tessawallace17

[tessawallace17]

The Power Within Augustana’s Masking Among Students

In this entry I will examine the critical questions: What is an example of a discursive formation and its elements? How does this discursive formation evoke a certain sense of power? What are the implications?

To investigate these questions I’ve examined my own life and have chosen to examine masking on Augustana’s campus as my example of discursive formation. This example of masking on Augustana’s campus places power on my peers, which may be used against each other in a negative way. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic may be coming closer to ending, but the impact it has had on this year will not be forgotten easily. The behaviors learned from this pandemic have had both positive and negative effects on our campus. Some of the positive effects include, more people washing their hands, courses adapting to technology, and no longer coming to class when you are not feeling well. The negative effects aside from the mental health impacts on the students and faculty may be hard to shake off. Accountability is something I have always appreciated about this campus, along with the socially aware staff and students. However, I believe that the power my peers may have felt this year regarding holding other students accountable was borderline toxic. Holding others accountable is important, but using information against others is not ok. 

Foss and Gill explain Michael Foucault’s rhetorical theory of discursive formations by breaking the idea down. Thes formations are broken down to practices, rules, roles, power, and knowledge. To further explain the idea of discursive formations to the reader an example is given of Disney World. Disney world is critiqued using the above categories to lay out where the power lies at Disney World. 

When you apply the theory of discursive formation on Augustana’s Masking among students it is clear that the power placed on peers has proven to be harmful. Though many students at Augustana want to keep the campus safe from COVID-19 I believe that the social practices are no longer focused on protecting each other, rather shaming each other. 

Discursive practices for this example include nonverbals, tweets, and gossip. Foss and Gill clarify that the term “is not limited to written and spoken discourse but includes non-discursive acts as well”. While it is difficult to see full non-verbal communication when interacting with people in masks, a lot can still be seen through the eyes. In moments when people are caught not following rules on campus when it comes to masks you will definitely be able to see negative nonverbal messages sent from other students if they see it. Along with non verbals, there are also examples of written messages from students calling out students on social media platforms like twitter and snapchat. These messages usually then blow up to more discursive practices like gossiping about who was breaking what rules and which group they belong to. 

The Rules for the example of Augustana’s Masking fall into two categories. Foss defines rules as “principles or procedures that govern a discursive formation”. The first category of rules regarding this formation are rules given to us by the school/CDC. These rules are pretty self explanatory, it is clear where they come from and most students follow them. These rules come to us by email and change in accordance with the levels of COVID-19. The second set of rules regarding my formation are rules created by social pressure, or more traditionally informal rules. These rules include keeping on your mask at absolutely all times even if you’re alone outside, telling on your peers if you see them break a rule, and shaming the groups that the rule breakers come from. The informal rules stated developed not long after the year started and have not changed much based on updated COVID-19 information. The informal rules were more inspired by social pressures and not wanting to be “canceled” on our very small campus. 

The idea of roles applied to this example both fall on student peers. Foss explains that roles can be understood as  “discourse, rather than the rhetor, serves as the organizing principle of discourse”. For this example the role is given by who is critiquing whom for their rule following/masking. The role is accuser and accused, often making the situation almost as dramatic as the roles sound. 

Power in this example is where all the trouble stems from. Foss defines power from Foucault as so “the overall system, process, or network of force relations spread through the entire discursive formation”. The power in this situation is given to the student who chooses to accuse another student of breaking rules. This confrontation can be done by an anonymous submission to the school or any of the above mentioned discursive practices. Power here comes with a sense of higher mortality than the accused student. Even if the accused was not breaking formal rules from the school, the power still is held by the accuser. An even higher sense of power is felt if the accused student and a group they belong to is punished for alleged rule breaking. 

The knowledge or truth to this example is that the students in power believe that their truth is holding a higher morality and that they are keeping the campus safe. Foss defines knowledge as “whatever is considered to be truth in a discursive formation”. The reality is that there are multiple truths. Keeping our campus safe is important, that is an important truth. Holding a sense of higher morality than others however, should be less important.

All of these put together form the discursive formation of Augustana’s Masking among students. About half of this formation seems very reasonable. As someone who is proud to say they never caught COVID-19 and was safe throughout the pandemic I can understand some of the rules and interactions in the formation. What I don't understand is the toxic behavior I’ve seen this year as a result of this formation. I believe that this year caused a major power struggle between students when given the opportunity to self police their peers. It caused so much hate, gossip, and ruined relationships due to the risk of being called out. What was important at the start of the year became less important when people started using this formation to attack peers they did not like. While I do not see a way that anyone could have known this would happen, it was hard to go through for many students including myself. 

Focusing on posting on social media in regards to Augustana’s Masking among students, I found an article relating to this practice. The article I found by Piper Liping Liu was a study on personal responsibility as it relates to social media use during the pandemic. Though this article takes more of a statistical approach I liked its focus on social responsibility. I also thought it made the most sense to connect with my discursive formation due to the use of social media among college students. The study found that as the use of social media increased that the measure of social responsibility in regards to the pandemic also increased. The reasoning behind this was not found, but if the same results were found at Augustana I believe that I could hypothesize why. Along with being more aware of the news going on through use of social media, there was also a huge trend in shaming rule breakers of COVID19 on social media. Being exposed to this shaming I believe would deter an individual from making the same mistake, resulting in more social responsibility. 

In summary, I am glad that this mess of a year is almost over. It caused problems in far too many areas of life and I truly believe that it affected the way Augustana students will interact with each other for a long time. The discursive formation of Masking at Augustana among students placed too much power in my peers and resulted in negative consequences. 

Works Cited

Foss, S.K, and Gill, A. (1987). Michel Foucault’s Theory of Rhetoric as Epistemic. Western Journal of Communication, 51 (4), 384-401

Liu, Piper Liping. “COVID-19 information on social media and preventive behaviors: Managing the pandemic through personal responsibility.” Social science & medicine (1982) vol. 277 (2021): 113928. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113928

[tessawallace17]

Critical Localism and the ASL Community

In this entry, I will examine the critical question How can the idea of critical localism be applied to an artifact to help us understand rhetorical practices and/or ideas of an underrepresented group?

To investigate this question, I’ve examined a youtube clip from the news titled “Nic Zapko: The ASL interpreter we can't stop watching” as my rhetorical artifact. In the artifact it is shown that critical localism contributes to how non deaf individuals (public) learn about how deaf individuals communicate best. 

This news clip from Minnesota’s news channel KARE11 chronicles the story of an ASL interpreter named Nic Zapko who went viral for her ASL work for local politicians. We see clips from the local meetings where Zapko is signing, and her style is very animated. Zapko does not shy away from facial expressions that are exaggerated to go along with her American sign language. We then hear from Zapko as she speaks on why she signs the way she does. Zapko explains that the reasoning behind her lively expressions is to convey something that rhetoric relies on which is tone. Zapko also explains that closed captions are not enough for deaf viewers to understand sufficiently, ASL is almost always needed. The video closes out with the reporter once again, first explaining how the chain of communication works with a deaf ASL entrepreneur then the reporter emphasizes that Zapko’s style of AS does not change the meaning of the words she is communicating. 

Steven R. Goldswig in his article Multiculturalism, rhetoric and the twenty‐first century explains that multiculturalism should be a big part of the focus of rhetorical studies. Goldswig explains that rhetoric shapes our lives and that there is a responsibility to include more multicultural ideas. Along with this push for multiculturalism, Goldswig highlights the concept of Critical Localism. Goldswig defines critical localism as such “critical localism focuses our attention on the discourse of local communities, practices, and cultures. This includes theorizing about the communicative actions of indigenous and/or marginalized peoples and employing critical practices as sites for understanding both rhetorical invention and reception” (276). Once there is an understanding for the concept of critical localism there can be more space made for the public to learn about underrepresented groups. Learning about underrepresented groups first helps place more of an emphasis on these groups rather than the corporations. 

Applying the idea of critical localism when thinking of the youtube clip of how Nic Zapko communicates best can help us understand a rhetorical act from an underrepresented group. Zapko breaks down the movements she does to communicate with her audience in the video. The reporter explains “by emphasizing words [Zapko] compares to what many of us seek in tone” (1:05-1:07). This quote shows that the tools Zapko uses to communicate with her audience is very comparable to the tools the public uses to communicate best. Even the building blocks of effective communication by the deaf community are unknown to the public, unless they were to learn this themselves. At another point in the video it is explicitly stated that Nic’s expressions “are not meant to editorialize or sensationalize whatsoever” (2:12-2:18). This quote shows that there is a public understanding of how facial expressions are understood and that in this case it is wrong. Prioritizing that Nic’s way of communicating is what is best for her underrepresented group. If we learn about the different ways groups communicate at a younger age, maybe disclaimers would not be needed. A great way for more of the public to understand rhetorical practices of underrepresented groups is for them to be educated about it from a young age. Bringing in deaf individuals or an ASL interpreter to a class would be a great way for kids to learn how other kids can communicate best. 

In summary, the artifact demonstrates to the viewer that there are other ways that individuals communicate most effectively. These strategies to communicate can change based on need and it is important to learn about these specific needs. When you apply the concept of critical localism to the video of Nic Zapko you can understand a rhetorical practice of an underrepresented group.

Works Citied

Steven R. Goldzwig (1998) Multiculturalism, Rhetoric and the Twenty‐first Century, Southern Communication Journal, 63:4, 273-290

KARE11. “Nic Zapko: The ASL Interpreter We Can't Stop Watching.” YouTube, YouTube, 9 June 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFhODGGRPQQ. 

[tessawallace17]

Clueless Debate Speech

In this entry, I will examine the 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 a speech given by the main character Cher Horowitz in the movie Clueless. The main purpose of this artifact's message is that oppressed people, specifically Haitians, should be allowed to seek refuge in America. While the speech is under informed the appeal to the audience is both effective and ethical.

The movie Clueless was released in 1995 and chronicles a shallow high school girl named Cher Horowitz who is for lack of a better adjective, clueless. Cher attempts to be perfect in all facets of her life including getting perfect grades. While she is able to fake it in many of her courses and trick her teachers into raising her grade, she is unable to fake it in her debate class. This speech comes to us as proof of how oblivious Cher is to her teacher’s instruction. While Cher’s teacher is not a fan of her speech, her peers are. 

Herrick (2013) breaks down Aristotle and rhetoric. He first begins by explaining the history of Aristotle and rhetoric, then he defines rhetoric. In order to define rhetoric Herrick breaks it down even further for the reader to better understand. After lengthy definitions Herrick introduces the three artistic proofs; Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Logos is described as the logic behind the words and the thought that is put into what you are saying. Herrick explains that Logos was important to Aristotle but not what he thought to be the most important artistic proof. The next artistic proof is Pathos, or “The psychology of emotion” as Herrick titles it. Pathos is all about emotional appeals and manipulating how your audience is feeling. In order to appeal to emotions effectively you must understand the psychology behind them. The final artistic proof is Ethos, where the focus is on the speaker's character. Herrick emphasizes that Aristotle thought this proof to be one of the most important for a successful speech. Understanding Ethos, Logos, and Pathos is especially important in order to answer this entry’s critical question. 

Cher uses Logos in her speech to emphasize her main purpose of the artifact's message that oppressed people, specifically Haitians, should be allowed to seek refuge in America. The first example of ethos or logic in this speech is when she uses the Haitian people as an example for her argument. Cher states “So, OK, like right now, for example, the Haitians need to come to America. But some people are all, ‘What about the strain on our resources?’” (0:08-0:16). Bringing up a real life example to her audience so they may understand her point better is a good strategy for the class seeing and following her logic. Another example of this is at the end of the speech when Cher declares “In conclusion, may I please remind you that it does not say ‘RSVP’ on the Statue of Liberty” (0:45-0:50). This statement wraps up Cher’s speech and while the statement may be misguided, it appeals to the audience’s logic which is on the same level of Cher’s. Technically speaking, her statement is true and to the audience that is enough logic to persuade them. 

Cher uses Pathos in her speech to emphasize her main purpose of the artifact's message that oppressed people, specifically Haitians, should be allowed to seek refuge in America. An example of Pathos in the speech is seen when Cher tells the audience a story about her father’s 50th birthday party and relates it to the debate issue. Cher explains that the party was a sit down dinner party which she requested RSVPs for. Cher chronicles the story by saying “But people came that, like, did not RSVP. So I was, like, totally buggin'. I had to haul ass to the kitchen, redistribute the food, squish in extra place settings” (0:25-0:35). By telling the audience her story and making sure to include her emotions she takes the audience on a journey with her. From this point in the story the audience may feel stressed out and frazzled just like Cher did. She concludes the story by saying “but, by the end of the day it was, like, the more the merrier!” (0:35-0:38). This now brings the audience to feelings of relief, satisfaction, and happiness because Cher’s story had a good ending even though it had a rocky start. Cher ties the story in by saying “And so, if the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians” (0:38-0:44). By using this story and the emotional journey it takes the audience on, then applying it to the problem at hand the audience is manipulated into believing the journey will be the same. The audience believes that if Haitians are allowed to seek refuge in America, it may be stressful at first but in the end it will all be happy! Just like Cher’s emotional story. 

Finally, Cher uses Pathos in her speech to emphasize her main purpose of the artifact's message that oppressed people, specifically Haitians, should be allowed to seek refuge in America. Cher’s character credibility is a little more subtle than the other examples. From the movie we know that Cher’s social standing is high at the school so it is understood that she already holds character credibility to her peers in the audience. To back up this credibility Cher references current events, her life experiences, and the Statue of Liberty. By referencing current events Cher shows the audience that she is well-informed and educated. By referencing her own similar life experiences she shows the audience that she knows the situation very well and that she has solved problems before. Lastly by referencing the Statue of Liberty Cher ties in infamous symbols of America to her ideas, making them seem more credible. 

While the speech given by Cher Horowitz in her debate class isn’t traditional, it is effective to her audience as well as ethical. Understanding that the speech is meant for the audience in the movie and not a serious audience of critics in 2021 is very important. The argument can be made that Cher’s speech is uninformed and not politically correct but those are arguments from an outsiders point of view. This speech is also meant for comedic purposes in the movie, so judging it seriously is not appropriate. Along with Cher’s speech being effective to her audience it is also ethical. Cher does not lie to her audience or manipulate their emotions in a negative way. Comparing her father’s party to refugees seeking assistance may be a little out of touch but to her audience it makes perfect sense and is relatable. Cher’s speech is not out of her character and is meant with true compassion, even if it is out of touch with reality. 

In summary, Cher’s main purpose in the artifact's message is that oppressed people, specifically Haitians, should be allowed to seek refuge in America. Cher uses Ethos, Pathos, and Logos effectively to achieve this purpose. When put in context, Cher’s efforts to convey this message to her audience is both effective and ethical. 

“Clueless - Debate.” YouTube, uploaded by Paramount Movies, 25 Jan. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF8ULuzcnUc.

Herrick, James A. “Aristotle on Rhetoric.” The History and Theory of Rhetoric, Fifth Edition, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, pp. 69–87.

[tessawallace17]

Narrative of Born in the U.S.A.

*Narrative of Born in the U.S.A.*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What central narrative does this artifact tell through its rhetorical elements? In doing so, what values does it promote and ignore (who does it include and exclude)? 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 the song “Born in the USA” by Bruce Springsteen as my rhetorical artifact. The song shares a critical narrative about how Vietnam War veterans were treated after they returned home. While the song was ethically productive it was widely misunderstood.

The song “Born in the U.S.A.” was released in 1984 by Bruce Springsteen as the lead song on his “Born in the U.S.A.” album. Springsteen’s song came into the world 9 years after the Vietnam War had ended, and while President Ronald Regan was in office. Though the song was released nine years after the end of the Vietnam war, the repercussions of the polarizing war were still lingering. The song became a leading hit off the album and onto America’s radios. The song's popularity soared but the public didn’t seem to understand the message behind the lyrics. 

Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch (2012) explain that narratives are not the events themselves but stories we create about the event. The narratives we create around the event help us remember it. These narratives become our memories and two narratives from two different people from the same event do not have to be the same. Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch state that narratives “make sense of events of your life by placing them in relation to one another” (120). Foss (2004) explains narrative criticism and gives a step-by-step guide to analysis. These steps include identifying the setting, characters, and narrator of the rhetorical artifact. Along with identifying the main parts of the narrative you must also look deeper into the relations of the narrative. 

The Narrative in the song “Born In the U.S.A” is critical towards how Vietnam war veterans were treated when they returned home. This narrative is made evident through the lyrics to the 1984 hit. Springsteen is known for his lyrics and how they often tell a story, this story begins by describing a man coming back to his hometown unsuccessfully. After the first chorus we learn more about where the man was before he came home, the lyrics say “they put a rifle in my hand, Sent me off to a foreign land, To go and kill the yellow man” (Springsteen 1:04). These lyrics tell the story of a man who was sent to war and now he has returned home. Due to the time the song was released and considering the lyric “go and kill the yellow man” it is clear that the war Springsteen is speaking of is the Vietnam War. The simplification of war in this quote demonstrates the narrator’s feelings about the war, to the narrator the war was about killing yellow men. The song jumps back to the man in his hometown after the war. The man is now being denied for a job at a refinery then is denied once again when the “V.A. man, He said, ‘Son, don't you understand?’” (1:37). Not only has the Veteran in our story been sent to war, once he got back he couldn’t even get his old job back. When the veteran seeks help from the V.A. man he also cannot help him with a job. After the chorus the story continues chronicling the war and the relational ties with Vietnam and other Vietnam War veterans .Lastly, the man is now forced to deal with the situation he has been put in. The last stanza of lyrics before a three time reprised chorus says “I'm ten years burning down the road, I've got nowhere to run and nowhere to go” (2:34). These lyrics show that the man is stuck and that it has been years and he is still stuck. The reprising chorus comes in to remind us this man was “Born in the U.S.A”. While this statement of being born in the U.S.A may seem like something the man is proud of because it is re-stated so many times when considering the narrative laid out, It is clear the man is actually calling the U.S.A. out because they caused his problems. 

The Narrative in the song “Born In the U.S.A” is critical towards how Vietnam war veterans were treated when they returned home, This narrative is ethically productive however it is commonly misunderstood. The narrative is productive because it criticizes the U.S.A. and its treatment of the people who fought for our country. While the war was going on it was not uncommon to criticize the reasoning behind it. This song brings back those original critiques and adds to them almost ten years later. It is important for people to question their country and their motives for going to war. While this narrative is ethically productive it was commonly misunderstood, making it not completely productive practically. To the individuals that looked deeper into the song and read the lyrics it worked. For the people who just heard the song on the radio and did not think about anything but the upbeat tone to the song, it was misunderstood as a celebration of the U.S.A.. While the song is critical in it’s lyrics, that doesn’t necessarily mean it to be for haters of the U.S.A. only. It is possible to take this critique and still be patriotic, a true patriot should critique the country they love. However, to some people protesting war is extremely unpatriotic. 

Gustainis and Hahn chronicle some other rhetorical examples of anti-war protest. These examples come from a time during the Vietnam war. Much of the reasoning behind why so many Vietnam Anti-War protests were taken as a failure rhetorically was because of the approach by protesters. Many protestors failed to take into consideration their audience who was mostly conservative. Gustainis and Hahn cite the use of obscenity and desecration of the flag as some of the protesters' big mistakes. On the use of obscenity Gustainis and Hahn state “the use of public obscenity alienates and digusts many American citizens'' (209). The use of actions many conservative American’s would find offensive or distasteful is not an effective way to get a point across rhetorically. When applying this thinking to the rhetorical artifact “Born in the U.S.A.” it is evident that Springsteen’s language was chosen to reflect a common way of speaking and does not use obscenity to call out the U.S.A.. Springsteen effectively used his language to create a narrative that told a story of a man beaten down by the war. A story is a far more effective tool for an anti-war protest. 

In summary, the narrative found in the song “Born in the U.S.A.” proves itself to be critical of how Vietnam war veterans were treated when they came home, especially when an analysis of the lyrics is done. The narrative is ethically productive in it’s critique of the country even though it can be misunderstood. 

Foss, S. K. (2004) Narrative Criticism. Rhetorical Criticism (3rd ed.) (pp.333-341) Long Grove, IL Waveland Press

Gustainis, J.Justin, and Dan F. Hahn. “While the Whole World Watched: Rhetorical Failures of Anti-War Protest.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, Summer 1988, pp. 203–216. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/01463378809369723.

Palczewski, C. H., Ice, R., Fritch, J. (2012). Narratives. In Rhetoric in civic life (pp. 117-146). State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc. 

Springsteen, Bruce. “Born in the U.S.A.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPhWR4d3FJQ