This final assignment was a challenge for me because 1) I have never blogged before, and 2) I had a hard time figuring out the topics I wanted to write about. That seemed to be a common theme this semester. I would have a hard time deciding on a topic, but once I found it, I really enjoyed doing the research on it. I wanted to keep my subjects relevant for this final project, but I also wanted to be able to explore topics that I am really interested in. Overall, I enjoyed this assignment because I got to do something that I have never done before. This class has definitely taught me more about the importance of using multimodal elements when writing and how to use them rhetorically.
Native Rhetoric
I’ve always been intrigued by the Native American culture. I have only a fraction of Cherokee Indian blood in me, but I still have always felt a connection to their way of life. Therefore, I wanted to examine the rhetoric used in their culture. I didn’t find much, but what I did find was able to alter my perception of how language shapes their reality.
Linguistic relativity is a theory that states that how we perceive our reality is determined by our language. It is a theory that is pretty much half true. By this I mean that it is widely accepted that language shapes our reality, but it is not the only factor. Even so, a lot can be learned about the culture of Native Americans by looking at their language, especially the female population.
Native American language is very different from the English of the Western world, which is reflected throughout their culture. There are a few examples that I found to be especially insightful. First, in Native American creation stories, there is no mention of men preceding the women. Society was often matrilineal. As a result, native women have not been as involved in modern feminist movements because they see themselves as already free and do not need to fight to achieve power. Instead, they are regaining power which is a subtle, but distinct, difference.
The Pocahontas Perplex is a metaphor that was able to dehumanize Native American women by insinuating that native women must help save white men from her own tribe. This metaphor stereotyped native women by spreading the idea that she was not of any value unless she was a princess. Also, she could only be of worth and accepted by white people by abandoning her own people. If she was not a princess, then she was worthless, and just as bad as the men in her tribe. Women often accepted this, identifying with men of her own culture rather than with women of a different culture.
The idea of interconnectedness is prevalent in Native American literature. They often thought of things as alive and malleable under certain conditions, able to grow and change. In the Sioux culture this was known as “walking in a sacred manner” and according to the Navajo, it was “standing in the center of the world.” Each culture had a different way of describing it, but it was certainly the major factor found in tribal literature. Discovering connections and the interrelated nature of reality was the major component of their rhetoric.
The respect for nature and harmony was translated throughout native society. As an egalitarian community, life in all forms was honored. There was no effort of domination portrayed in native rhetoric. Man and woman were equal. Poetry and literature is being used now by native women to regain power. According to Dianna Torson, “A natural power is being used to refute the victimization of patriarchy. These writers are finding “power” by knowing themselves and maintaining ties to the past. In this way they connect to the traditional strength and power of the feminine.”
In conclusion, I think there is a lot that can be learned from Native American rhetoric. Native American language enabled its people to feel the interconnectedness of life and affect how they perceived reality. It is a stark contrast against the language of the male-dominated Western world. I think infusing some of this rhetoric into our culture would be a worthwhile endeavor.
Source: Torson, Dianna. “Communication and the Power of Native American Women.” (1990). ERIC. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
Are Environmental Messages Too Assertive?
Environmental consciousness and ecologic responsibility have been gaining a lot of ground in recent years, but they are not topics on everyone’s priority list. This is because the benefits gained from environmentally responsible choices are not reaped directly by the consumer in an immediate timeframe. Instead of being immediately gratifying, the results of these actions are tangible down the road. So, even though environmental sustainability is objectively desirable, it is not always easy to persuade people to embrace it subjectively.
Earlier this semester, I researched environmental rhetoric and looked into why it is currently not effective. I was interested in a related topic, which was not covered in my micro study, so I am going to address it now. The question is, do advertisements that promote environmental responsibility use language that is too assertive? The answer, according to a study done by Ann Kronrod, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu, is that it simply depends on who is perceiving the message.
Their study found that about 19% of slogans used to promote consumer goods employ assertive language. In contrast, an astounding 57% of slogans used in advertisements that promote environmental awareness use assertive language. Assertive language refers to messages that use imperative words, such as “go” or “do”. Assertive language also includes messages that leave the consumer with no option of refusal, like “you must plant”.
This huge gap is interesting, considering the fact that extensive research suggests that assertive language in ads typically have a less than desirable effect. This rings true in other campaigns that promote general health topics, like anti-smoking and safe sex messages. Language that is too assertive makes that consumer feel like their freedom of choice is being jeopardized. So basically, it’s our way of saying, “Don’t tell me what to do!”
Whether a person sees these assertive messages as too forceful or not depends on their level of perceived importance. Essentially, it comes down to how much they care about the idea being promoted in the message. If someone does not care about the information being portrayed, then assertive language will turn them off from obliging. But, if a person finds the subject matter important, they do not feel that the assertive message is “stepping on their toes.” They see it as reinforcement instead of coercive. In contrast, people who are committed to the ideas in the message might see a less assertive statement as offensive because it could be questioning their commitment to the cause, such as “Please plant more trees.”
Therefore, people who already see environmental sustainability as an important topic are less likely to find fault with the assertive language in advertisements. In fact, the gap between the amount of assertiveness used in environmental advertisements versus those promoting consumer goods may be easily explained. People who are writing slogans for environmental ads already think of their cause as extremely important, which is why they see no problem with imperative language. However, they should keep in mind those who are, as of yet, unconvinced about the significance of better ecologic behaviors. Using language that is less assertive may be able to bring about change in those who are still deciding what’s more important, immediate gratification or a healthier planet.
What do you think? Leave me a comment!
Source: Kronrod, Ann, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu. “Go Green!! Should Environmental Messages Be So Assertive??.” Journal of Marketing 76.1 (2012): 95-102. Business Source Complete. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
The Rhetoric of Nonviolence
So what is nonviolent rhetoric? I haven’t had very much exposure to the topic, but I recently stumbled across an article about it. I found it to be fascinating and want to take the opportunity to expand on it.
According to what I’ve read, nonviolent rhetoric is the act of persuasion by appealing to a sense of common humanity, instead of relying on the division portrayed by traditional Western political rhetoric. It is rooted in Buddhist philosophy, and its major heroes are Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi.
Why is it important? I think nonviolent rhetoric is important because it encourages humans to see beyond their differences and focus on what we have in common in order to evolve. It detracts from any negative connotations associated with rhetoric and argument and focuses on unity.
There are some properties of nonviolent rhetoric that enable its success and make it easier to classify. These properties weren’t explicitly defined in the articles that I read, but I found them to be common factors that were mentioned.
First, I found that nonviolent rhetoric employs the use of propaganda, but not in the traditional sense. When you hear the word “propaganda” I’m sure plenty of pictures (mostly about wars and politicians) come to mind. 
But instead of manipulating people’s opinions with emotionally charged tactics, nonviolent rhetoric uses propaganda to spread their message and promote awareness and knowledge of the facts. Gandhi stated, “Truth never damages a cause that is just.” Terms like public relations or critical thinking could even be used interchangeably in this case. The goal is to seek mutual understanding.
Second, nonviolent rhetoric utilizes Aristotle’s notion of pathos to effectively communicate its message. Appealing to people’s emotions is just as effective in decreasing violence as it is in provoking it. It can work to humanize a group of people. Logic that does not appeal to the emotions at all can actually dehumanize people further, since it does not portray them for what they really are.
Third, nonviolent rhetoric is able to flourish when there are effective means of mass communication. Not only must the mass media be present, but it must also remain unbiased. It must be able to communicate the propaganda and informational content being shared by nonviolent proponents. For example, the “Million Man March” was covered by newspapers that shared with the public the purposes for the march. Currently, the evolution of the internet and social media is opening doors for people in totalitarian countries that would otherwise not be exposed to nonviolent rhetoric, by allowing them to see past the violent structures in which they were accustomed.
Lastly, the rhetoric of nonviolence is effective when it successfully breaks down barriers between groups of people that are perceived as completely separate. It can eliminate barriers that have been established to promote differences between groups or cultures. In turn, nonviolent rhetoric is able to reveal people for what we truly are—one collective group of humans. With the focus resting on unity, humans are then be able to work on goals that improve lives and enable social evolution.
Source: Gorsevski, Ellen W. “Nonviolent Theory On Communication: The Implications For Theorizing A Nonviolent Rhetoric.” Peace and Change 24.4 (1999): 445. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
kendraceleste 