And our winner for Best Rhetorical Analysis in the month of December by someone 12 years of age or younger goes to Riley, who reminds us that analyzing the rhetoric of color choices, gender shaping, and consumer culture can never begin too early. Congratulations, Riley!
I don’t know much about tenure or impact factors and journals. I don’t really know much about how academic journals get rated for prestige, influence, and coolness. But I’ve been thinking about new sorts of ratings for academic publications—especially those DIY publications. I’ve been thinking about those self-published pieces that don’t go through a journal but are published online ready to be experienced. There are some outstanding pieces out there that may not have a home in a journal but are important and need some support and academic cred. I’ve also been thinking about all the work comp and rhet teachers do online. I mean often they are blogging about rhetoric, vlogging about rhetoric, youtubing about composition, facebooking composition and, in general, engaging in academic activities through social media platforms that they never get credit for. So I wonder about liking and +1ng. And I ask ya these questions:
1. Should there be some sort of calculation (impact factor type) for articles, books, and websites based on likes and +1s and tweets ?
2. Could academic prestige be equated to social media numbers?
3. Should social media presence help with tenure?
If the answer is yes to any of the above then ya gotta ask the next questions:
1. Would a like from Villanueva mean more than a like from Muhlhauser?
2. Would a +1 from Yancey be rated higher than a +1 from Brad Pitt?
What would a university look like if tenure were based on social media presence?
Please like, +1, and tweet this post. I’m preparing for the future.
later
From the latest issue of WIRED comes this dispatch on speech analysis research conducted at University of Michigan, which concludes that faster pacing, regular breathing, and control of pitch (less varied for men, more for women) is the key to persuading your listeners. And somewhere from the beyond, Demosthenes smiles…
Via PetaPixel comes this post linking to a short documentary by Ruben Salvadori on the techniques commonly used by photographers in framing, staging, and otherwise embellishing conflict photography. Those readers interested in visual rhetoric, citizen journalism, rhetorical ethics, and related topics will likely find this video a useful critique:
Here’s a fascinating video in which Italian photographer Ruben Salvadori demonstrates how dishonest many conflict photographs are. Salvadori spent a significant amount of time in East Jerusalem, studying the role photojournalists play in what the world sees. By turning his camera on the photographers themselves, he shows how photojournalists often influence the events they’re supposed to document objectively, and how photographers are often pushed to seek and create drama even in situations that lack it.
The Art of Manliness has a well written series of primers on classical rhetoric and the five canons.
Check ‘em all out:
Classical Rhetoric 101: An Introduction
Classical Rhetoric 101: A Brief History
Rhetoric in the news:
Herman Cain's Rhetoric Pie
It’s true (and perhaps to be expected) that rhetoric is implicitly defined here as bombastic sound-bites, caustic charges thick with generalization, delivered with unexamined confidence. Sadly, we’ve gotten used to having rhetoric framed this way (though we certainly should not accept it). What interests me, though, is the use of “extra” that’s further emphasized with the heaping mess of pizza glob and goop. It points us to a quantitative framing of rhetoric instead of a qualitative one. To stick with the metaphor: rhetoric may be perfectly acceptable as a garnish, a topping to be sprinkled judiciously on something substantive, but if the “toppings” are piled too high and wide we’ll get sick.
It’s a remarkably unproductive way to frame rhetoric that should signal to rhetoricians everywhere that our work is cut out for us . . .
I would like to see more (a lot more) of this type of rhetorical analysis:
For similar videos check out “Trailer For Every Oscar-Winning Movie Ever,” Charlie Brooker’s “How to Report the News,” and The Onion’s “Breaking News: Some Bullshit Happening Somewhere.”
More please.
I just found an interesting piece over at grist that charts a genealogy of sorts for the phrase, “War on Cars.” It a curious expression that’s been used to frame just about any type of regulation of cars, from congestion pricing (in London, for example) to investment in alternative transportation.
Click on image to access article
It doesn’t take much intellectual effort to look around and realize that our urban infrastructures are hardly waging a war on cars. But the factual absurdity of the phrase doesn’t mean it isn’t rhetorically powerful; maneuvering into a position of victimhood and defensiveness is often an effective move.
From ScienceDaily comes this report out of RPI, concluding that the tipping point of shifting public opinion is surprisingly low:
Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.
The implications for rhetorical practice, teaching, and study are intriguing.
Not an entirely new idea, but this Australian video explores the notion of “scripted disorientation” as a technique used in places like shopping malls, supermarkets, and even Ikea to subtly persuade (trick) you into buying things you didn’t intend to:
Continue reading