Blog Post 6 - Knapp

I found reading about the video game developed by Momo Pixel, Hair Nah, to be a learning experience. I was unaware of the volume of racial microaggressions that black people, specifically black women, experience on a daily basis. Learning about how this game developer transformed frustrations got me thinking about how many other game developers there are creating games not just for entertainment but as an interactive medium to put yourself in someone’s shoes. It was also interesting to hear how some games perpetuate stereotypes and injustice by their depictions, especially in smaller ways that aren’t obvious at face value. 

The discussion in this article about Battlefield 1 and the Harlem Hellfighters reminds me of a larger discussion about diversity in gaming when this game was released. At the time of release, Battlefield 1 featured people of color and women in the forefront, which caused some groups of people to get angry about how it wasn’t “realistic”.

Blog Post #6

 In the article “Not a Post-Racism and Post-Misogyny Promised Land: Video Games as Instruments of (In)Justice”, Kishonna Gray and David Leonard did a great job of examining the ways in which video games are a reflection of the world around us. From the connection of Gamergate with the 2016 election to the stereotypical representations of women and people of color in video games, Grey and Leonard look at the ways in which video games reinforce these ideas but also ways in which they can combat them. Grey and Leonard state, “Video games mirror and embody the injustices we see throughout popular culture and in society at large” (Grey and Leonard, 5). Not only is technology, like video games, used to mirror injustices but is also being used against the victims to silence them.

I think it's interesting the role that technology has played in creating and spreading narrative. Gamergate was used to empower a narrative of white male victimhood against change, which we saw happening similarly after the murder of George Floyd with the rise of the “all lives matter” hashtag. The “all lives matter” hashtag was created in contrast to the “Black Lives Matter” movement to dismiss and ignore the racism and violence perpetuated against Black people.

Blog Post #6

        This week, the articles that we read focused on Intercultural communication and racialization in communication ethics. I wanted to focus on the idea of privilege within gaming. In the article ‘Not a Post-Racism and Post-Misogyny Promised Land: Video Games as Instruments of (In)Justice’, Kishonna Gray and David Leonard talk about how “while video games may be a distraction to some communities and a source of power and pleasure to others, they can at times also be a source of violence, oppression, pain, and trauma” (Gray & Leonard, 5). I found it very interesting to think of the people that have a lot of privilege – white males – and how they can take advantage of their privilege. This is shown when discussing Gamergate. Gamergate was a movement that focused on white men’s anxieties of losing power in a universe assumed to be homogeneous (Gray & Leonard). White men were afraid to lose their privilege in the gaming world, since games have always surrounded them. Due to their fear, they started undermining everyone else in the gaming world and justifying their actions as ‘singular incidents’. 

While reading these articles, I thought of the narrative that white males tried to create in the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement. After George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis policeman, the Black Lives Matter Movement skyrocketed. White men started to vocalize that they were being oppressed by the public due to the actions of the policeman, completely changing the narrative that was happening. This was because they started to question their privilege, in a world that has always prioritized it.

Blog Post 6 Henke

 This weeks readings were very interesting to me and how racism can be found within game play. Unfortunately I am no stranger and have witnessed the reality of racial injustice and representation in video games. A quote that interested me from the one of the readings was "At one level, video games mirror and embody the injustices we see throughout popular culture and in society at large." (Kanjere 5) We talk about the problems we see within video games and it makes me think to myself about the producers themselves. Do they realize what there are giving to society? Have we as a whole given up our ethics to make more money and drive people farther apart?

This week I would like to bring a real life example of a video game that I have played. That video game being Grand Theft Auto Vice City. This game takes place in Miami Florida, the game consists of a bunch of "bad boys" who all happen to be of cuban origin. The game stereotypes them living in south florida and much of the game consists of drugs and guns. I played this when I was younger and didn't realize how bad it was until learning more about ethics. Looking back at when I was playing the game I had not yet had the ability to realize quite how bad this was to society. Racial injustice is seen in so many different places and I think it is time to hold people in all industries accountable for the actions they choose. 

It is also seen in other places of gaming, especially in chats. People seem to think just because they are anonymous they can say whatever they want. I truly believe that people say hurtful, demeaning things that they would never say to a person in real life. We as a society must stop and think about the ways we communicate and try to eliminate the hate towards other people. Like I mentioned before gaming isn't the only place where this is found but I found this article very interesting as I've seen many of these problems in my own life.  

Blog Post 7 - Miltenberger

     I thought the article "defending race privilege on the Internet: how whiteness uses innocence discourse online" was really interesting. I think Kanjere does a great job outlining an showing all of the different ways that this type of white fragility or innocence discourse plays out with certain articles or pieces of media. The topics of white vulnerability, real world, common sense, and even color blindness ways of responding to these types of articles is really interesting because I think this is something that many people come across in comment sections at one point or another, and the author categorizes and analyzes these things well, to where I can understand what each type of response means (Kanjere, 5, 7, 9 ,11). What is interesting is that these pieces of media that call out white supremacist behavior or pillars are taken as threats by the people reading these pieces, and this lack of awareness, or just unfamiliar feeling of being left out of something is cause for people to get angry. 

    One of the things I was thinking about, especially in this article was the piece article the author referenced about Game of Throne's racist tropes. I think about the way that media, especially media with certain levels of diversity are ridiculed in internet comment sections, with most of the hateful comments coming from positions of a desire for the erasure of this diversity. The two scenarios that come to mind the most are with the new Lord of the Rings series, and the casting of Halle Bailey as Ariel in the remake of the Little Mermaid. This discourse is thinly-veiled racism, outrage about how "its not the same" as the older originals, or that a piece of fiction isn't "realistic". It's weird to see people get riled up about this sort of thing because the excuses white people use to be mad about the shows of movies comes from an odd and disingenuous place, coming up with outrageous ways to hide the overtly racist undertones of the comments. The one I see the most is that the diverse casting of this media makes it "unrealistic". As Kanjere mentions, these types of comments are just ways people try to "de-legitimize criticism of the racial status quo", white supremacy veiled as concern and vulnerability.

Blog Post 6 - Proulx

     The article "Defending Race Privilege on the Internet: How Whiteness uses Innocence Discourse Online" brought up an interesting story about sports teams using Native American names. Kenjere says "A research team lead by Jesse A. Steinfeldt collected comments on articles questioning the University of North Dakota's use of the Fighting Sioux logo and nickname for their athletic teams in the face of opposition from Native American leaders and students' associations".  This is such a great example of how white people claim innocence in these situations where their beloved teams represent something that isn't ours to claim.

    Actually, most of my extended family lives up in Grand Forks and are die-hard "Sioux" fans. Therefore I know from personal experience that white innocence is totally at play. Essentially no one who is a fan of UND sports cheer for the "Fighting Hawks", their new name. Even at away games, their fans still manage to start the "Sioux yeah yeah" chant. Their hockey arena still has the Sioux head on the back of every single chair there. This study shows that the tribe does discourage the University's use of their name, but according to my white family, there is absolutely no problem. It's difficult because "Sioux" is such a beloved, prideful name to fans, therefore the argument is that they are almost honoring and respecting the tribe because of the positive representation and comradery associated with it. But at the end of the day, as good as the University has used the "Sioux" name, it's not ours to use.

Blog Post 5 - Fallon

     I particularly resonated with Alcoff's piece on speaking for others. There is a large conversation to be had on whether speaking on other's positionality helps or harms others, and it's an incredibly nuanced topic that has to be reassessed on a case-by-case basis. In her piece, she asserts that there is nuance to be had, but we should be careful so as not to take over the narrative from the people we are speaking on, or for. When speaking for others, we can "serve either to authorize or disauthorize one's speech," (Alcoff, 7). When speaking on issues for others, it's incredibly useful to ensure all information being provided is factual. For example, the Black Lives Matter movement. Where conservative-leaning "news" sources such as Fox News assert that "defunding the police is a move toward authoritarian social control cloaked in the language of identity politics," (Fox News, 2020). However, from its starts in 2016, one of its founders, Patrice Cullors has asserted that "[Black Lives Matter] is a tool to reimagine a world where black people are free to exist, free to live..." (TED, 2016). Fox News asserts that the Black Lives Matter movement is actually about promoting authoritarianism, socialism, that racism was solved with the abolishment of slavery, and that systemic racism is a myth. From the words of a white man on a television network that rarely uplifts actual black voices or even bothers to invite guests on who are in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, they are presenting their own narrative, speaking on behalf of the black community. This is a highly public platform, the video I refer to now standing at approximately 8 million views. However, this undermines the message that these organizers and founders have been proclaiming for years: that it is about protecting black lives and providing an even playing field to those with white privilege. It is not about switching the roles, and certainly isn't about a massive conspiracy to change our government's foundation: it is to dismantle the systemic racism that America was built on. "News" channels like Fox build into a stereotype about a movement, so much that their audience doesn't believe the words coming out of actual black people's mouths. Because a public figure they looked up to asserted that racism no longer exists, the black person who says they've experienced racism is lying, or it was a "one-off" incident that doesn't impact the black community in America at large. 

    Immediately as I started reading this piece, I thought about an incident within my BFA Acting program here at the University of Minnesota. In our second year of training, we are split up as a company and cast in one of two productions to present in the fall semester. One of which was Ever in the Glades by Laura Shellhardt. The play centers around a group of teens in the Everglades who fight to escape the adults and their prejudices. The play includes a note that it was written and developed by multiple people of color, as it was essentially written for the original cast of actors; though it can and should be played by people of any ethnicity, and so long as the cast is not made up of one racial group, it may be produced. The playwright herself is white, and gave her blessing upon seeing my company's casting in it. However, of that cast,  80% were white. The cast and director, upon reading the script, then had the hard decision of whether or not they should be doing that play. Ever in the Glades highly featured usages of AAVE, and casual rhetoric that is associated with people of color in America. As an outside observer, it was immediately clear that we were witnessing cultural appropriation. Hearing a 6'2" blonde white man saying that "those white men came to take you away" truly encapsulates the experience of listening to the play read aloud by people it was not developed for. Ultimately, that half of our company decided not to go through with the show, and now have no fall production. However, it felt incredibly relevant that the playwright may have written that play for and with people of color, but failed to recognize the harm that could occur when she directly approved the casting of white actors with language that is appropriative for them to use. It ties in to the idea of approval to speak for others; while it may be appropriate for people of color in America to use, it was not approved by the people who wrote it with her. Would the Latinx and Black people she developed this play with have approved my company's casting in this play? That's not my call to make, but the fact stands that Shellhardt herself cannot make that decision alone. While they are her intellectual property, it erases the influence that the POC of that cast provided. 

1. Alcoff, Linda. "The Problem of Speaking for Others." Feminist Nightmares: Women At Odds, New York University Press, 2020, pp. 285-309, https://doi.org/10.187574/9780814784945-016.
2. Fox News. "Tucker: Black Lives Matter is now a political party." YouTube, 8 Jun. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7aQ02YX7qo

3. TED. "An interview with the founders of Black Lives Matter | Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi." YouTube, 20 Dec. 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbicAmaXYtM

4. Shellhardt, Laura. Ever in the Glades. Dramatic Publishing, 2015.

Blog Post 5 - Ramsey

 Although I found all of the concepts within the different readings interesting and applicable, the one that really stood out to me was the article titled "Hannah Gadsby: On the Limits of Satire" written and told by Rebecca Krefting. Within this piece, the author expands on the concepts that comedian Hannah Gadsby has dealt with in her stand-up shows, which contain an array of different pressing social justice issues. It is said that Gadsby had chosen in the past to use forms of satirical comedy in order to elicit laughs from her audience, but as time went on, Hannah Gadsby began to unravel the many harmful and ongoing twists and turns there are when it comes to trying to successfully present yourself as someone who you are not. Additionally, it is said that the comedian oftentimes uses strategies such as self deprecatory humor because "as a lesbian, gender "nonnormal", woman performing comedy, she intentionally devalues her skills as a practitioner, as a society has taught her to do in order to command the power that comedy demands." (Krefting 94) I find this to be rather interesting, because I feel like so often within our society there is a constant discussion of what kind of woman is "too much" or too little" 

A perfect example of someone who contradicts this kind of talk that comes to mind for me, is American politician and activist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Representative AOC is someone who consistently is scrutinized in the public eye (on one side more than the other), for being a woman who does not succumb to all of the bitter and negative things that are said about her, but rather continues on choosing to express herself and her viewpoints in oder to evoke change for the betterment of our society. 

Blog Post 5 - Walkup

On page 95 of “Studies in American Humor”, Rebecca Krefting asks “What are the risks we run in rendering laughable the very serious critiques or concerns (or the real anger and pain being expressed) raised in the deployment of satire?” ( Krefting, 95). This concept is so important to discuss because nobody ever knows where they should draw the line. For some, it is absolutely unacceptable to make satirical jokes about a societal issue, and for others, it doesn’t matter what the joke entails because it is a joke and should not be taken seriously. In addition, Krefting asks, “How does a comic’s sex, gender presentation, and race impact the reception of satire?” (Krefting, 95). I think the position from which somebody is saying something matters maybe more than anything. So, when it comes to concepts that are more serious like sex, gender, and race, I don’t want to hear it from somebody who has no experience dealing with it. 

I had a professor last year in a politics-related course who was a white, cisgender man. His attempts at explaining “critical race theory” and patriarchal systems were enough to make a whole lecture hall cringe. He would either throw around terms and emotions like they were worth nothing, or he would be extremely uneducated on a given topic. It’s because of situations like these that back up my claim that it matters heavily who is doing the talking when discussing complex subjects. I think this professor relates to the first question a little bit too, though, because it is usually the people who have never had to deal with anything bad who make the insensitive jokes and expect you to not have any problems with it. 

Krefting, R. Hannah Gadsby: On the Limits of Satire. Studies in American Horror. Penn State University Press. Vol. 5, No. 1, Special Issue: Satire Today (2019), pp. 93-102

 

Blog Post 5- Mentzer

 Rebecca Krefting's piece on Hannah Gadsby and the limits of satire actually really upset me at some points. The author discusses Hannah's struggles with gender expectations and roles as a lesbian, female comedian. The article quotes that as, "a lesbian, gender 'non-normal' woman performing comedy, she intentionally devalues her skills as a practitioner, as society has taught her to do in order to demand the power that comedy demands" (Krefting 94). In other words, she diminishes her self worth in order to please others or receive the same reaction from a crowd that male comedians obtain. Gadsby explains that this self deprecation is pressured on women in comedy in order to satisfy gendered cultural values and expectations of femininity. The text also goes into Gadsby's concerns with comedy's lack of compassion and emotion, but rather its need to generate laughter, which is often done in a harmful way. Gadsby fears these limitations and "what they may be doing to listeners occupying marginalized identities" (Krefting 95). Something else I found to be interesting from Krefting's piece was the emphasis that Gadsby described on society's expectation to address the fact that she is lesbian. But yet, society does not place this same importance on other aspects of her identity such as "culinary, recreational, media and athletic pursuits" (Krefting, 96). This points out a very frustrating idea. Instead of just being rewarded as a comedian, Gadsby was basically identified as the lesbian woman that tells jokes. And yet, she is expected to conform to this, and participate in devaluing comedic acts in order to succeed in her occupation. This really relates to the term parvenu, from Arendt, that is to give up our own perspective and agree to another worldview in order to preserve the peace. I think that this is exactly what Gasdby is doing. Preserving the peace. 

I have experienced this personally in the workplace as well. In addition to my full-time job, I part-time waitress at a restaurant/ bar. I love working at this place, and it has had many benefits, but the way I get treated as a younger looking, five foot female is quite diminishing to my self esteem. To give further context, management at this restaurant calls me by the nickname, "little one". Now, I know that this is not the worst name to be called, but it definitely does belittle me, and make me feel less of a woman than I am.. Keep in mind, I am 21 years old- not so little! I also feel that due to my height, and perhaps baby face, I am looked down to at this job and treated as if I am younger than the rest of the staff. I am the same age, if not older than most other waitresses at this restaurant. But, much like Hannah, I want to please my managers and make money, so I allow it to happen without complaints. Never would my male managers call a male security guard the same age as myself "little one", but since it is me, a female, I am expected to take it and laugh it off. 

Krefting, Rebecca. “Hannah Gadsby: On the Limits of Satire.” Studies in American Humor, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019, pp. 93–102. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/studamerhumor.5.1.0093. Accessed 20 Oct. 2022.

Blog Post 5

 In the “The Problem Of Speaking For Others” article by Linda Alcoff. The author brings up the concept of speaking for others and whether or not it is possible to adequately or justifiably speak for others.  They state that the two main reasons speaking for others are a problem is, “First, there is a growing recognition that where one speaks from affects the meaning and truth of what one says…The second source involves a recognition that, not only is location epistemically salient, but certain privileged locations are discursively dangerous” (Alcoff, 7). They also address the concerns around not speaking up for those who are less privileged and how sometimes the answers to these concerns can be dependent on who's asking them. 

One pop culture example that came to mind of how speaking for others can have negative outcomes is the recent coverage of Britney Spears's conservatorship. This was an example where she was no longer able to speak up for herself or have control over her life and her family took that role, which ended up not being in her best interest. Alcoff stated, “I am engaging in the act of representing the other's needs, goals, situation, and in fact, who they are” (Alcoff, 9). Alcoff goes on to say that they can't truly know a person or their experiences but rather represent their interpretation of the other person which I  think is something that we see happen with Britney Spears. 

  Alcoff, Linda. “THE PROBLEM OF SPEAKING FOR OTHERS.” Feminist Nightmares: Women At Odds, New York University Press, 2020, pp. 285–309, https://doi.org/10.18574/9780814784945-016.

Blog Post 5- Proulx

I found the article about comedian Hannah Gadsby called "On the Limits of Satire" to be particularly fascinating. In it, author Rebecca Krefting says she "uses comedy to interrogate comedy and the ways production and consumption are gendered, among them the pressure placed on women to self-depreciate in order to satisfy gendered cultural values and expectations of femininity. Her use of self-depreication in Nanette is instructional by highlighting the sacrifices she must make- to her integrity, intelligence, and sense of self-worth to succeed in comedy" (Krefting, 94). Hannah's comedic work aims to shine light on how women often are only funny if we pick on ourselves. We often have to feed into the negative stereotypes about ourselves for the content to be relatable and therefore funny. Hannah says there's a limit of satire that she no longer wants to cross because she doesn't want to continue upholding sexist or patriarchial stereotypes that are frequently prescribed in comedy.

In recent years I’ve gained a lot of confidence and try to be more aware of not accidentally saying something self-deprecating relating to my gender just to alleviate tension in a situation or crack a joke. However, I do catch myself not giving myself enough credibility or advocate for myself enough because of my age. In how I think and even in the comments I make to people, particularly higher-ups, I’ll brush challenges or tasks off because I’m “still in college” or “just the intern”. When in reality, I’ve gone through most of my schooling and have had a few internships which give me the credibility I deserve to not have to jokingly dumb myself down when speaking with senior people. This article is a great reminder to carry yourself with pride and dignity and not stoop to unjust stereotypes about yourself.

Krefting, Rebecca. “Hannah Gadsby: On the Limits of Satire.” Studies in American Humor, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019, pp. 93–102, https://doi.org/10.5325/studamerhumor.5.1.0093.

Blog Post #5

 During this week’s readings, we learned about how gender impacts society's way of communicating with one another. During the article 'The Problem of Speaking for Others', Linda Alcoff talked about how problematic it can be to speak for others, and how the act of speaking for others is heavily criticized. Alcoff mentioned that “if the practice of speaking for others is problematic, so too must be the practice of speaking about others, since it is difficult to distinguish speaking about and speaking for in all cases” (Alcoff, 9). I found this extremely interesting because I had never thought about the correlation between speaking for and speaking about someone. When someone speaks about another person, they push their narrative and perspective of this person onto the next. In reality, they are actually speaking for someone even though they believe that they are speaking about their situation. For example, the article 'On the Limits of Satire' by Rebecca Krefting brings up a great perspective of how society views our gender as our entire personality. Krefting talked about her sexuality as a lesbian woman is prioritized and emphasized when people talk about her. She specifically talked about how all of her interests were ignored and left out, and that people had hyper focused on her sexuality when speaking about her. 

While reading the articles, I thought of politicians and how they are supposed to represent and speak on behalf of the people that elected them. The majority of politicians in the United States are white cisgender males who are supposed to present the melting pot and diversity of the U.S. This creates a problem when considering everyone that they are supposed to be representing. I find it extremely interesting when politicians speak on behalf of a community, for example the LGBTQ community, when they do not share the same experiences. Alcoff talked about how “the model of political representation cannot be used in all instances of speaking for others, though it may prove instructive when we attempt to formulate responses to the problem” (Alcoff, 11). This fascinates me because I had always thought that it was strange that the politicians that are supposed to represent us, have nothing in common with us. 

Blog Post 5, 10/20

 

    I found Burey's piece to be especially interesting, because it deals with themes and ideas which I have been researching for my bibliography of late. The idea at the center of the article is the claim that women in spaces which have been built to favor people who are white and/or male, often get told that they have "Impostor Syndrome" when this is not the case. The idea is that although the claim is typically made in good faith, as Impostor Syndrome typically affects people who already have the skills to succeed in a given field, but doubt their own abilities or the appropriateness of whether they should be in a specific environment, Burey counters that women's hesitation in the workplace is often due to a constant stream of harassment, rather than a lack of self-confidence. Burey notes that "Impostor Syndrome" has become a kind of modern "Hysteria" diagnosis, used to write off the voices of women and other minorities. This is especially true because while a toxic, racist, or patriarchal workplace is the product of systemic issues and requires a shift in the entire culture of the environment, "Impostor Syndrome" is the mental problem of a single individual and therefore none outside of the victim are then expected to change in their behavior.

    An especially interesting point is when Burey mentions that people are generally trained to view (masculine) confidence as a trait of a good worker or leader, despite it not being a genuine sign of competence, but rather a trait favored by traditional patriarchal culture. I think that this is a good discussion of how language can make people feel excluded, and how seemingly well-meaning comments can be used to shut down discussion and ignore systemic discrimination or interposition pain points. I think this argument may connect to how patriarchy also often has infantilized women, connecting to some of my research around patronization, Impostor syndrome is something typically felt by those entering a career or field for the first time, which creates the biased assumption that all workers of marginalized identity are inexperienced, or unaware of their own feelings. Burey is bringing up the profoundly disrespectful paternalism in the modern conception of impostor syndrome, as it is similar to the idea that "your concerns are just because there is something wrong with your head you didn't notice." Rather than treating those with valid concerns like adults.

    Burey, Ann, "Stop Telling Women They Have Imposter Syndrome." Diversity and Inclusion, Harvard Business Review, 2011

Blog Post 6 - Miltenberger

 I think that the Krefting piece talking about Hannah Gadsby is really interesting in how it talks about the general ideas that we and other people place on people as part of an "identity". Gadsby does a lot to talk about not being "lesbian enough", or at least not what people have told her about what a lesbian should be or do (Krefting, 2). She layers these sincere sentiments under cleverly layered satire, I feel like calling them jokes isn't the most accurate way to classify it after seeing the special. I agree with the author's sentiment that "Gadsby believes she must dispense with satire; she fears that otherwise the public will ignore it" (Pg. 8) because there are really difficult topics laced delicately with humor or satire, that feel almost wrong to laugh at, because then it would degrade the gravity of the words themselves. She does a good job in explaining the nuance of identity categorization, or society's trouble with it, and it raises the good question of "what does it mean to be x?" or anything. Part of the satire's job seems to work as a mask for the sincerity of Gadsby's feelings. What is interesting about Nanette is the way that gender and sexuality permeate the various aspects of communication in Gadsby's life, and subsequently complicate her interpersonal communication at that. The expectations placed on her as a woman and as a lesbian are explored in a unique way through her storytelling, and I agree with Krefting that her lean in to humor "softens the blow" of the satire and heavy content she speaks about. 

I think that Nanette made me think about the way that certain messages are able to get across to audiences that don't understand or frequently see certain struggles that people go through. I think that comedy is interesting because it aims to help people relate to the speaker, and there are ways to layer emotion and difficult subjects into more digestible pieces, under the common goal of laughter. But, I think issue that can sometimes come up, is whether a comedian is minimizing an issue by joking about it, even if it is something that the comedian themselves have experienced. I think that throughout Nanette, you can sometimes get the full picture of how Gadsby feels about something, but other times I can't help but wonder if satire is placed to hold a barrier between the content and discomfort from Gadsby. Her storytelling is fantastic and easy to follow, but there are times where I don't know if I should laugh, because the content gets so heavy. I think this special is such an interesting dichotomy between comedy and monologue, that I don't think it fits into either of those categories.

Blog Post 5 Henke

     This weeks content was very interesting to me because I'm writing my research paper about gender ethics dealing with healthcare workers. I found speaking for others to be the concept I took most interest in this week. One specific example from a reading I thought was important was "Speaking for others has come under increasing criticism."  (Alcoff 6) I found this interesting because how are we supposed to help advocate for people when some criticize us for doing so. In terms of communication ethics it's an extremely hard topic to talk about. I asked myself when is it okay to try and put myself in someone else's shoes? I thought for some time because in some situations it's hard to stand with someone when you don't know what they've been through. It's hard for that person to know if you actually care or if you're just doing things for because it's popular.

    My concrete example for this week is advocating for feminism as well as a couple of other examples. I identify as a male but I stand for feminists and what they have been fighting for. It's not new, women have been fighting for gender equality for a long time. I can support them as much as possible but it doesn't mean as much and even though I stand up for it I get criticized by many females because I have "no say" or that "I don't understand, and never will." In response to comments like such I understand, I really don't get it. I've been able to live the same life they have. I can support, but I can't truly understand. My other examples that I won't go in depth about buyt relate to the topic are the Black Lives Matter movement. As a caucasian we can fight for people of color but in reality we've never gone through what they have. They have fears that we cannot even begin to imagine, rightfully so they might look upon our support in different ways. Another example is support for the LGBTQ+ community, these all have a lot in common. It's hard to communicate ethically with all people when we all go through different things. We can't always relate to other people but in order to improve society we must respect all. 

Alcoff, Linda. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique, no. 20, 1991, p. 5., https://doi.org/10.2307/1354221

Blog Post 5 - Knapp

I found “Hannah Gadsby: On the Limits of Satire” a cool in-depth analysis of why stand up comedy is such a great way to unpack difficult subject matter. In the reading, Rebecca Krefting covers how Hannah Gadspy uses satire to talk about gender violence, sexual assult, and homophia, all while keeping an audience laughing and engagned. While stand-up comedy isn’t necessarily a conversation, there’s still an interesting dialogue being exchanged between the comedian and the audience’s reactions. “Gadsby uses comedy to interrogate comedy and the ways production and consumption are gendered, among them the pressure placed on women to self-deprecate in order to satisfy gendered cultural values and expectations of femininity.” Gadsby is using the medium not just to entertain, but to challenge expectations of her identity, which is what makes her comedy special subversive.

The writing about this comedy special reminds me about the controversy around Dave Chapelle’s stand-up comedy special from a few years ago. Chapelle is known for his edgy style of humor, but he often doesn’t comment in detail on social political topics, but he gave his opinion on how he didn’t quite understand transgender people. This sparked quite a bit of backlash but I don’t think it was warranted. I’m not defending Chapelle or jokes he might have made in the past, but I think it’s important that we allow space for things like this to be said. There was no malus intended towards transgender people, and I think that having room in stnad-up comedy for comedias to represent their true selves is important for the medium.

 

Blog Post 4

 During this week's readings, the articles discussed public discourse and everything that goes into public discourse. I found the idea of conscious and nonconscious very interesting when it comes to accountability, intention, and agency. In the article Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted by Mariyln M. Cooper, she talks about agency and the role that it plays when bringing about change. Specifically, she talks about how “though our world changes in response to individual action, agents are very often not aware of their intentions, they do not directly cause changes, and the choices they make are not free from influence from their inheritance, past experiences, or their surround” (Cooper 421). I think that it’s fascinating how we are not consciously aware of our actions and the impact that they have on those around us. Cooper talks about how both nonconcious and conscious processes contribute to our actions, and yet we are unaware of the processes. I also found it fascinating how our emotions play a role in our actions. Cooper discusses how “emotions are, at base, preparations for action, and we become aware of them (as others do, often before we do) only when they are expressed in publicly observable, and internally felt, adaptations of the body that serve as signals of intent” (Cooper 430). Our emotions decide how we act and react to our environment around us. I had not realized the importance of expressing our emotions publicly, in order to become aware of how we are actually feeling. 

This immediately made me think about people that have any sort of mental illness and how it can affect their actions. For example, my mother has severe PTSD and anxiety. She struggles when trying to express her emotions, which then makes it difficult when reacting to a situation. Most of the time she is not aware of her actual emotions until I point out possible ways that she could be feeling, based on her actions. When it comes to individuals with any sort of mental illness, it can be harder to express emotions than an individual without any sort of mental illness. It can also be more difficult to act upon their emotions, especially if they are not aware of them. Personally, I have extreme anxiety and depression and have a harder time reacting to situations around me in a rational way. I respond more with my emotions than with logic, and am sometimes aware of how I am feeling even when it may seem obvious based on my actions.

Blog Post 4

 In the article “Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted,” Cooper defines rhetorical agency as “The process through which organisms create meanings through acting into the world and changing their structure in response to the perceived consequences of their actions.” (420) Meaning that everyone uses their own personal experiences to create individual meaning that can influence our actions. With this understanding of rhetorical agency, Cooper talks about the concept of free will and responsibility. Since the agency is “grounded in an individual embodiment”(440) you would think that we act with free will and our actions are always our own but Cooper argues that things like historical contexts can have impacts and can persuade our goals and ideas.

As I was reading this article as well as the “What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency” article I was thinking about when emailing or texting I am often given autofill words and responses. I know when I get an email my phone usually gives me response options that I can choose from based on what is in the email. Usually, the responses are similar to what I was already planning on saying so I will choose from them, but after reading this article it's making me consider my free will and how I have been taught to respond to situations in certain ways. I will sometimes change what I was planning on saying to what the autofill has because it's close enough and sometimes easier to just pick one of them. 

Blog Post 4- Mentzer

 In her piece, More Than Words: The Generative Power of Trandmediation for Learning, Siegel goes into points surrounding the argument that students will be much more successful in education when the classroom revolves around teaching through more than language/ words. For example, the beginning of the text described a concept named "verbocentrism" as it specifically pertains to education. According to Siegel, in schools, verbocentrism ideology has "led us to regard language as the sole channel for learning and to separate it from other ways on knowing" (Siegel 456).  For example, we fail to recognize other ways of knowing and learning such as music, art, dance, movement, etc. Siegel suggests that this closed off way of teaching, verbocentrism, is limiting for students and is not effective way to educate. When students learn through a variety of different modes of activity (drawing, painting, singing, staying active), they are much more likely to take meaning from their education and apply it in the future. Bottom line is, children need more than words to learn. Siegel notes that, "we must re-examine our bias toward language in teaching- learning and consider curricular possibilities that do not marginalize other ways of knowing" (Siegel 457).

I agreed with everything Marjorie Siegel was saying in regards to verbocentrism and how limiting it is for students to be closed off to learning beyond words. In my education experience prior to college, I was lucky enough to attend elementary, middle and high schools that required classes that went beyond lecturing through words. In elementary school, our classes that revolved around words and language were always followed up by either an art, music or gym class. This way, our classes were broken up enough to give our brains a break from straight lecture which allowed for time for creativity. In middle/ high school, we were required to take at least 2-3 "creative thinking" classes. I can remember being in courses such as fashion sewing, net games, choir and even baking. I honestly really enjoyed going to these classes and actually looked forward to school because I knew I would be able to be artistic, imaginative and active. Rather than being talked at, I was talking with others. And this really allowed me to grow as a student and learn in different, effective ways as well. College has been a bit more tough as classes are mainly verbocentric. Although we have options to take courses that stimulate learning through art or movement, but we are not required to take them, nor do students typically have enough room in their schedule to do so. I have found myself to be in heavily lectured classes where I am being lectured to the entire time. I have felt like this form of education has forced me out of my creative mindset and has made classes less appealing to attend. Although it is good to have a variety of teaching methods, I feel that I am missing out as a student not having those classes that go beyond verbocentrism.  

Siegel, Marjorie. "More than Words: The Generative Power of Transmediation for Learning." Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l'éducation, vol. 20, no. 4, 1995, pp. 455-75. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/149508. Accessed 10 Oct. 2022. 

Blog post 4 -

Blog post 4

Emma Martin

    The article, What can automation tell us about agency, by Carolyn Miller was very interesting to read and made me consider the negative effects that technology may have when it comes to learning. Carolyn Miller exclaimed that there can be uncertainties when it comes to automated assessment systems and that the agency is a key role in addressing those uncertainties. Agency is the action of a decision, otherwise stated by Caroyln Miller "our attributions of the agency are ultimately moral judgments, matters of human decency and respect, matters of "acknowledgment", to use Micheal Hyde's more theological term" ( Miller, 153 ). As students are being graded with advanced computers, particularly with public speaking and written work, there is a lack of agency. Computers don't have ethics or morals, and the results of the student's assessments could not truly be accurate compared to the student's results graded from person to person. Miller argues this accurately, stating that "writing teachers generally are more sensitive to the difficulties involved in writing assessments, and speech teachers are more sensitive to those involved in assessments of speaking. The reasons for skepticism included the belief that computers could never consider communitive complexities such as creativity, appropriateness to context, the expression of emotion, and individual cultural differences" ( Miller, 140 ). Miller also stated that "Speech tempts us to focus exclusively on bodily motion, personal presence, eye contact, and to neglect symbolic action, mental presence, emotional contact, all of which are manifested in both writing and speaking and all of which are means through which we can infer rhetorical action and agency. I suggest, then, that we think of agency as the kinetic energy of rhetorical performance ( Miller, 147 ). Rhetorical action is how one communicates with another, and how their message is being interpreted. Computers don't have emotions, how can they understand an individual's "kinetic energy of rhetorical performance" if they can't understand the tone that the individual is expressing in their speech or written work? I believe that this leaves results in a lack of connection and appropriate feedback between the individual and their work. The individual will then have a more difficult time understanding what they can improve, compared to if their advisor, audience, or professor were to sympathize or respond to them, which typically helps for future engagements or performances.  

    I agree with Carolyn Miller's statements and arguments over how automated assessment systems aren't necessary for specific tests like public speaking. I personally have experienced both person-to-person public speaking and video speaking. Comparing the two I have learned that although I find video speaking less stressful, it is overall less effective and beneficial to my skills in public speaking. For example, I often struggle with maintaining eye contact and fidgeting, but during my person-to-person speeches, I was able to acknowledge what I was actively doing, which then helps me understand what I can do better next time. Especially if I have that connection with my teacher or professor, I feel calmer if I can connect with them about past experiences and why I struggle. My experiences through the video speeches never allowed me to have that connection, and I wasn't able to learn how to change my behaviors since there was no one actually to speak to on the other side of the screen. 

Miller, Carolyn R, "What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?", Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 26 February 2011. 

Blog Post 4 - Agency

     Agency is something I tend to think a lot about, as the idea that all actions are our own choices is something I'm constantly reminded of as a person trying to live ethically. In each situation, we are given a choice so long as we know of something's existence. Whether it's showing up to a protest about race, or actively choosing not to show up - that choice says something about our ethics and who we are. And more importantly, how we see others around us. The idea that everything we do is a choice - including the choice to not do anything. Cooper's article in particular resonated with me. Especially idea that our actions are how we show who we are - and "to deny one's actions is to deny one's existence" (Cooper, 436). There's a reason why in theater, an important principle is "show, don't tell". Our actions say so much more about who we are, our values, and what we believe in; though we can say whatever we want. The actual choices we make and actions we take are what truly define us. I think I connected so much with Cooper's article because I feel they hammered in the point (perhaps indirectly) that everything we do is in itself an action that we take with our own agency. 

    An example provided that I enjoyed was that of a man stating he'd been persuaded by a rhetor... "he is not merely describing something that has happened to him. In spite of the grammar, he is describing something he has done" (Cooper, 437). I enjoyed this because it is the acknowledgment that the willingness the man put forward to listen and challenge his preconceived views enough to agree with the rhetor is a choice. The man could have chosen not to challenge the choice or idea he had in his mind. He could have chosen to simply not listen at all. However, he did, and in listening and responding, he's made the choice to allow himself to be persuaded. 

    One thing I was wondering about was if the text would bring up agency in relation to people with impaired judgement. Considering recent events in social media and even in my personal life, I think it's important to look at agency in regards to those who face impaired judgement - like those in a manic episode, those who may be suffering with depression, anxiety, or those who aren't sober. With my own relationships with people who face impaired judgement on a regular basis, it's difficult to equate when their actions aren't necessarily taken with agency. A manic person may be unable to perceive the people around them as equals due to a god complex that takes place. Should they then be perceived as people with equal agency and consequences despite their mental illness? Or should they simply be brushed off, and allowed the same judgment when they come down from the episode and are able to acknowledge what they've done and how they've treated others around them? It's a topic that I find difficult to navigate, and I'd love to explore it with other readings, or even for my potential research project. In most of the examples and readings, it seemed that the concept of agency was only taken into consideration that every person is of sound mind and body, and are equipped with all the necessary tools to engage with their environment critically and rationally. However, the readings would probably be at least twice as long if they were to dip into that. It's simply something I'd like to explore in the future, as the concept is important; especially now that we live in a society that is taking mental health seriously. 

1. Cooper, Marilyn M. "Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted"

Blog Post 4 - Ramsey

In the reading titled "Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted",  the author Marilyn Cooper, writes about the ideas behind agency and what it looks like on both an individual scale and group scales - as well as expands on the concept of agency being tied to complexity theory and neurophenomenology. An interesting idea that the author also adds about is how the agency of individuals is based off of the experiences in ones own life, which can also be translated as such by their "lived knowledge". Additionally, it is important to note that it is the responsibility of said individual(s) to watch and adjust their projection and agency within what they do to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what the consequences of their rhetorical agency may look like. Overall, it is essential for those who hold "agency" to exemplify the idea of unity by expression of personal or shared experiences. 

A personal experience that relates to this concept for me would be how in certain classes that I have taken before, if the majority of the class does not understand something that has been taught, the professor has taken the time to reflect upon the means in which they taught that specific teaching to the class and is able to express a different way of teaching the subject. The professor showing agency, although necessary, can sometimes result negatively - however, if demonstrated correctly then this could lead to an overall better situation for those surrounded by the agency of this individual. It is important for situations like these to be resolved by taking action to assess and deal with fallout. 

Cooper, Marilyn M. "Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted"

Blog Post 4: 10/11

     This week's topics discuss themes of agency, what it means and how each of us is set within a cycle of both affecting and being affected by our environment. Miller's piece is of particular interest to me because it seeks to better define the boundaries of agency as well as our general conception of it. Miller states that the concept of Agency goes far beyond the general definition of "to create change" and rather plays much more into ideas of intentionality, reaction and capacity. Miller believes that this research could be of particular value to education, as the assumption of agency in an environment which does not fully or contextually provide it can cause harm to the affected parries, or prevent them from reaching the expectations placed upon them by others. In addition, Miller believes that agency, in its wholistic nature is an important skill and area for refinement, stating that; ". This requires both technical and moral education, for our attributions of agency are ultimately moral judgments, matters of human decency and respect, matters of ‘‘acknowledgment" (Miller, 153). This leads neatly into the crux of Miller's case study.

In our modern world, the bounds of what is and is not possible with technology are ever-expanding, Miller's piece discusses the use of an automated scoring system to respond to students, and how this connects with the aforementioned ideas of agency. In my own experience, agency is a complicated subject. Agency is not a purely human skill, if it is a skill at all. Much argument has been had over the nature of agency itself, and whether we make our own choices or each of our actions is the immutable result of all actions that have come before, or perhaps even more disturbingly, if time itself is but a mere spatial dimension, and all things which have and will happen are already laid out, invisible from us. To return to the subject at hand, there is an interesting point in Miller's argument about the intentionality missing in machine agency, and how this affects its perception by presumably agent humans. Perhaps we will see this change in coming years, as technology becomes more sophisticated.

Miller, Carolyn. "What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?" Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 2007, 137-157

Blog Post 4 - Knapp

I found learning about the ethics concept of agency in the “Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted” reading interesting because of the exploration of how the concept has devolved in recent years. The author states that it’s important to have a sound sense of individual sense of agency in order to have sound rhetorical conversation. “Drawing on neurophenomenology, this essay defines individual agency as the process through which organisms create meanings through acting into the world and changing their structure in response to the perceived consequences of their actions.” (Cooper 420). If one is not able to properly change and adjust their actions and perceptions based on one another, no “good” will be had and no critical conversation or change will be made.

Reading about this concept made me think about a student group I was a part of. I was just a general member but the leadership team did not have a clear sense of agency and cohesion, and it felt like they didn’t really have a grip on how to keep the club going and its members engaged. After a while, more and more people started leaving, and the club leadership took no action because they had no sense of agency or judgment on how people felt about where the club was going. 

Cooper, Marilyn M. "Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted"

Blog post 4 Henke

 Throughout this week's content I began to be more interested in our ethics in relation to speech and feeling ones gets from listening to information. I had never really thought about how our motives could be changed simply based on the way information is delivered. One thing that really stood out to me was in the Cooper article "Emotional interpretation is the first stage in a process of emotional self-organization that takes place over repeated cycles of the intentional arc." (Cooper 12) I believe having the ability to successfully give a speech to a mass audience can shape what you take from the information. While reading the article I also thought about the different aspects one takes from given information from a cultural standpoint. I thought it was interesting reading about Obama and the reaction people had when he talked about the issue of race vs. other politicians that don't have a diverse background. It is more powerful coming from someone who has either been affected in some way or can truly understand things in a different perspective that you ever could. 

In our current society I think we have a problem with communicative ethics. There are various examples I could give but I think the best one is the lack of diversity in journalism. I believe a lot of people in the US are marginalized based on their race or culture because we do not represent them in the ways that we should. In the US many newsrooms and news organizations are dominated by a mostly white population. This can have negative effects on the transparency of stories. We also seem to all have different communicative ethics when it comes to online communication. It's hard to get a true feeling of what someone is saying or what they mean online. Things can be taken way out of context and its very interesting to me how different people react to those things. In order to truly understand communicative ethics we must look at all forms of communication which seems very difficult to me based of how many different streams of information are out there and the various cultures they come from. Although it is a difficult task this could potentially change our whole society. 

Blog Post 4

 When reading Miller's "What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?" piece, she describes the dangers of automated grading systems and how they pose a threat to spoken and written rhetorical agency. She states "in effect, automated assessment systems create a situation in which Burkean symbolic action directly confronts nonsymbolic motion in the form of the machine. This confrontation suggests that rhetorical agency is exactly what is at stake in automated assessment. It raises questions about the action and agentive capacity of the writer or speaker in the context of the presumably agentless motion of the mechanized audience" (Miller, 140). She's saying machines can't interpret a human's tonality, agency, and energy which are all key factors in how a message is delivered and should be interpreted.

This reminds me of how texting and emails aren't the best forms of communication compared to actually speaking to someone, especially face to face because you can't get a sense of their actual emotions from strictly interpreting the written word out of context. It's a big source of miscommunication and misunderstandings. But it's an even bigger stake when we're looking at automated assessments of student's schoolwork. Humans can pick up more on a writer or speaker's agency significantly better than an automated, emotionless machine can, so it's essential to keep that human element.

Miller, Carolyn R "What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?" Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 26 February 2011

Blog Post 5 - Miltenberger

     I chose to discuss Carolyn Miller's article on agency and automation, as I thought that it was really interesting. Miller talks about the introduction and vast reception of automatic grading tools, especially for standardized and placement assessment (Miller, 1). The area where this piqued her interest was in the topic of automated writing assessors and automated speech assessors. This is where Miller decides to look into the idea that these tools "denaturalize rhetorical action" and are problematic (Miller, 5). Miller asked a number of speech and writing professors abbout their thoughts on a program like this, and most of them had an issue with the usage of these tools to grade work for their students. The two main reasons that the author pointed out were that the programs could not take into account "Communicative complexities", and that the programs would do damage to "rhetoric's audience" (Miller, 6). The issue is that an auto-assessor like this removes a good deal of agency, and understanding of certain aspects of speech and writing, and rhetoric "Presupposes and celebrates agency" (Miller, 7). The major issue in all of this is that many scholars are convinced that a program that is set to automatically grade a piece or speech will not be able to percieve certain rhetorical strategies or be able to pick up certain creative aspects of peoples work. This condenses students work into standards determined by an algorithm, removing much of what is considered valuable to rhetors. 

    In the same vein of AI tools, this piece really made me think about those image AI processors. They let you put in a number of words or phrases and put out an image, taking reference from the internet to create these images. I know many people who think this kind of program is really cool, and they love creating these wacky images and whatnot, but I also know a good deal of people really concerned about this. Most of the concern comes from the fear that people will start to try to replace the work of real artists and photographers with these devices, or that that these programs will be able to help people distort reality (think Deepfakes). These fears haven't really been confirmed yet, but the issue is that people worry that programs like this will condition to disregard the creativity and work of others if its just easier to type in a bunch of words into a program and get something similar. I think that's been one of the largest issues that I've had with the popularity of AI programs like this, is that they cannot see human intent, nor do they grant the people using them any agency in their creation or assessment. Recently, Getty images actually banned the use of AI created imagery over the murky issue of copyright laws and images (Jacobs, 2022). I think it's an issue we should be considering with heavy scrutiny. 

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/getty-images-bans-ai-generated-images-due-to-copyright-1234640201/ 

Blog Post 4 - Walkup

 Cooper’s ideas on neurophenomenology were very intriguing to me. They wrote that “order results from an ongoing process in which a multitude of agents interact frequently and in which the results of interactions feed back into the process” (Cooper, 421). In other words, individuals that have ‘agency’ don’t have nearly the same effect as a group of people whose ideas represent agency. Cooper also argues that agency isn’t an outlying concept- it is part of a complex system; whatever that system may be. Whether it is a form of government or one’s own mind, agency will always occur to better the system. And, in order for it to happen agents need to “interact” with each other. 
               The example that kept popping into my head while reading about the systems in which agents arise and how they function is the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. The stand out events from that era were all those powerful protests with stories and emotions that shook the world. Most people think of agency as being able to think for yourself, but things like this can bring a new perspective to that idea. It is an example of thinking for yourself, but it wouldn’t matter at all if nobody else had those morals and was willing to put their foot down and fight for what they believe. The system was broken, so agents had to interact with each other to inspire change. 

Blog Response 4

 Due to sever technology issues, I was unable to comment directly on this blog post, but this comment is in regards to:

https://comm3625fa22.blogspot.com/2022/10/blog-post-3_0.html?lr=1&m=1

I very much agree that the events following George Floyd’s murder by police connect to this idea of uncivility and how reason and civility within the frameworks of domination are not the same thing. One counter often offered to destructive protest is the idea to at people should “protest peacefully,” one thing which this argument misses or is purposefully ignorant of is that a peaceful protest is designed to show the protesting group as unthreatening and willing to endure suffering and humiliation. The request for “civility” in protest often rather represents the claim that protestors should not fight against systems of oppression and power, but rather endure their assaults, as not to discomfort those in positions of power and/or societal priority.

Blog Post 3 - Ramsey

 The Lozano and Cloud article titled "The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality",  expresses a multitude of reasons as to why and how the concept of using what is presented as invitational rhetoric may at times actually be antagonism. With this being said, the idea behind antagonistic pursuits is expressed as being "undeniable features of society." (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 222) In addition to the above mentioned concept, another topic that was expanded on within this writing that I found to be interesting and applicable to our everyday life would be the idea behind power dynamics within invitational rhetoric. When there is conversation amongst those who are in power, or oppressors, those who are seen as less powerful in these situations - the oppressed, are oftentimes overlooked when it comes to participating in active discussions. Additionally, when the time comes to include the oppressed in these opportunities for discussion or dialogue, it is more than likely going to be based off of "invitation only" (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 222), which only reaffirms the notion that those who are in power ultimately hold the key for who will or will not be excluded. 

As a woman, and a young woman at that, there has been a number of times where the concept of power dynamics have been present in my daily life. An example of this would be just how often I have gotten shut down from those who are older than me within conversations regarding tense subject matter such as politics or other topics such as healthcare opportunities or lack thereof, like abortion in the United States. While although oftentimes I have been "invited" to these discussions, immediately when I present my stance(s) on the different topics at hand, I have been told that I am "too young to understand" or that "once I get older and out of college I won't be this liberal anymore". While these words are aimed to minimize my personal feelings about certain topics, ultimately I end up only feeling more misunderstood and begin to be able to recognize the inconsistency those who supposedly "hold power over me" actually have. 

Cloud, Dana. “The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality.” Western Journal of Communication, 22 Sept. 2017, https://www.academia.edu/6726470/The_Uncivil_Tongue_Invitational_Rhetoric_and_the_Problem_of_Inequality.

Blog Post 3: 10/4

     I feel that the piece by Nina et. al: The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality is effective in clearing up the aspects of invitational rhetoric and how rhetoric may be used for progressive ends within a culture of power and domination. One difficulty which I had grappled with during this week's readings is the claim that all non-invitational rhetoric within our present culture of domination is coercive or controlling. The excerpt in Foss & Griffin, which claims that telling a student "she ought to take a particular course" (3) is an attempt by the rhetor to gain a rush of momentary power and a feeling of self worth over another by influencing their will. Although I do agree that it is incumbent on those of us benefited by privilege to examine our statements critically, and not seek to gain power over others through rhetorical means, I feel that the specific example given ascribes more malice and active paternalism than would be present in all of its permutations. The issue I take is that the sentiment expressed seems to indicate that the statement is problematic simply because it seeks to influence the decision of another, ignoring, in this section the key issue of consent. The counter put forward by the authors, and expounded upon in Nina et. al, is invitational rhetoric, a kind of speech which does not ignore issues of power and oppression, while attempts to avoid coercion and exclusion. For the example above, if the student in question had precedingly asked "what class should I take" they are freely consenting to the influence of their action by others. The issue of rhetoric should not be discussed divorced from the issue of consent. The obtrusive statement forces the listener to absorb it without consent, while any change in their action is brought about in a coercive or manufactured manner. 

Nina et. al point out that persuasion, even uncivil or destructive persuasion is necessary, the importance is recognizing what dynamics of power and control already exist and respecting the autonomy of parties within a discussion, but also understanding that often words are not enough. Nina et. al criticizes the "common sense" connection between rationality and civility, deconstructing the idea that in order to participate in discussion, one must not break the existing rules and social constraints of society, and how this limits any but those already in power from being considered "rational." I believe that although the desire to rhetorically dominate exists, it is not the sole driving factor behind persuasion, and the assumption that all attempts to influence others are paternalistic in nature or attempts to dominate them, will prevent us from creating any real change.

Sonja K. Foss, Cindy L. Griffin. "Beyond Persuasion, A Proposal For Invitational Rhetoric" Communication Monographs Volume 62, 2-17

Nina M. Lozano-Reich, Dana L. Cloud. "The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality" Western Journal of Communication Vol. 73, No. 2, 220–226

Blog Post 3

 In the Lozano and Cloud article, “The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality” they talk about the concept of invitation and power. They define invitational rhetoric as a “​​means to create ethical exchanges in difficult situations’’(220). They talk about how the invitation should be utilized to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination. When considering these definitions in relation to power it's important to realize that although invitation rhetoric is used with the intention and illusion of mutual invitation between the oppressor and oppressed, generally the people in power rarely invite those who are less powerful into conversation or if they do it is under their terms. I think that this is really important to consider how power dynamics can affect invitational rhetoric and even if it may appear that there is an equal dynamic there are often underlying conditions that might not allow that to be true. 

For example, in a lot of my classes similar to what we did in the class, my professors have the students meet up for a one-to-one meeting just to get to know each other and talk. We, the students and professor, mutually agreed to meet to talk, and although these are informal meetings just to get to know each other and talk about the mutually agreed upon topics the professor still has more power. Even if the student agreed to the topic it was the professor who came up with it and it's generally the professor who picks the place and/or mode of communication. 

  Lozano-Reich, Nina M., and Dana L. Cloud. “The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 73, no. 2, 2009, pp. 220–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856105.

Blog post 3

Blog Post 3

 Emma Martin 

One would think that using civilizing strategies and invitational rhetoric is the correct way to approach issues or conflict but according to Nina Lozano-Reich and Dana Cloud in their article, The Uncivil tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality, it’s not. I never really thought about how using civilizing strategies to solve conflicts is more problematic than beneficial. Lozano-Reich and Dana Cloud make a strong argument about how civil strategies and invitational rhetoric aren’t beneficial in specific situations, such as when one is being oppressed, and I strongly agree with their case. One particular statement that stood out to me was “Civility, in short, should not be advocated as a stance for feminists or others struggling for change” (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 224). Let’s say an individual felt hurt by another's actions, and no matter how they communicated why they were hurt that other person continued to dismiss and ignore them, that hurt individual is soon going to be at their limit and break with emotion because that is natural to humans, we share our emotions when they are stronger than others, and yet would you ask that hurt individual to stay civil? Personally, I wouldn’t, and neither would Lozano-Reich and Cloud. By definition civil means “adequate in courtesy and politeness”, and “Civilizing strategy is a “means to create ethical exchanged in difficult situations” (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 220).  I just can’t even fathom how someone could act with politeness when they are constantly harassed and silenced, I think Lozano-Reich and Cloud stated this well when they argued that “it is irresponsible to displace more confrontational models for social change in favor of politics of civility that has been proven to leave those already disempowered in a continued state of conformity, punishment, and/or silence” (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 224). This expands on how much power authorities have over us as people, especially marginalized groups, which explains that those in power will continue to ignore or “enact civilizing strategies to effectively silence and punish” those who are oppressed if it doesn’t impact them personally (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 224). 

    Relating to the concluding quote of my last paragraph, I think of examples I witnessed rather than experienced. This includes the 2020 protest after George Floyd was tragically killed. I remember the night it happened because I stayed up watching the cities burn on Twitter. I felt nothing but pain for those who have repeatedly been oppressed, decades have passed and it feels like very little has changed for them. That protest was super beneficial to change and according to history.com it “may have been the largest protest movement in U.S. history and a nationwide reckoning on race and policing”. The actions people took from their pain that night, in 2020, spread across the country, and “more than 2,000 cities and towns in all 50 states saw some form of demonstration in the weeks after Floyd’s death, as well as major cities across the globe. The protests set off a local and national dialogue about the role and budgets of American police departments, as well as intense discussions in schools and corporations about how to end racism and create inclusivity, equality, and equity”. This very real experience shows how civil strategies don’t work and honestly, actions really can speak louder than words. Would our society still be the same if they were to be civil over George Floyd’s death? Already hundreds of other black men have been killed by the police force and people took those civilly, yet nothing changed throughout our systems until people acted against the ethical, civil, and strategic manners, especially to draw attention to them, specifically from those in power. 

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Civil definition & meaning. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil 
    

A&E Television Networks. (2021, May 24). George Floyd is killed by a police officer, igniting historic protests. History.com. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-floyd-killed-by-police-officer 
    

Lozano-Reich, N. M., & Cloud, D. L. (2009). The uncivil tongue: Invitational rhetoric and the problem of inequality. Western Journal of Communication, 73(2), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856105

Blog Post 3 - Knapp

I found the “A Proposal For An Invitation Rhetorical” and the concept of Invitational Rhetoric very interesting. The idea that many rhetorical theories have been founded in a patriarchal perspective was kind of eye opening for me because it made me realize how much work feminist scholars have to undergo in order to establish alternative and fiar values. “Attention to non-patriarchal forms of communication, feminist scholars argue, expands the scope of rhetorical theory and enhances the discipline’s ability to explain diverse communicative phenomena successfully.” (Foss, Griffin 2). Persuasion is a specific form of invitational rhetoric I found interesting because it is such an old concept that is still widely used in all sorts of forms today.

Reading this text reminded me of a “marketing” class I decided to take in high school, which is something I thought would be interesting to learn about because at the time I was interested in graphic design and psychology and thought I would be able to apply some of my skills into this class, but I was mistaken. In reality, the class was essentially a guide to becoming an antiquated salesman from the 1980s. We learned about cold calling, the importance of a handshake, and business etiquette, all of which was information that did not apply to modern business or marketing, and most importantly, was all biased information from a cis white man in his sixties. There was no intersectionality being considered and I felt like all I was learning was to persuade people into buying things they didn’t want.

Foss, Sonja K, and Cindy L Griffin. Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric. EBSCO Publishing, 1995, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03637759509376345.