From RhetorClick

Revision as of 14:20, 11 July 2012

Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media

Rhetoric

Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion consisting of various methods used in attempting to persuade an audience.^[1] A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called satire.^[2] Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively. It is essential to understand how to use logos, pathos, and ethos in order to effectively persuade your audience. There are five cannons of rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Using the five canons of rhetoric you can build an effective argument.

Satire

Satire being a more literary genre which is seen to use more of a sense of criticism towards a specific person or group^[3]. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms.

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon ^[4].

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant" (Frye) - but parody, and burlesque are frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack ^[5].

Satirical works often contain "straight" humour. Laughter is not an essential component of satire,(Corum 175) as in spectrum of satire there are types that are not meant to arise laughter and be "funny".

Conversely, not all humour is necessarily "satirical", even on such topics as politics, religion or art, or even when it uses the satirical tools of irony, parody, and burlesque ^[6].

Satirical playwright Dario Fo pointed out the difference between satire and teasing. Teasing is the reactionary side of the comic, it limits itself to a shallow parody of physical appearance. Satire instead uses the comic to go against power and its oppressions, has a subversive character, and a moral dimension which draws judgement against its targets ^[7].

Teasing is an ancient form of simple buffoonery, a form of comedy without satire's subversive edge. Teasing includes light and affectionate parody, good-humoured mockery, simple one-dimensional poking fun, benign spoofs. Teasing typically consists in a impersonation of someone monkeying around with his exterior attributes, tics, physical blemishes, voice and mannerisms, quirks, way of dressing and walking, the phrases he typically repeats. By contrast, teasing never touches on the core issue, never makes a serious criticism judging the target with irony; it never harms the target's conduct, ideology and position of power; it never undermines the perception of his morality and cultural dimension ^[8].

Critics tend to see irony, parody, and satire as diminishing meaning (by belittling the subject), but as Harold Bloom reminds us, the great ironists such as Shakespeare tended to expand meaning (13). Satire is provocative, not dismissive - a crucial point that critics typically ignore when assessing its role in public discourse ^[9].

Test argues that play and laughter constitute and define all satiric undertakings and distinguish it from other forms of aesthetic expression with which it is sometimes confused with "humor, comedy, social criticism, parody, burlesque, farce and travesty"(13).

Again, there has been some controversy over whether laughter is a necessary component or distinguishing feature of satire. Laughter is ultimately something satire may or may not produce within the audience. It is not something that resides in the artistic expression itself. Satire does not need to be funny. ^[10].

Satire relies on rhetorical devices like enthymemes, understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions ^[11].The meaning of enthymemes has to do with an unanswered statement which is made by a person, which allows someone to find the conclusion of the statement on their own by being able to understand the statement ^[12]. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation for a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.

Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. A skillful use of satire can engage the audience in a more constructive way by appealing to its imagination as well as engaging the intellect ^[13]Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.

Satire is looked to, for its ability to unmask and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy ^[14].The image of physically unveiling something or someone is one that recurs again and again in discussions of satire^[15]. Also, satire has been feared and banned because it is seen as a powerful force (Feinberg)^[16]. I would even argue that contemporary, mediatized political satire is being mobilized in a fairly populist register, as seemingly average Joes attempt to take down the mighty ^[17]. Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of Jon Stewart ^[18] and Stephen Colbert ^[19], is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

According to Hutcheon ^[20] a more idealistic view holds that satire and irony have "the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very 'sites' of discourse." Also, Lillian and Edward Bloom go on to explain, that satire ultimately has little political effect because it does not in itself initiate change and, in fact, rarely encourages it ^[21].

Satire can play a big role in public debate. There are bloggers that post ideas anonymously on the internet, and there are people that challenge those in power ^[22]. Also, certain tools lend themselves more fully to digital satire to give back to society. The internet is a good tool based on the fact that anyone can use it ^[23].

A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse ^[24]. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective ^[25]. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" ^[26]. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo. 3.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

Having the identity as being "anonymous" is seen for people who want to keep their information that they post private, or they could be scared about the backlash of any comments that might be made.But for you to create an identity online you might create a blog, or twitter, or have facebook to have yoourself know for the digital world.

Communities of Satire

Identity vs. Privacy

Danah Boyd looks at the changing faces of “Networked Privacy,” asserting that U.S. privacy laws of the 1970s are not applicable in 2010 and furthermore that there is no current agreement on “what privacy is, or what it means to actually protect it in the first place.” She points to a mother who created a public webpage of her family’s genealogy that included maiden names, the most common internet security question, as an example of the conflict between the desire for social connectedness and privacy.^[27]

Some argue that the internet’s public nature must be preserved if it is to act as a medium to enact popular goals. Jillian York talks about how internet connectivity is a major force for public activism, agreeing with blogger Andrew Trench’s estimate that if the 2011 struggles in “Egypt and Tunisia are valid case studies, it looks like internet penetration of around 20%” is the threshold for effective mobilization of ground-level activism.^[28]

When we interact in a physical environment our conversations are private by default until we go out of our way to make it very public ^[29]. Also, online privacy is public by default and private through effort ^[30].

Privacy isn't about restricting access to information, it's about having that moment of control and agency ^[31]. Agency should not be taken away, because then people can't achieve privacy.

Danah Boyd asked, “How do you protect privacy?” ^[32] Public internet is one of the main catalysts in the advancement of the technological era. The internet is the foundation of so many new age markets that its existences are vital. But in saying that nothing on the internet is 100% secure. There are so many potential hazardous users that even those things intended for privacy can be accessed. The right training in the wrong hands could decode any encryption. The YouTube video made the connection that privacy has this individual centric nature and stated, “sharing to be seen but trying to protect themselves to not be seen by certain people” relating to the regulation of the individuals of children. I would make the argument there is no such thing as private internet, the term is a paradox in itself which is globally interconnected can’t be private.

Privacy is the act of controlling what you do or say to others rather than the restriction of information from others. We control how private we want to be by not putting those images you wanted to put up on Facebook ^[33]. The internet is completely public. Users of the internet decide to make whatever they place on the internet public for anyone to see ^[34]. Privacy today, and privacy 10 years ago has changed in the sense that you can go online and figure out how to hack into someones computer and find their information thanks to the help of the internet.

Many people take the argument that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," which is a common argument in favor of a lack of privacy when it comes to matters of security. However, debate surrounding less devistating or incriminating evidence is much more heated. Privacy encompasses many ideas and it is therefore rather a combination of acts rather than one. The nothing to hide argument however is based on an underlying premise that assumes that what one wants to hide is bad, which is not always the case. In any ineraction it is impossible to keep things completely private, especially once global media is encorporated. ^[35]

Meanwhile, digital access is the internet, the computer, and mobile access ^[36].

Next, there are millions of individuals making their own videos for web distribution ^[37]. These are created at every level of production quality, from shaky camera-phone footage to sophisticated animation ^[38]. Any indiviual these days can post a video of anything whether their intention is to help or harm you.Being able to block, or track indiviuals who post violent or harmful videos will help people who have been harmed by the hateful video post.

Also, sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet are used to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity ^[39].

Meanwhile, our digital identities are entities that need to be managed, so what appears online tends to be a highly sanitized version of us ^[40]. Danah Boyle talks about the issue of digital identity ^[41]; she says: “in any given situation, an individual presents a face, which is the social presentation of one facet of their identity."

Moreover, a digital identity is created through the use of various social media outlets, the most popular being Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. One can also create a digital identity linked to their name if they comment or subscribe to a forum. According to an article by Naumi Haque, a great deal of contrast often exists between our real personalities and our digital identities. Since this is almost always the case, is our so-called digital identity really an identity, or is it more of a digital fingerprint of our true identity? Haque thinks that for now at least the fingerprint metaphor is probably more accurate; but as technology increases, he sees a day when even things we don't know about ourselves will be obvious to our digital selves.^[42]

The reason being we're constantly being monitored; our online social presence is constantly being reviewed by supervisors and hiring managers along with the rest of the general public. Therefore, people are advised to not share the same information online that they would in an intimate setting with friends and family.

Your digital identity is created online by what you do, or say, online for others to see. Johari Window created a 2x2 matrix to explain what information is known about you to you and/or others. The Arena describes the information that you and others know about each other while the Unknown describes the information that you and others do not know about you on the internet. There is also the facade, which describes the information that you know but do not what to share with others, while the Blind Spot explains information that you don't know about your own digital identity which others know ^[43].

Online identity is a rhetorical term itself because to be online means to be recognized by and connected to a server. Hence, for in order to be recognized one is also synonymously identified. Once one ventures on the internet on immediately gains as online identity. Now what create the difference in the types of identities are its usage purposes. The internet is by design, a communication interface where one is giving or exchanging information. The giving and receiving of information can also be considered rhetorical because no answer is required.

Community

According to Warner, "a public is a social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse"(90). "No single text can create a public. Nor can a single voice, a single genre, even a single medium. All are insufficient to create the kind of reflexivity that we call a public, since a public is understood to be an ongoing space of encounter for discourse" ^[44]. In other words, a public is a space where people can come together for discourse. In the case of satire, writers come together to produce something that is subversive but still humorous. Philosopher Benjamin Barber had a different view when defining the public. Barber saw the public as a people coming together because of their shared discourse, not to create/collaborate ^[45].

Publics tend to mobolize others to action because writing, speaking, blogging requires indvidiuals to engage in a much larger network. The idea of a public tends to put pressure on a writer, by suggesting that his argument must be framed for a particular audience who have similar or dissimmilar viewpoints; this is dependent upon the goal of the written work. Social constraints also act to play a role in determining the dynamic between the public. Exploring mutuality may create a sense of "we" but also has the danger to create an "us" against "them mentality". ^[46]

According to Fraser a singular public sphere can never adequately represent all factions within a stratified society, meaning that it has always been essential for subaltern groups to form their own counterpublic spheres ^[47]. She stresses that these smaller publics are not inevitably about separatism; rather, they function as "bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics" ^[48].

The meaning behind "The Public" is to be part of a group that is most comfortable speaking directly and for whom the ideal realtionship among is one of efficiency. Another model for a public focuses on the more traditional medium of writing, as Phyllis Ryder says in her article: "As David Bartholomae and Joseph Harris have long argued that academics are inherently intertextual creatures, so Warner argues that the publics, too, are constituted by the circulation of texts."^[49]

With rhetorical commnity it is seen as any group involved in using language to persuade or convince. Such as lawmakers, politcians, stockbrokers, etc. they could be thought as separate communities within society that skilled in using rhetoric^[50].

rhetorical communities are not a single unified whole but a mix of numerous limited or local communities and of individuals who typically participate in not one but several of these communities.</ref>http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Publications/Texts/rhetoric.html

A rhetorical community builds the creation of public interest, common goods, and active citizens ^[51].

A public is a group of people that perform in a similar way. It is a group of people that have similar ideas or goals ^[52].

Institutions

Audience

Crowdsourced Satire

Open Source

Memes

References

1. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
2. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
3. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
4. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
5. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
6. ↑ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
7. ↑ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
8. ↑ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
9. ↑ <https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg
10. ↑ <https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg
11. ↑ http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/E/enthymeme.htm
12. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme
13. ↑ http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0
14. ↑ Day 12
15. ↑ Day, Amber. Satire and Dissent p.12
16. ↑ http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf
17. ↑ Day, Amber. Satire and Dissent p.9
18. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
19. ↑ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879
20. ↑ Day 12
21. ↑ Day 12
22. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html
23. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html
24. ↑ Day, Amber. Satire and Dissent (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011), pp. 11-13.
25. ↑ http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract
26. ↑ Day 21
27. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
28. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be
29. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
30. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
31. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
32. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
33. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
34. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
35. ↑ http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/
36. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be
37. ↑ Day 25
38. ↑ Day 25
39. ↑ http://personas.media.mit.edu/
40. ↑ http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/
41. ↑ http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/
42. ↑ http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/
43. ↑ http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/
44. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
45. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
46. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
47. ↑ Day 132
48. ↑ Day 132
49. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
50. ↑ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_rhetorical_community
51. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
52. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder