this case of deliberative speaking, the goal of Macklemore is to help gain support for Obama’s policies, which aim to improve well-being by helping those impacted by opioid abuse. Aristotle argued for the importance of the study of rhetoric by calling it an art of its own, or a techne (Herrick 72). Rhetoric, he thought, is powerful and socially beneficial in that it is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (Herrick 72). It was different from Plato’s idea of dialectic because it had the ability to make messages comprehensible to larger and less educated audiences (Herrick 84). Rhetoric is effective in reaching these larger audiences because, unlike dialectic, it uses character and emotion alongside argument (Herrick 71). Aristotle introduced three artistic proofs, or entenchnoi pisteis, in arguing these characteristics of the study of rhetoric: logos, pathos, and ethos (Herrick 78). Each of these artistic proofs are revealed in the persuasion that Macklemore uses in this artifact to achieve his goal of promoting Obama’s policies which support the well-being of those impacted by the American epidemic of opioid addiction. 

Logos refers to the logical reasoning or argumentative aspect of rhetoric (Herrick 78). However, unlike dialectic, it centers around practical decision-making and argumentation rather than factual and evidence-based decision making (Herrick 79). In this artifact, Macklemore uses a Logos appeal to make the argument that we need better access to drug addiction treatment because it is a disease and therefore can harm all kinds of people. He says in the speech, 

“Addiction is like every other disease–it doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t care what color you are, whether you’re a guy or a girl, rich or poor, whether you live in an inner-city, a suburb, or rural America. This doesn’t just happen to other people’s kids or in some other neighborhood. It can happen to any of us.” 

This argument is what Aristotle would refer to as an enthymeme. An enthymeme is part of a syllogism which leaves unstated several of the premises of that syllogism in the speech (Herrick 74). However, the enthymeme is constructed based on commonly-held and accepted ideas and therefore is understood by the audience, who are able to fill in the missing parts to complete the syllogism (Herrick 75). In this case, the argument, or conclusion, is that we should support accessible treatment to cure those diseased by drug abuse. The major premise that is missing in this enthymeme would be that we want to cure diseases that are harming people. This is a statement of common sense, therefore the audience can fill in this major premise even though it is not explicitly stated. A minor premise that is stated explicitly by Macklemore in the speech is that addiction is a disease, and that this disease is harming all kinds of people. Another minor premise missing from the speech is that treatment can cure diseases, which is generally accepted by the audience as common sense knowledge. The enthymeme is thus completed by the audience as they combine the things they already know with the things Macklemore is telling them. As a result,they can reason with his argument that we need to cure the disease of addiction that is harming all people by providing better treatment. Therefore, this use of Logos is effective for the purpose of the speech in that it helps Macklemore persuade his audience that opioid addiction is a serious problem for society and it provides reasoning behind the plans for optimized treatment for abuse victims that Obama has proposed.

Pathos refers to the stimulation of an audience’s emotions for the purpose of persuading them to take action or make a certain decision (Herrick 78-79). The emotional responses of the audience members impact their judgment and influence their reasoning (Herrick 79). Aristotle examined the emotion of fear specifically, describing fear appeals to the audience as deriving from three fears most of us share (Herrick 80). The first common fear he mentions is “the fear of death or physical harm, either to ourselves or loved ones” (Herrick 80). In the Weekly Address speech, Macklemore uses a Pathos appeal to cause the people to feel sad about the loss that opioid addiction has already caused to him personally and instill in them a fear of losing their own loved ones, which will move them to view the addiction epidemic as a life-or-death situation that needs to be addressed. He says, “I didn’t just know someone – I lost someone. My friend Kevin overdosed on painkillers when he was just 21 years old.” By recounting his own tragic loss of his friend Kevin, Macklemore is able to reach the emotions of the audience and elicit a fear they are all likely to share: the death of someone close to them. Responses of fear are crucial to this speech, as these worries of opioid addiction taking the lives of their loved ones are what will move the audience to view opioid abuse as an issue causing deaths to people’s loved ones and encourage them to support further action to prevent the grief and tragedy that comes with addiction. Hence, the Pathos Macklemore employs in his emotion-packed tribute to his friend supports his overall purpose of making the audience aware of the graveness of opioid addiction and guide them towards viewing the strategies Obama plans to implement as ones that will save lives. 

Ethos, the last and, to Aristotle, arguably the most persuasive of the three artistic proofs, refers to the character and credibility of a speaker and their ability to gain the trust of the audience (Herrick 80-81). Macklemore uses an Ethos appeal to appear as a survivor of opioid abuse who can testify to the severity of addiction and the significance of treatment to addiction victims. He establishes this characterization as the first thing he says in the speech, saying “I’m here with President Obama because I take this personally. I abused prescription drugs and I battled addiction.” Right off the bat, Macklemore ensures that the audience understands how his character as someone who battled addiction himself makes him someone they can trust to speak about opioid addiction. Aristotle claimed there were three components of character (Herrick 80). Phronesis is the first of three parts of character that Aristotle distinguishes between when discussing Ethos, meaning intelligence and good sense (Herrick 80). Part of the character Macklemore develops as a recovered addict relates to his knowledge of what addiction is like, and the sense he has for the issue that comes from experiencing it firsthand. This is Macklemore’s Phronesis. Macklemore testifies his knowledge of treatment and recovery by stating “I know recovery isn’t easy or quick, but along with the 12-step program, treatment has saved my life. And recovery works.” Since Macklemore has identified himself as someone who has experienced the battle of addiction, the audience is able to trust the sense that Macklemore has for how effective treatment is for addicts. The other two components of character are arete and eunoia, meaning virtue and goodwill respectively. Macklemore displays both virtue and goodwill in the way he uses his characterization as a recovered victim of addiction to prevent others from facing the same battle he did. He says in the speech, “If I hadn’t gotten the help that I needed when I needed it, I definitely would not be here today. And I want to help others facing the same challenges that I did.” By claiming that his position as someone who experienced addiction firsthand is something that he can use to help others in the same shoes, he establishes both virtue, or arete, and eunoia, or goodwill in that he is using his character in a moral way that will benefit others. Overall, these three components of character persuade the audience that Macklemore is someone with a broad knowledge of drug abuse and that he is a person of morals. This characterization establishes trust within the audience and boosts the credibility of Macklemore as a speaker. That being said, the characterization Macklemore develops for himself throughout this speech as a survivor of drug abuse results in the audience developing a belief for how valuable treatment is to addiction victims, a belief that will help execute his main purpose of gaining support for the plans for accessible treatment that Obama is offering.

The way that Macklemore uses the artistic proofs of rhetoric is mostly ethical for society. Macklemore is a celebrity figure who may be seen as a role model to many of his fans, and the intentions behind his appearance at the Weekly Address speech with Barack Obama are out of a timely interest in the health and well-being of society. The speech occurred at a time period when the amount of deaths resulting from the use of prescription drugs was reaching a high, and the overall intentions behind the speech as a whole were to alert the public about the epidemic with the overall goal of saving lives. Although this was a speech that had political motive behind it, the policies that Obama was attempting to promote by inviting Macklemore to speak with him on the matter were meant to benefit the welfare of society by helping those struggling with addiction seek the help they need. The policies are not beneficial to Obama himself, they are beneficial to people like Macklemore who have experienced addiction either firsthand or secondhand (or, in Macklemore’s case, both), making this an ethical use of rhetoric by Macklemore. It can be assumed that Macklemore simply wanted to ensure that less people would have to go through the hardships that he did and that more people would be fortunate enough to receive the same life-saving treatment. Most importantly, the speech’s ethicality comes from the fact that it brings the discussion of opioid addiction out into the open, which contributes to the reduction of the stigma associated with addiction that prevents many from seeking the help they need. 

Although this artifact’s use of the artistic proofs is overall ethical, there are a few ways in which Macklemore’s use of Logos, Pathos, and Ethos could be argued to be unproductive for society. In terms of Logos, the claim that addiction is simply a disease that anyone could be harmed by is a bit of a broad and oversimplified statement of the issue, and it ignores that there could be common factors leading to the development of a drug addiction that should have been acknowledged to shape the way the issue is tackled. The fear that Macklemore causes the audience to feel using the Pathos appeal in regards to addiction has the potential to have the wrong effect and cause people to look down on those who have addictions rather than take action in their favor, which bolsters the pre-existing stigma surrounding the issue. The Ethos that Macklemore uses to establish his credibility as a survivor of addiction could be viewed as unproductive because of his celebrity status and his need to uphold his reputation, which could make his claims that he is a person of goodwill and knowledgeability biased in his own interest. However, these unethicalities are all hypothetical and do not override the morality underlying Macklemore’s intentions.

The use of Macklemore as a guest speaker alongside Obama was an effective choice for the Weekly Address on Opioid Addiction. The Aristotelian appeals that Macklemore employed in his portion of the speech achieved his goal of making the public aware of the problem that opioid addiction has become and encouraging them to support plans for making treatment more available for those who need it. The use of Logos helped the audience understand that addiction can impact people of all kinds, the use of Pathos made the audience fear that addiction could take the lives of someone dear to them, and the use of Ethos established Macklemore as a credible speaker on the subject because of his characterization as an opioid abuse survivor. Wrapping all of these appeals up into the few minutes of the Weekly Address that Macklemore spoke, he effectively used rhetoric in an ethical way that will bring the issue of addiction out of the shadows and promote better healthcare plans for the many who are struggling during the prescription drug epidemic. 

Works Cited

“Barack Obama Weekly Address on Opioid Addiction with Macklemore.” Translated by Michael E Eidemuller , American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank, American Rhetoric, 14 May 2016, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/weeklyaddresses/barackobamaweeklyaddictionmacklemore.htm. 

“FACT SHEET: President Obama Proposes $1.1 Billion in New Funding to Address the Prescription Opioid Abuse and Heroin Use Epidemic.” The White House President Barack Obama, The White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2 Feb. 2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/02/president-obama-proposes-11-billion-new-funding-address-prescription. 

Herrick, James A. “Aristotle on Rhetoric.” The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, 5th ed., Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, pp. 69–81. “Weekly Address: A Conversation About Addiction.” The White House President Barack Obama, Office of the Press Secretary, 14 May 2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/14/weekly-address-conversation-about-addiction.

[mollybath]

*Rhetoric as Narrative*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s): What central narrative(s) does this artifact tell about me or U.S. culture or a certain group of people through how it rhetorically sets a scene, constructs characters, and/or sets up events? In which ways is this narrative (ethically) productive for society, in which ways is it limiting, and is it more productive or limiting? 

To investigate these questions, I examined a YouTube video published by the Heartland Institute. The video, titled “YouTube Personality Naomi Seibt Joins the Heartland Institute,” shares with their viewers the narrative that climate change is natural and the claim made by climate scientists and environmental activists that humans are causing the demise to the future of our planet is not a real issue we need to be concerned with. They do this by developing the character of Naomi Seibt as a protagonist and a representative of the younger generation, developing the contrasting characterization of climate science supporters as the antagonistic enemies to society, and by using Pathos to play on the audience’s emotions of fear. This narrative is ultimately limiting to society as it goes against factual scientific evidence, prevents action from being taken, could contain bias, and instills unnecessary fear and conspiracy. 

The Heartland Institute is a free-market, nonprofit public policy think tank established in 1984 that is commonly affiliated with right-leaning politicians and ideologies against government regulation. Their official web page states that their mission is to “discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems” (“About Us”). Their most well-known viewpoint is the denial of climate change science. The organization frequently receives funding from “donor groups” such as ExxonMobil and other carbon-based industries who profit off of the ideas Heartland promotes (Boykoff and Farrell 123-24). They have a team of staff whom they deem as scholars and professionals who publish books, podcasts, news articles, and videos on this issue. Their YouTube channel is one place where they publish informational content. In 2020, Heartland hired the German, then-nineteen-year-old Naomi Seibt. Seibt, who already had a YouTube channel devoted to right-wing political activism, was hired as a member of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, where she would get paid to produce videos aimed at younger people (“Naomi Seibt”). This brief two-minute video from February of 2020 features Seibt introducing herself to viewers and establishing her viewpoints on climate science. 

The video provides a narrative view on climate science. Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch explain that a narrative is a symbolic representation of an event, not to be confused with the event itself (Palczewski et. al 118). The statement that the The Heartland Institute artifact makes that climate change is natural and not a serious issue that will harm future generations is classified as a narrative because it is not a factual evaluation of the event of climate change, it is how the event is viewed by a certain group of people. According to these authors, effective narratives have two common characteristics: plot and character development. Plot is “the ‘chain of causation’ of events within a narrative’” (Palczewski et. al 129). In the video, a causal relationship is outlined, with the course of nature, rather than human-related events like burning fossil fuels, being established as the cause of the event of climate change. Character development describes “the actions of and relationships among actors within the story” (Palczewski et. al 129). In the narrative established by the video, The Heartland Institute develops the character of Naomi Seibt as the young protagonist guiding other people like her away from the enemy characters: those who believe in and support climate change ideologies. To write this essay, I am using the four-step narrative method of criticism process outlined by Foss: selecting an artifact, analyzing the artifact, formulating a research question, and writing the essay (Foss 335). I have selected the YouTube video published by The Heartland Institute as the artifact; then I will analyze it by identifying dimensions of its narrative (Foss 335) such as its characters and audience and by providing an explanation to the narrative (Foss 335) that climate change is harmless to future generations; I will answer the research question stated in the first paragraph about what narrative the video tells about a certain group and whether it is ethical; and I will use these guidelines to write this essay. 

One of the key characteristics of an effective narrative is the development of characters (Palczewski et. al 129). This YouTube video promotes the narrative that climate change is not a serious issue that will harm the future and the people present in it by using the character of Naomi Seibt as the protagonistic spokesperson for the younger generation. The title screen at the very beginning of the video signals her characterization as a young person early on; using bubbly music, an animated sparkly border, and pink lettering; stereotypical teenage-girl aesthetics which invite other youth to continue watching. In this same clip, there is an image of Seibt placed directly against a similar image of Greta Thunberg, a young influencer who has brought much of the young generation together in the fight against climate change with the argument that it could affect their future. In this opposing narrative; Thunberg acts as the young, inspiring teenage protagonist. The Heartland Institute recognized the effectiveness this narrative has had in using a young role model, and mimicked this strategy by employing an equivalent young character who aligns herself with their own narrative of climate denialism. Seibt’s teenage character is also shown through the language she uses. She assures viewers of the video that “Twelve years from now, we will still be around, casually taking photos on our iPhone 18s, tweeting about the current president on Twitter, and ranting about the latest celebrity gossip.” Here, Seibt characterizes herself as the typical teenager and relates herself to other youth by naming some common teenage activities such as Tweeting and gossiping. Seibt’s young personality is important for the climate denialism narrative. The younger demographic is a group that the organization has largely failed to influence with their ideas due to fears that climate change will affect their future. By proposing a role model who proves to be just like them, unlike most of the older staff members of their organization, The Heartland Institute attempts to reach this audience and reassure them that younger people like Seibt should not worry about humans causing climate change, because it will not impact their future.

Narratives use character development to create relationships between the people in the story (Palczewski et. al 129). In this particular story, there is a relationship established between Seibt and her opponents, in which people who support the belief that human-induced climate change is harming the planet are characterized as the villains whom Seibt, the story’s protagonist, is protecting society from. While Seibt is characterized as a positive influence for her audience due to her suppression of their anxieties about climate change, coaxing them in her video with words like “I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think,” those who do worry about climate change and its effects on the planet are demonized and ridiculed. One instance in the video which demonstrates this antagonistic characterization of climate science activists is when Seibt warns her audience that “We are currently being force-fed a very dystopian agenda of climate alarmism.” By stringing together sentences of negatively-connoted words such as “force-fed,” “dystopian,” and “alarmism;” the audience is more likely to perceive this group as the enemy character in this story and reject their ideas. This characterization is further developed by the overdramatized framing this video uses of the opponents’ belief that climate change is worsened by human activity. She claims that climate scientists “depict you as an energy-sucking leech on the planet.” She makes another claim earlier in the video specifically aimed at the younger generation, stating that the opponent says “young people, especially, have no future.” By framing the belief of human-induced climate change as a tactic by the opponent for offending and placing blame on other humans, viewers, especially younger viewers, are more likely to perceive the opposite side of the issue as hostile in their own defense. The development of this relationship in the narrative is essential. Without the characterization of climate science supporters as the enemy, the audience has no reason to turn against their ideas and adopt the narrative of Naomi Seibt and The Heartland Institute.

Another way The Heartland Institute and Naomi Seibt establish the narrative that climate change is natural and harmless to future generations is by appealing to Pathos to involve the audience and make them feel fearful of the consequences of supporting climate change ideas. One way that Seibt evokes fear in the audience is by discussing how climate change beliefs affect our personal relationships. In the video, she exclaims that the belief that previous generations have ruined the planet and their futures is “breaking relationships, it’s breaking up families.” Seibt then brings up another personal subject, mental health. She claims that “many people are actually developing mental disorders and referring to them as ‘eco-anxiety’ and ‘eco-depression’”. Additionally, Seibt mentions how climate change science affects personality. She threatens the audience that climate scientists will “get into your brain and take away all of your passionate spirit.” Family, mental health, and personality are values that all of us hold close to ourselves. By telling the audience that the belief of climate change will negatively impact these values, Seibt intends to make them feel threatened, intimidated, and overall fearful of exhibiting such ideas. The Heartland Institute's goal is to take advantage of this fear and encourage people to not let concerns about climate change damage their personal values, therefore persuading them to adopt their narrative instead.

The narrative that Naomi Seibt and The Heartland Institute are promoting in this video that climate change is natural and harmless is mostly limiting for society, with only a few potential ways it could be productive. One way this belief could be productive, although it may be a stretch, is to provide temporary relief to those who truly struggle with anxiety-related disorders who consistently have fears about the deterioration of the planet. Another way that this narrative could be productive is by showcasing the conspiracies and opinions against climate science that many people exhibit. By providing evidence for the fact that there are many people, even young people, who do not believe that we need to take environmental action, people may realize the need for better education on climate science and even more environmental action. Artifacts like this video are evidence that many people still do not take climate change seriously, which shows how much progress we still need to make to improve the conditions of the planet. 

There are several ways in which the narrative that climate change is not a serious or human-induced issue is limiting to society. First of all, this narrative completely disregards the scientific facts behind climate change that have proven that global warming exists and that carbon dioxide levels are increasing every year due to human activities. Although Naomi Seibt claims in this video that the narrative she is sharing is backed by science, she does not cite any kind of evidence in support of her claims. Spreading this kind of narrative is also dangerous because it discourages any kind of action from being taken to protect the environment, action that is important regardless of personal opinions on climate change. This narrative only promotes the further digression of our planet and its living things. This narrative could also be biased by financial motives. The Heartland Institute and other advocates of climate denialism frequently receive funding from carbon-based industries, who profit from people who support this narrative, therefore it may not be reliable. Finally, the narrative that climate change is merely an “agenda” intended to harm us evokes unnecessary fear and conspiracies in its audience. In reality, the belief that climate change is happening and is caused by humans is not likely to harm our personal lives, and the intentions behind climate scientists are not nefarious like this narrative portrays them to be. Therefore, the narrative that The Heartland Institute promotes in this video is mostly limiting to society. 

Having mentioned some of the features of narratives in general, Raul P. Lejano examines features present in the kinds of narratives like the one that The Heartland Institute video artifact promotes. Lejano writes about factors that cause the creation and belief of the climate denialism narrative and related narratives. He explains that climate denialism stemmed from political operatives supported by free market organizations along those with financial ties to carbon industries  (Lejano 415). The Heartland Institute is an example of one free market organization against government regulation that is financially supported by carbon industries. However, Lejano claims that there is a bigger reason why so many people adopt the narrative of climate skepticism. He states that “Ideological division undoubtedly lies at the heart of the climate science debate” (416). He further explains that a narrative driven by an ideology isolates itself from any other narrative, and that as a group adopts a narrative, it becomes more and more extreme and dismisses any ideas from the “out-group” (Lejano 416). This is evident in the video being analyzed, as Naomi Seibt does not provide any actual reasoning or scientific evidence for her stance, and instead immediately characterizes the environmental activist “out-group” as the enemy and makes her audience fearful of their intentions and ideas. Lejano explains that the climate denialism narrative is based on a broader meta-narrative that can be applied to a plethora of other social issues. Some traits of this meta-narrative include rejection of socialism and governmental control, aversion to the new and unknown, and fears of the loss of the traditional social order (Lejano 418). The meta-narrative Lejano describes is evident in the Heartland Institute video. Seibt’s warnings that concerns about climate change will break families apart and cause unnecessary panic reveals fear of disrupting the social order of family relationships and her claim that the “agenda” will control people’s minds reflects The Heartland Institute’s condemnation of governmental control. The summary of Lejano’s argument is that “public opinion was never about the science to begin with,” (Lejano 416) which is something that is made clear in Seibt’s introduction video, which lacks any scientific evidence.

Using the narrative method of criticism established by Foss, I have written this essay to analyze how this video artifact introducing Naomi Seibt, found on the official YouTube channel of The Heartland Institute, constructs characters and uses dimensions such as the audience to ultimately answer the research question of which narratives are whether they are productive for society. In summary, the video supports the narrative that climate change is not a real issue that humans cause or that is threatening to our future. One way it promotes this narrative is through the character construction of Naomi Seibt as the protagonist member of the younger generation, which intends to influence the opinions of younger people and provide credibility for Heartland’s narrative that the future will not be harmed by human-induced climate change. However, the narrative would not be complete without the demonization of climate science supporters, which characterizes them as the antagonists to society and intends to give viewers a reason to turn against them. The audience is used as a dimension of the narrative as well when the video appeals to viewers’ emotions, using Pathos, and takes advantage of the fear they instill that climate change beliefs will negatively impact some of their deepest personal values. Overall, the narrative that climate change is not a serious or human-caused issue that will affect future generations like environmental activists and climate scientists say it will is a limiting one due to its ignorance of scientific facts, its discouragement from taking environmental action, the bias it could have from supporters being financially backed by carbon interest, and the unnecessary fear and conspiracy it inspires. 

Works Cited 

“About Us.” The Heartland Institute, Heartland Institute, 2022, https://www.heartland.org/about-us/index.html. 

Boykoff, Maxwell, and Justin Farrell. “Climate Change Countermovement Organizations and Media Attention in the United States.” Climate Change Denial and Public Relations: Strategic Communication and Interest Groups in the United States, Routledge, New York, NY, 2020, pp. 121–139.

Lejano, Raul P. “Ideology and the Narrative of Climate Skepticism.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 101, no. 2, 1 Dec. 2019, pp. 415–421., https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-16-0327.a. 

“Naomi Seibt.” DeSmog, DeSmog, https://www.desmog.com/naomi-seibt/. 

Palczewski, Catherine Helen, et al. “Narratives.” Rhetoric in Civil Life, Strata Publishing, Inc. , 2012, pp. 117–146. 

“YouTube Personality Naomi Seibt Joins The Heartland Institute.” YouTube, uploaded by The Heartland Institute, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxX-1cWSvVc&t=61s. Accessed 26 Sept. 2022.