The Future of Rhetoric in Our Digital Age

The Future of Rhetoric in Our Digital Age
In Advertising, Politics and Freedom of Speech

Student
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

English 143
April 30, 2011

Abstract

While rhetoric has not seemed to have changed much over the years since the days of Aristotle, the use of this ancient are form appears to be continually transformed as new technologies are discovered and used. The advertising media have discovered new ways to use several figures of rhetoric in their effort to persuade us in buying their product over the competition. Politicians use these same figures in their means of persuasion for election to the office in which they seek. However, direct relationships with mass media outlets have also had an effect on the language and message of a political candidate. Finally, the basis of America’s freedom of speech and of the press, while not directly in question, does present some matters on what, if any, restrictions should be put on the freedom in the coming years as we use the power of new technologies.

The Future of Rhetoric in Our Digital Age While performing research for this paper, I did what any modern student would do; I went straight to the internet. Of course my particular reasons have more to do with necessity rather than pure laziness in not wanting to walk to the nearest campus library. I found the entire process entertaining, frustrating and eye-opening all at the same time. Because the way our internet service is out here, we receive our feed from a non-US carrier. Because of this, the searches for key words for my research produced some interesting results. The change in rhetoric I found is not confined to the United States. In fact, most of the articles, journals, blogs and news clips I have came across were from various European countries that have their own opinion on the future of rhetoric in and outside their borders. With this, I would like to explore three aspects of how the electronic, or digital age, has changed the way we have used and the way we perceive rhetoric today and what the future may be for this ancient art form.
The Evolution of Visual Rhetoric and Figurative Language in Advertizing It’s difficult to grasp how saturated our everyday lives are in visual rhetoric until you are pulled from the world of mass media and placed into one that is all but media-free. One advantage, or disadvantage depending on your perspective, of this life where there are no televisions and the internet is quite limited, is that I am not bombarded with or influenced by visual rhetoric from media outlets on a daily basis. Whether it’s commercial or political rhetoric or even public service messages, if you are aware of the common figures of visual rhetoric, you will be able to see how frequently these figures of visual rhetoric are part of our everyday lives. The object of any of these figures remains rooted in what Aristotle named the three artistic proofs of ethos, pathos and logos. (Aristotle, trans. 2007) Mass media plays on all three proofs using one or more of these figures to enhance of insight of rhetoric.
Metaphors and Similes “Metaphor is defined as implied comparison between two relatively dissimilar objects. Simile on the other hand, is an explicit comparison between two dissimilar objects” (Chantrill, 2000) Metaphors and similes are the most widely used types of figures in modern advertising. We see this in advertisements so often that most of us have grown somewhat numb to metaphorical advertising, so much as it has lost a great deal of its effectiveness, forcing advertisers to invent more clever ways to present their product. While I do not believe that the use of metaphors and similes will die completely, because of their overuse in modern advertising, the future of metaphors in advertising will require further refinement if they are to remain an effective means of advertising.
Metonymy
Metonymies do not compare, either indirectly or directly, dissimilar objects. Rather this figure uses substitution or condensation to form a mental association between the object being displayed and it is intended to represent. In most instances, the type of metonymy used is called a synecdoche, substituting a part for the whole or the whole for the part. Some examples would be a picture of the Eiffel Tower on a travel brochure for an advertisement for Pairs, or ‘short hairs’ for a breed of cat as in the 2000 advertisement for EDS. Even the initials ‘EDS’ for Electronic Data Systems is an example of the use of a synecdoche. (Chantrill, 2000) In fact, in today’s age of electronic imagery, the use of corporate images in lieu of the actual name of the company is more popular than ever. Companies like Nike, UPS, Pepsi and many other are all easily identified by their logos and is in fact rather redundant to include the actual names of their company with the logo.
Hyperbole
Another figure that is widely used in media today is hyperbole. In today’s society where “excess and exaggeration” are commonplace, so is the use of hyperboles according to Robert Harris, professor of English and Vanguard University of Southern California, that they “become a metaphoric parody, a mockery of all that is good and wholesome in the realm of figurative language.” (Chantrill, 2000) Hyperboles are not only confined to advertising, electronic mass media as well as print media use this figure all too often to accentuate photographs in the news. I am reminded of the photo of OJ Simpson in Time compared to Newsweek in days after he was arrested for the murder of his wife and Ronald Goldman. With advances of photo manipulating software, I am sure this will continue to be used and abused by both the advertising and news media.
Other Figures of Visual Rhetoric in the Electronic Age With the advent of computer-generated imaging, the sky doesn’t even seem to be the limit on what can be accomplished with visual rhetoric. Consumers sometime appear more interested on how flashy or bizarre an advertisement is rather than judging the product itself on its merits. One has to look no further then Super Bowl Sunday to put this statement to the test. Media marketers spend countless hours and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, for a coveted sixty-second spot during the Super Bowl. Websites and news media even go as far as covering these commercials with almost as much interest and evaluation as the game itself. Figures such as personification, accents and anacoluthon can make a huge rhetorical statement with powerful digital images created by the advertising media. While personification is not itself new, the realism of the personifications is and they are getting more realistic as time goes on. Given this, advertisers can better utilize these personifications for any or all three of the artistic proofs from anything to logos by way of talking geckos to pathos with polar bears speaking about global warming. Other figures such as visual anacoluthon and accents are also becoming and will continue to be one of the important tools of rhetoric for mass media advertisers, and as the shift continues toward a more visual or graphic society, so will the reliance of visual rhetoric to enhance the effectiveness of persuasion.
Electronic Rhetoric in Politics Some would argue that in spite of the advances in electronic media, political rhetoric has not changed since the days of Aristotle; others would say that this type of rhetoric has changed substantially because of it. (Hakansson, 1997) To me, I agree with the latter. As I have stated before in a previous report, I am admittedly a passive observer in the political processes from the presidency all the way down to my local city council. However, the more I learn about how rhetoric plays in today’s politics, I have become more and more an active observer. However, I’m still quite a ways off from being an active member. In my research, I have found a few articles on the subject of political rhetoric in the electronic age, both from the United States and abroad. The following are some of the more interesting, for me anyway, results of my research and how different theorist sees the new age of American politics and where it may be heading. New Twists on Old Political Tactics
I first found it interesting that I am not alone when I compared the political process to advertising. Patricia Chantrill, Ph.D., professor at Eastern Washington University, had this to say about the comparison:
Politics, or the art of influencing others and garnishing support for one’s agenda, is comparable to the persuasive mission of advertising. It is, ironically, even more likely in our electronic era to encounter the ancient figures of speech and thought in political debate. (Chantrill, 2000)
I understood fully the first statement, but I really didn’t understand why the professor would say that it was more likely that today’s political debate would include more ancient figures of speech and thought and not less. Again, figurative language plays a starting role just as it does in advertising. One of the most powerful strategies in the politician’s rhetorical arsenal is repetition. At the height of any political campaign, carefully worded phrases and sound bites will be repeated by the candidates so that we, as the voting public, will not only remember these , but have so imbedding in our brain cells that we can’t help but being influenced by them come voting day. But where is most of this repetition coming from? One can only attend so many political events in person and read so many of the candidate’s flyers. So how that in is today’s society, where we are seemingly busier and overloaded with information than at any other time in history, are we able to keep all this political rhetoric inside our brain cells? And what is being repeated really worth repeating?
Mass Media and its Role in Election Campaigns The purpose of speeches for candidates remains the same as it ever was; to persuade voters and to get elected. Lately however, the means of this persuasion has come into question by some theorist and common citizens alike. Since the advent of electronic media, with radio, television, and now the internet, political candidates have used this powerful tool to broadcast their messages to the masses. But in recent years, the influence mass media has on the political process has made some wonder who is working for whom. Nicklas Hakansson, lecturer at the Department of Political Science, Goteborg University, has written an appraisal of the changes that have taken place in the past few decades with mass media and the effect this may have had on election campaigns. Hakansson also explored three rhetorical dimensions of message concreteness, direction, and identity construction with its effect of today’s media and as its relevance to campaign strategies. (Hakansson, 1997) Has political communication seen a decline in recent years? If so, how much of this decline is at the hands of mass media? What other effects has media had on not only the substance of political and electoral language, but the overall influence of the message as well? Nicklas Hakansson makes this observation:
Over the last four or five decades, the world of mass media has changed fundamentally, and this change has had great implications for election campaigns. First, the technical conditions have changed. Political parties have encountered new media channels, such as television, as well as greater diversity within media, which has altered their ways of campaigning for elections. Second, the relations between the media and the political sphere have changed. Journalism has developed from a partisan practice to a profession with a mission - including to question, to criticise [sic], and to shape opinion. (Hakansson, 1997)
There is no doubt that mass media does indeed influence, if not somewhat shape the message in electoral communication. The relationship between political parties and some media outlets have some scholars dubbing it as “media logic”, “mediatisation” or “media turn”. (Hakansson, 1997) In turn, politicians may adjust their message or tone down what may be important to them, in order to appease mass media in covering what they wish cover at the time. Rather than address real issues of the day, candidates may follow what the media wants to address, in what is popular rather on what is important. Scandals, attacks, personal or family matters may trump issues, not because if there’re importance, but because of what sells. As much as polling states to the contrary, America’s hunger for a good fight often outweighs their desire of need to hear honest to goodness issues. Other effects of media turn on election campaigns could be the “dumbing-down” or trivialization of complex issues so not to talk above the average American’s intellect. While I think there is some merit to this so not to ‘lose’ the viewer, I do believe that as time goes on, election rhetoric and the concentration of otherwise important issues, may all but be reduced to bite-sized portions to carter to our ever-decreasing attention spans. Furthermore, depending on our particular party and what news broadcast you may watch, consideration for the other parties’ views may be somewhat or even completely neglected, giving the viewer a lopsided view of the campaign. With the ever-increasing popularity of political commentators on the major news networks, it appears difficult to receive genuinely non-biased opinions on political matters.
Ethos in Today’s and Tomorrow’s Political Campaigns The final dimension of identity is considered by many experts, including Aristotle himself, the most essential means of persuasion in the political candidate’s bid for election. When Aristotle wrote about “...the moral character of the speaker...” (Aristotle, trans. 2007), I wonder what he would think of how today’s candidates go to such great lengths in establishing the artistic proof of ethos in their speeches or addresses to the media. Hakansson offers some observations the techniques that candidates use in their speeches to establish “...a sense of affinity or unity between the speaker or sender of the message and the audience.” (Hakansson, 1997) We have all heard candidates speak of their ‘roots’. A candidate may speak of their youth, as the child of a blue-collar worker who saw firsthand how much their father worked to make the ends meet. How they worked their way through college and how much they sacrificed to get to where they are today. Candidates may even employ visual rhetoric by wearing or showing a military uniform form their past. Political candidates go to great lengths to establish themselves as having the same experience as a typical American, knowing it will play far better than presenting themselves as an elitist who is out of touch with the ‘rest of us’. Mass media can play a very important role in either helping or hurting the candidate in this endeavor. Tropes, including metaphors, metonyms and similes discussed earlier in advertising, will also be used in politics. Hakansson also adds examples to the list of functions that aid in the candidate’s ability of persuade by making the new or complex easier to understand and bringing them closer to the audience. “Examples may take the form of references to individuals, either as role models or as victims of wrongful political measures of opponents...” (Hakansson, 1997) When I read his example, my first thought was of Joe the Plumber of the 2008 presidential campaign and how both sides used both the visual feature of this ‘Average Joe’ as well as using him as an example for their ideas on tax reforms. Joe became an instant celebrity and was mentioned 19 times by the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain and six times by then Democratic candidate Barrack Obama. (Harnden, 2008) However, just days later, the candidates and the public alike discovered some inconsistencies with Joe’s story. This brings yet another component to light in electronic political rhetoric and what the future may hold.
Skeletons in the Closet In an age where almost anything can be, or appear to be confirmed or denied with a few clicks of the mouse, politicians must be very careful on how far they go in presenting themselves, or their example of a seemingly upstanding citizen, as something they may or may not be. More and more details of one’s personal information is on the internet for all to see through data-mining, and it has become very easy for even regular citizens, not to mention the opposition and media, to quickly search a candidate’s spending habits, tax records (as in the case of Joe the Plumber), personal life, marriages, divorces, children, citizenship (as in the case of President Obama), and financial records just to name a few. Opposition research in political campaigns is big business for candidates and mass media alike, and it appears to getting bigger. The proverbial race to see who can attack who first in a campaign has been strengthened by the relationships between the partisan media and the candidates as more sophisticated methods of opposition research are becoming available.
Thirty Second Rhetoric I believe that we Americans are, to use what I think would be an oxymoron, ‘guilty victims’, in that we are suffering from this one-sidedness in politics, yet because of our too busy lifestyles, short attentions spans, and information overload, we chose to be content with grabbing only bits and pieces of information that is presented in mass media by thirty-second news clips or by reading the top end of a news blog. The media has become very good at being able to grasp our attention for a short while, just long enough present the juicy part of a story without providing the actual substance. Furthermore, this brash form of rhetoric has seemed to become harsher in nature within the past few years. In recent months, this form of rhetoric has come under fire.
Freedom of Speech and of the Press in our Electronic Age The debate of freedom of speech and of the press in the United States has been going on for more than two centuries. While all Americans are granted this right in the first amendment of the Constitution, the question still remains, at least for myself, of how much is too much? Where does one draw the line on the freedom of speech and public or political discourse? With new digital technologies, the relatively low price of computer and internet service, it is becoming increasingly easier for anyone to speak out on most anything they believe is important to anyone they almost anyone in the world. James A Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, and Director, The Information Society Project, Yale Law School, address the changes of social conditions of freedom of speech in a 2004 address to the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence, University of Sydney. Balkin spoke of the changing of the mass media from an asymmetrical and unidirectional entity to a media that now can be spoken back to and where one can “route around” or by “glooming onto” mass media to have your opinion heard the without the internet would have been impossible. (Balkin, 2004) Balkin uses the example of weblogs (blogs) that are used to comment on political or public issues that mass media is covering at the time. Bloggers, private or political, can route around mass media by post their blogs on the media’s website, thus making mass media no longer asymmetrical. Also, they can gloom on by using information from the media and compose their own weblog, making their own commentary. While this in itself appears benign, Balkin does offer these words of caution:
Digital technologies foster interactivity; they allow ordinary people to route around traditional media gatekeepers and offer new ways of appropriating and transforming what people find in the mass media. But here is the catch. These same features of the new technologies that empower ordinary individuals also create a very powerful and serious social conflict. That should not be surprising. We often think of new technology as something that liberates us, if we are optimists, or threatens us, if we are pessimists. Technology produces either utopia or dystopia. But what technology more often does is create social conflict. It empowers us with respect to others and makes us vulnerable to others in new ways. Technology mediates and reconstructs our relationships to other people; it produces and redistributes power and vulnerability. Technological change never simply empowers or simply endangers people. It changes their relations to others: their social relations, their economic relations, their cultural relations, their relations of power and authority, and so on. Thus, technological change creates new forms of social conflict because it allows human power to be exercised and distributed in new ways. It creates new communities of interest and divides old ones; it pits existing groups (and newly formed communities of interest) against each other in new ways. (Balkin, 2004)
This quote, albeit quite lengthy, is significant I believe, because of the impact of the internet, namely political and private websites and blogs are having on the climate of rhetoric today. In a separate paper, I spoke of the increase of harsh political rhetoric and how it came to a head on January 8, 2011. While media commentators on both sides quickly denounced the shooting, what followed appeared as a virtual finger-pointing session on who was to blame between the Republican and Democratic Parties and their associated media outlets. On one side, the shooting was a simple act of a mad man. Although tragic, it cannot be blamed by anyone in the media nor by any politician or political party. Moreover, this should not be a reason to curb the use of the political rhetoric; no matter how misguided or harsh it may be, in today’s society. Richard Benedetto, former White House correspondent and columnist used this argument on Fox News, in defense of political rhetoric as it is today; “... to say that we somehow need to shut it down or restrict it ignores our nation’s time-honored tradition of freedom of expression, which might have its drawbacks and downsides, but in the end, makes us stronger.” (Benedetto, 2011) Of course, there was strong opposition to this argument by the other side. In the hours and days after the tragedy in Arizona, a wave of support was extended to the families of the victims and to the survivors themselves, as well as on outcry from the left that this was, at least in some part, due to the ongoing harsh political rhetorical climate that was being generated overwhelmingly from the right. While some commentators of the event were more generic in their statements on the dangers of harsh political rhetoric as in this article from USA today, “...the instant venues that have accelerated the polarization of U.S. politics — cable TV, talk radio, political blogs, Twitter and more — have become the vehicles for fierce back-and-forths on who was to blame and what should be done.” (Page, S., & Schouten, F. 2011), some out rightly blamed the use of gun and other violent metaphors by the Republican Party and the media that supports the party. More than a few commentators stated not only were we building up to this; they were not surprised when it happened, and going as far as saying that it was expected. Republican politicians like Sarah Palin, with her website the depicting bull’s-eye targets on several Representatives to include Gabrielle Giffords and Jesse Kelly who reportedly encouraged his supported in joining him in firing machine guns (Olbermann, 2011) were targets of condemnation by several politicians and media alike. We can blame both sides for the climate of hateful rhetoric if we like. We, as free Americans, can blog, tweet, email, or put a video on YouTube with our own opinions on this subject or any other for that matter. We have had this freedom for over two centuries and now we have the technology to do so. As time moves forward, I am confident that the barriers between mass media, politicians and their parties, and the rest of us will continue to shrink and there will be even more avenues in which we can express our opinions on rhetoric; political or otherwise. How we chose to use it, I believe, will continue to evolve as we use this powerful tool and learn of its full potential in American discourse.

References
Aristotle. Rhetoric [On rhetoric. A theory of civic discourse] (2007) (G. A. Kennedy Trans.). (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Balkin, Jack M., "How Rights Change: Freedom of Speech in the Digital Era" (2004). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 242. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/242

Benedetto, R. (2011). A history lesson in political rhetoric. FoxNews.com, Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/10/history-lesson-political-rhetoric/
Chantrill, P. (2000). Figurative language in the electronic age: on herding cats and lame ducks. Informally published manuscript, Department of English, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. Retrieved from http://chantrill.net/com245.pdf
Hakansson, N. (1997). Election rhetoric of political parties. Javnost-The Public, 4(3), Retrieved from http://www.javnost-thepublic.org/media/datoteke/1997-3-hakansson.pdf
Harnden, T. (2008). Us elections: Joe the plumber is latest character in presidential campaign. The Telegraph, Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection 2008/presidentialdebates/3212059/US-elections-Joe-the-Plumber-is-latest-character -in-presidential-campaign.html
Olbermann, K. (2011). Violence and threats have no place in democracy. the political rhetoric of the country must be changed to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. . msnbc tv, Retrieved from ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
Page, S., & Schouten, F. (2011). Gabrielle Giffords shooting fuels debate over rhetoric. Retrieved March 25, 2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-09-ariz-shooting-political-rhetoric_N.htm

References: Aristotle. Rhetoric [On rhetoric. A theory of civic discourse] (2007) (G. A. Kennedy Trans.). (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Balkin, Jack M., "How Rights Change: Freedom of Speech in the Digital Era" (2004). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 242. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/242 Benedetto, R. (2011). A history lesson in political rhetoric. FoxNews.com, Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/10/history-lesson-political-rhetoric/ Chantrill, P. (2000). Figurative language in the electronic age: on herding cats and lame ducks. Informally published manuscript, Department of English, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. Retrieved from http://chantrill.net/com245.pdf Hakansson, N. (1997). Election rhetoric of political parties. Javnost-The Public, 4(3), Retrieved from http://www.javnost-thepublic.org/media/datoteke/1997-3-hakansson.pdf Harnden, T. (2008). Us elections: Joe the plumber is latest character in presidential campaign. The Telegraph, Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection 2008/presidentialdebates/3212059/US-elections-Joe-the-Plumber-is-latest-character -in-presidential-campaign.html Olbermann, K. (2011). Violence and threats have no place in democracy. the political rhetoric of the country must be changed to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. . msnbc tv, Retrieved from ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/ Page, S., & Schouten, F. (2011). Gabrielle Giffords shooting fuels debate over rhetoric. Retrieved March 25, 2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-09-ariz-shooting-political-rhetoric_N.htm