Author Archives: Kate

tricky, tricky

Posted on by
Reply

Since my last post, I’ve been considering the responsibilities and possibilities and challenges of entering the conversations of public discourse. What are the forums and affordances of public “conversation”? What constitutes (conventional, alternative, productive) participation?

Today I read:
“Trickster discourse does ‘play tricks,’ but they aren’t malicious tricks, not the hurtful pranks of an angry child; instead, the tricks reveal the deep irony that is always present in whatever way we choose to construct reality. Trickster discourse is deflative; it exposes the lies we tell ourselves and, at the same time, exposes the necessity of those lies to our daily material existence. Trickster discourse asks ‘Isn’t the world a crock of shit?,’ but also answers with ‘Well, if we didn’t have this crock of shit, what would we do for a world?’ The trickster asks us to be fully conscious of the simple inconsistencies that inhabit our reality.”
— Malea Powell, “Blood and Scholarship: One Mixed-Blood’s Story” (1999)

…and breathed a sigh of relief and recognition at this reminder of the endless permutations of participation in “public” (however constituted) “conversation” (in the broadest sense).

A story of tricksters: In May, Tim and I went to Seattle for the “Rhetoric Society of America” conference, where we diligently balanced academic presentations with tourism with hipster Seattle-philia. One night as we wandered looking for a “real” bar off the tourist track, we found one with a small patio occupied by several punks (to use a convenient label — sorry), one of whom wore a Mexican wrestling mask and all of whom jumped and roared in wrestling-style voices. As we grabbed a drink and settled in for the show, the guys soon engaged us in their (‘shroom-enhanced) fun; within 10 minutes Tim was wearing the mask while I chatted with one about various definitions of rhetoric. By the end of the evening we were exchanging cheek-kisses and invitations to crash in our respective cities.

“The trickster asks us to be fully conscious of the simple inconsistencies that inhabit our reality.”

That evening, these guys messed with some versions of reality: mine for one, by revealing yet again the radical inconsistencies between most connotations of/associated with punk culture and my actual experiences of their open-minded, friendly invitations to join their trickster play.

But more “publically,” they conversed with everyone around them — those that dodged their sidewalk wrestling only to receive polite apologies, those that expected something entirely different from a zen-themed bar, those intrigued to hear academic conversations commingled with affection violence and tattoo show-and-tell — and all of those that just wanted to get their heads in that pink-and-gold mask… and, I think, become tricksters in turn. Now that’s influence…

thought of the day

Posted on by
Reply

“[D]emocracy can be sustained only by the active participation of the members of a community in the process of judging every statement that addresses their common concerns and making those judgments public in response.”

-Gregory Clark, from Dialogue, Dialectic, and Conversation: A Social Perspective on the Function of Writing

In other words, enter the conversation…. perhaps in a forum like Harlot?

Rhetorical regret

Posted on by
Reply

In Germany this week, President Bush was asked if he regrets starting the war in Iraq. His answer was that no, he only regretted that he hadn’t employed “better rhetoric.” It’s not that he didn’t want to warmonger, mind you, just that he didn’t want the ethos of a warmonger. “Awesome.”

Slap a yellow magnet on the old bumper

Posted on by
2

So, I’m driving this morning and notice that the SUV in front of me sports 2 texts (beyond, you know, the messages sent by things like car make). One is a “My husband is serving: US Army” sticker and the other is a yellow ribbon ribbon magnet inscribed with “Keep Daddy Safe.”

Holy pathos, batman! But oh, the irony — because my emotions were immediately touched as I consider with sadness and sympathy the idea that what would  their daddy safe (and make them feel safe) is not, logically speaking, supporting or maintaining the war that puts him in danger. I assumed, of course, that the ribbon was meant to elicit protective patriotism.

But THEN, I started to think that it’s possible, after all, that for those kids (and perhaps their parents), the yellow ribbon symbolizes their wish to have daddy come home, not to have people equate support of the troops with support of the war and therefore to unquestioningly accept the government’s actions. In this light, then, the ribbon could be read as pleading for the adequate health care (from armor to counseling) the government has not seen fit to provide their daddy. Or even the simpler implication: “bring him home.”

Unfortunately, I couldn’t catch up with her to ask about intentions.  But I love it when these kinds of moments make us realize the messy way that messages are designed, sent, received, rejected, reconsidered…

David Byrne rocks the house

Posted on by
Reply

Thanks to my brother for telling me about this incredible new installation Playing the Building. Basically, the always-awesome DB (inspired by a similar exhibit in Stockholm) hooked up the the inner workings of the Battery Maritime Building to a wooden church organ, and has invited the public to come play. http://www.davidbyrne.com/art/art_projects/playing_the_building/index.php

In an interview about the project, Byrne calls it a “social apparatus… a shared communal experience.” Audience/participants interact with each other and their environment with a heightened awareness to the art of listening as much as performing. Byrne doesn’t preach that art has intrinsic moral value (“Plenty of monsters like great music and art.”) but believes it can have social value.

As for rhetorical goals: “I’d like to say that in a small way it turns consumers into creative producers, but that might be a bit too much to claim. However, even if one doesn’t play the thing, it points towards a less mediated kind of cultural experience. It might be an experience in which one begins to reexamine one’s surroundings and to realize that culture–of which sound and music are parts–doesn’t always have to be produced by professionals and package in a consumable form.”

I love this guy. Have I mentioned he’s made PowerPoint into an art form? And you haven’t lived till you’ve seen him dance…

Rhetorical manslaughter?

Posted on by
1

Last week in my narrative theory class we had a wonderful discussion about intention and/vs. meaning. Does a text’s meaning depend upon the author’s intention, or can the text communication meanings that the author didn’t intend to include?  Dr. Phelan brought up the interesting real-world example of this debate: the controversy in the sports community over recent racial comments around Tiger Woods.

Quick summary: Commentator for the Golf Channel Kelly Tighlman made a ‘joke’ on air about young PGA players wanting/needing to lynch Woods to challenge his dominance.  YouTube clip

Uproar ensues, which Woods tries to calm by arguing that he and Tighlman are friends, that she is sorry, and most importantly that there was no “ill intent” behind the comment; she is suspended for 2 weeks.

Meanwhile Dave Seanor, the editor of Golfweek magazine, runs an issue (1/19/08) intended to continue an important discussion about race in the sport — and puts an image of a noose on the cover. Golfweek cover

More uproar, followed by apologies and Seanor’s immediate dismissal.  Apology from Golfweek

So — here we have a case in which 2 messages were sent without “ill intent.” In fact, Golfweek’s editor seems to have intended an honest and complex discussion of this issue in an historically racist sport community, though admittedly with an insensitive prompt. My question is: why was Seanor punished so much more severely than Tighlman? And what does that suggest about intentionality and meaning? Do we need different degrees of judgment? In the legal system, when someone commits a crime intention is taken into consideration (for example, murder vs. manslaughter) — but usually the crime is still punished. How do we determine or judge rhetorical acts? Does intention or effect determine meaning in the real world? What about when the effects (some are harmed, some pleased) vary according to audience?

the naked spoof

Posted on by
Reply

A freaked-out friend just told me about the latest Radar magazine cover:

http://www.radarmagazine.com/

Scroll all the way down to see the front cover of this issue, which
features a photoshopped nude tableau of presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, and Hilary Rodham Clinton; the full shot on the fold-out cover includes Mitt Romney (in old-style men’s underwear) seated on a stool.

Radar has revised this earlier Vanity Fair cover:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11216869/

Click on the “launch” button under the photo to see the full shot. The scoop on
the Vanity Fair cover was that Rachel McAdams backed out of the
shoot when she learned it was nude, and so designer (and guest
art director of the issue) Tom Ford stepped in…

I’m thinking these texts would make for some fascinating
conversations about gender, race, sexuality, and power….as you’ll
see!

Fun at Feminism(s) and Rhetoric(s)

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been almost a week now since we presented our pilot at Fem/Rhet in Little Rock, and I’m still riding pretty high. The conference, first of all, is consistently delightful, fascinating, warm, and inspiring. We were confident and excited, and the presentation just felt like fun — thanks especially to a responsive and challenging crowd full of advice and enthusiasm. Thanks are also due to Kay Halasek, who chaired and collaborated on the presentation. Good times!

The best part, I think, is that right from Krista Ratcliffe’s energizing keynote, every panel we attended seemed directly related to the Harlot project — every text and conversation seemed like one that we could have, with spirit and fun, on the site. So I hope that we reached a few of our fellow presenters, because I can’t wait to see what the conversations they engage on Harlot in the future.

Work-in-Progress, with emphasis on the progress

Posted on by
1

Today we delivered our first editorial presentation to the OSU Literacy Studies Grad Student Interdisciplinary Working Group (or something with some combination of those words), a dry run of the presentation we will deliver next Friday at the Feminism(s) and Rhetoric(s) conference in Little Rock, AR.

So, WHEW. Big sigh of relief after weeks of astonishingly intense stress and sleeplessness — and not a little bit of excitment and even confidence. And, for the most part, things went as hoped… especially in the sense that this run-through served its purpose of teaching us what we need to revise to make next week’s that much better.

We have put a moratorium on apologies, so I will only say that my presentation will need the most revision. I knew this going in; the campus talk targeted a vastly different audience than we will face at Fem/Rhet — who won’t be quite as interested in the cast of supporters, for example. More importantly, the audience today helped us realize a major gap — a concretization of the project and product from the opening. So my “film” will be scrapped (and those lost hours mourned appropriately) in favor of a brief origins/development story culminating in a thorough exploration of the site and submissions. Problem solved… and humility safely intact.

The pride, though, is also still there — especially when I consider the amazing performances given by the rest of the board. They were smooth, professional, and inspiring. We were, however, gently called out on our tendency towards self-deprecation. As rhetoricians, we need to be mroe aware of our own ethos, in our persons as well as our site.

To close on a positive note, then, we found our work validated by the warmth of the audience’s response — and even more so by the engaged and engaging conversation that followed our presentations. Such provokative and good-natured dialogue is exactly Harlot‘s theory in practice. Thanks to all who made that happen.

A note of thanks

Posted on by
1

As the Summer of Harlot winds down, and the Autumn of Application (or something like that!) sets in, I think it’s important to give a shout-out to all of the people who have given generously of their time and work. This occurred to me as I’m fielding e-mails from Dickie, Kay, Jim, Cindy, Matt and James, all of whom are bending over backward — in the middle of their “real” work day — to give Harlot a helping hand, from designing promotional materials to recruiting staff to reading drafts of our own submissions.

Thanks, all, for your help — and for your less tangible but even more essential support and friendship. We owe Harlot to you.