jennaroecker-blog

[jennaroecker-blog]

*Foucault: Rhetoric as Power*

In this entry I will examine the critical questions: What is an example of a discursive formation and its elements? How does this discursive formation evoke a certain sense of power, and how is this power limiting/constraining/unproductive?

To investigate these questions I chose to look at the San Diego Zoo, specifically a promotional video from California Travel Tips. Zoos, where animals are confined to small enclosures and often secluded, have become normalized institutions that are now considered a staple in the American society. However, the power exerted over the  animals is ultimately limiting towards the animals as they are unable to live in their natural habitat with others of their kind.

Modern zoos were established in the 19th century and the San Diego Zoo was opened in 1916. With about 4,000  animals on display and over 4 million visitors, the San Diego Zoo is the most visited zoo in America. The zoo has over 650 (sub) species of animals with exhibits built around different habitats, such as the African rainforest and the Arctic tundra. While the video features the wildlife on display and tourist attractions available to the public, the video doesn’t show how the zoos operate and how the animals are treated behind the scenes. Zoos are still a business and none of those aspects are covered in the video. However, the video attempts to promote the idea that this attraction is all about the guest experience, focusing on what is available to the guest.

Sonja Foss (1987) explores Foucault and how he argues that discourse structures knowledge instead of the other way around. Foucault states that there are five units which make up discursive formation and Foss further explains these units which Foucault states are the basis of our knowledge. The five units include discursive practices, rules, roles, power and knowledge. Discursive practices refers to discourse that is understood to be true in culture by following particular rules (387). Rules relate to the principles or procedures which govern a discursive formation and can concern who is allowed to speak in a discursive formation (388). The roles of discursive formation relate to how discourse, rather than rhetor, serves as the organizing principle of discourse and thus of knowledge (389). Power is the overall system, process, or network of force relations spread through the entire discursive formation (389) while knowledge is whatever that is considered to be the truth (390).

Zoos have become a normalized institution across the United States and worldwide. In the promotional videos it showcases how the panda exhibit is a popular guest attraction, displaying the long lines of people waiting to see pandas that are being loaned from China. Another exhibit which is featured is the koala exhibit, making sure to point out that the zoo has the largest number of koalas outside of Australia. One wouldn’t expect to see panda or koala bears in the United States as they are not native to the area, but because of zoo this idea has been adopted by many. Zoos have encompassed norms which are not adopted by guests, exemplifying how power can be exerted by this certain type of attraction.

Additionally, the image of a zoo has become normalized over the years, establishing the role of the park in the process. Right at the beginning of the video San Diego Zoo  advertises the image of the environment with “jungle of steep hills, canyons and winding trails”. This allows potential guests to see what the zoo is like and immerse themselves in the type of environment which is being advertised. The video also showcases the “beautiful” waterfalls, tropical flowers and natural-styled environments created to make the guest’s experience even more “real”. By creating an image of what a zoo looks like this creates a false reality for the guest, allowing them to escape from reality for a day. Although the landscape is promoted in the video, another thing apparent is the habitats of each animal featured. The San Diego Zoo, like other zoos, utilize fences to keep all of their animals contained to a certain space. Plus, these spaces usually aren’t very large and many of the animals only have limited space to roam and move around. Many of the animals are also seen to be secluded or to not have access to many other animals of its kind which may not be considered normal if they were in their natural habitat instead. In many cases these animals would have access to more land in the wild, but that can be a dangerous territory as well.

Within the promotional video the zoo also advertises a variety of tourist attractions available to the public. In addition to have a large variety of exhibits and plants on display, the zoo also provides bus tours which cover about 75% of the park. The Skyfari Aerial Tram allows guests to see stunning views of both San Diego and the zoo itself. Even though the zoo doesn’t need these attractions to operate, they play to what guests want in order to increase business throughout the day. In the video, restaurants and foot massagers are also advertised. By advertising these components it showcases the amenities available to customers, showing how the zoo can further serve their guests while they visit the various attractions. Typically zoos are thought of as a family-friendly attraction and this video makes sure to promote things that kids will notice and appeal to too. The San Diego Zoo has a Petting Paddock that allows kids to interact with wildlife by providing them the opportunity to pet animals such as goats and sheep. At the end of the video, the gift shop is also focused on which is often visited by families at the end of their trip. Throughout the entire video many amenities and features for guests are promoted in order to appeal to all types of audiences.

Roles and rules are reflected by employees and their responsibilities at the park. While not a highlighted feature in the video, zoo employees are the ones to speak about the animals and for the animals. Depending on their position, many zoo employees are knowledgeable about the zoo whether it’s concerning the animals or the environment itself. For example, employees wear a different outfit from customers. At the end of the video you can see a ticket sales person wearing a green top which is part of their uniform and when showing clips from the restaurant the waiters/waitresses are wearing the same outfit too. By having employees wearing uniforms they reflect the values of the park, clean and put together. Plus this helps customers distinguish employees from other customers at the park, establishing the roles of each individual and pinpointing who is knowledgeable about the park in some legitimate way.

Ultimately, the zoo is a business which looks to run efficiently and effectively. It evokes a sense of power over the animals as the business looks to please the customer and improve customer satisfaction. By evoking this sense of power, it limits the creatures being confined to an enclosure just to be showcased to the guests. Zoos have evolved to become a bigger tourist industry, creating new exhibits and buying new things in order to retain current guests and appeal to new ones. Zoos, like the one in San Diego, are able to exert a power over its animals as they are unable to do anything. But the customers are also able to exert a power over the zoo, even if they aren’t aware of it. Since the zoo looks to please the guests so that they keep coming back and spend money, the guests are able to influence the zoo’s decisions and actions. While both the zoo and the guests are able to exert some sense of power over another group, the animals at the zoo aren’t able to do the same.

Fogelberg (2014) further argues that “power may influence visitors through dominant ideological discursive formations (diDFs) and emergent discourse objects, adding to the paradox of “saving” wild animals while simultaneously oppressing them” (789). Although zoos have many visitors who are looking to view animals and escape reality in some sense, Fogelberg questions whether people are actually learning anything while there. Zoos are presenting a paradox: by confining animals we are saving them. She later goes onto to say that the discourse here is continuous and the paradox is created as we “cage animals, confine them to mere slivers of their natural home range, coax them to reproduce, feed them things they would never eat in the wild, and put them on display so other humans may stare at them” (796). Discursive practices have affected how we see zoos and as a result they have added to the paradox which continues to grow as the power from the business and guests increases as well.

In summary, enclosing animals to display to the public has become a discursive formation within society. The San Diego Zoo, among all of the other zoos, have become a normalized institution by the roles and discursive practices that have been put into place. The power exerted by both the zoo and the guests has created a limiting effect on the animals as they are unable to live naturally, but instead are now secluded to a small area, often in small numbers, to be displayed among society.

References:

California Travel Trips. San Diego Zoo. YouTube, 1 Mar. 2008, youtu.be/H2Eard_prNY.

Fogelberg, Katherine. “Unsilencing Voices: a Study of Zoo Signs and Their Language of Authority.” Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol. 9, no. 4, 30 Aug. 2014, pp. 787–799.

Foos, S.K., and Gill, A. (1987). Michel Foucault’s theory of rhetoric as epistemic. Western Journal of Communication, 51(4), 384-401.

“San Diego Zoo.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 May 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Zoo#History.

[jennaroecker-blog]

What is Rhetoric to Me? (Then and Now)

In Comm 320, Rhetorical Traditions, I learned about numerous theories of rhetoric which has helped clarify my view of what rhetoric is. This essay highlights how my definition of rhetoric has changed from the beginning to the end of the class. Initially, before the class started, I viewed rhetoric as “a tool for speaking which could be used to influence an audience”. After taking the course I now understand rhetoric as language which draws from values and the usage of tools such as framing and symbols,  with the purpose of promoting a message by playing to a certain audience while still retaining some uncertainty and relativity behind it.

When I first thought about the term “rhetoric” I didn’t know exactly what to think. All I really knew is that it could be used as a persuasive tool by an individual. I was aware that there were a variety of broad definitions that came with the word; however, I didn’t have an exact idea of what it meant. After gaining a wider perspective on rhetoric by learning about different theorists and rhetoricians, my view on what rhetoric is has changed as the class progressed. After reflecting on all of the theorists and rhetoricians we learned about this past term I believe that Pericles, the Sophists/Gorgias, and Burke heavily influenced how my new definition of rhetoric was formed.

One of the first people we looked at at the beginning of the term was Pericles, a leader that gave the Funeral Oration speech in Athens. The speech Pericles gave held a patriotic narrative which told the audience who they were and helped in building momentum for the future. Throughout the entire funeral oration Pericles addresses the audience, consoling citizens and praising both their ancestors and the dead. By praising Athens’ ancestors Pericles promotes courage among the audience and the virtues which the city holds. He continues to uphold Athens’ values by promoting their democratic model as the city is free and open, taking care of those who need it and having pride in the military forces. In his oration Pericles also makes sure to praise the dead soldiers saying “I have sung the praises of our city; but it was the courage and gallantry of these men, and people like them, which made her splendid”, emphasizing that the freedom being fought for is a cherished value. As an orator Pericles makes sure to acknowledge his audience by addressing the values they continue to demonstrate while also promoting a general message that citizens shouldn’t give up yet. Many pieces of rhetoric often reflect the values the rhetorician is trying to promote or encourage when reaching out to an audience. Pericles made sure that the audience was the focus of his speech by emphasizing “we Athenians”, “our city” and “others”, playing to the citizens by praising them in the process. Acknowledging and including an audience when making a certain argument can be effective as it directs what is being said to those who are listening. Even though Pericles draws on prior events in order to create a group at present, he still works to spread a message concerning the future. Rhetoricians alike spread a message or make a claim throughout all of their work, and Pericles is a great example. Although Pericles has affected my view of rhetoric, he isn’t the only one who has made an impact.

The Sophists were a group of rhetoricians which taught skills to others, like learning how to memorize things and how to speak effectively and productively. They argued that there isn’t one capital truth, but for every idea there is an opposing one as well. Uncertainty, opinion and relativity were three theme prominent among Sophists, unlike plato who believe in certainty, knowledge and that there is only one answer to things.  From this viewpoint I see Sophists as more open-minded, willing to listen to multiple perspectives when searching for the truth behind things. I personally am convinced that with rhetoric there is no one certain truth and that there can be some sense of relativity and uncertainty that surrounds it. While factual knowledge should be present in rhetoric, I don’t believe that everything has to be straight facts or that there has to be only one capital T truth. Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen further suggests how powerful rhetoric can be based on how a rhetorician makes an argument.

One of the first known Sophists was Gorgias who believed that we don’t know anything for sure, but that we create our own realities. In his piece relating to Helen the goddess, he seeks to defend her (800 years later) as she was found abandoning her husband for Paris, Trojan Prince Alexander.  The purpose of Encomium of Helen was to eliminate her bad reputation so that others would not blame Helen in the situation. Gorgias frames his argument in a way to demonstrate that a skilled rhetorician can prove any proposition if done effectively. In his article he argues that Helen committed adultery because “Either she did what she did because of the will of fortune and the plan of the gods and the decree of necessity, or she was seized by force, or persuaded by words (or captured by love).” Ultimately Gorgias claims that Helen cannot be blamed for any of these possible reasons as none of them were her fault. He states, “Whether she did what she did, invaded by love, persuaded by speech, impelled by force or compelled by divine necessity, she escapes all blame entirely.” Instead the possible reasons as to why she left her husband are to blame as they were brought upon her, she didn’t initiate the adulterous acts. Rhetoric can be persuasive depending on how an argument is framed. Gorgias spins Helen’s adulterous acts by arguing that instead of her committing the act, the act instead was done to her and out of her control. This article also plays to the emotions of the audience, which is another characteristic of many pieces of rhetoric. By asserting that it wasn’t Helen’s fault for leaving her husband because other forces were at play, Gorgias appears to make the attempt of having the audience feel sympathetic towards Helen. Retaining some sense of relativity and uncertainty in regards as to why Helen left her husband further reflects how Sophists viewed rhetoric.

Often rhetoric utilizes framing and symbols to further advance an argument or message, which was used in two of Kenneth Burke’s pieces. One of the first pieces we looked at was The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle which provided a preview to how Hitler used different rhetorical tools to make convincing speeches, allowing him to gain such a large group of followers. The way a rhetorician frames an argument can affect how the audience receives the message being delivered. In regards to Hitler’s rise, Burke also makes sure to point out that contextually the timing was bad as the economy was bad and people were looking for someone to blame. He states, “People so dislike the idea of internal division that, where there is a real internal division, their dislike can easily be turned against the man or group who would so much as name it, let alone proposing to act upon it.” Hitler created a rhetoric that simplified the problem, by creating an out-group (the Jews) which exemplified a non-economic interpretation with economic ills while also unifying the majority of citizens. As a result, the idea of “us versus them” was promoted which created a sense of belonging within the in-group while exiling the out-group and pinning economic failures on them. At the end of the article Burke notes that “But this unity, if attained on a deceptive basis, emphasized by emotional trickeries that shift our criticism from the accurate locus of our trouble, is no unity at all.” Rhetoricians can create a shift in what is actually going on by playing to the audience’s emotions and framing certain situations in a specific light. Groups or people can be scapegoated as a result of framing being used in rhetorical pieces, altering the message being spread.

Another piece that we looked at by Burke was The Human Actor: Definition of Man which focused on how man is a “symbol-using animal”. We as humans are constantly using symbols in our everyday lives, whether we’re aware of it or not. For example, we use emojis when communicating with one another; however, symbols can oftentimes be misused. All throughout language we utilize substitution, abbreviation and condensation as tools in order to spread a message in a way that we believe is effective and efficient, even if it’s not. There is a close relationship between language and tools Burke argues. This relationship can evoke a symbolic meaning behind it because the usage of tools in language can create a message which can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Additionally, we have created a hierarchy with symbols and categories such as with socioeconomic status. Each category symbolizes something different. Society continually inserts symbolism into its rhetoric as it is significant to providing associations and meanings which are dependent upon both the audience and context of the message. Almost anything can count as a symbol which is important when examining the context of rhetoric.

By having the ability to learn more about the theories which surround rhetoric my definition of rhetoric has evolved during this course. At the beginning of the class I only knew that rhetoric was an influential tool; however, I have come to realize that sometimes rhetoric isn’t an influential factor, but instead goes beyond that. Ultimately, after learning about all of the rhetoricians and theorists that we covered in class, I found Pericles, the Sophists and Gorgias, and Burke to be the most influential when creating my definition of rhetoric. Although there are a variety of components associated with rhetoric I found it to be language that bases itself off of values and the usage of tools like framing and symbols, with the purpose of spreading a message by playing to a certain audience while still maintaining a sense of uncertainty and relativity behind it.

References:

Burke, K. (1989). The human actor: Definition of man. In J.R. Gusfield (Ed.), Kenneth Burke: On symbols and society (pp.56-74). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burke, K. (2005). The rhetoric of Hitler’s battle. In C.R. Burckhardt (Ed.), Readings in rhetorical criticism (3rd ed.) (pp. 188-202). State College: Strata Publishing, Inc. (Original work published in 1974)

Gorgias. (1995). Encomium of Helen. In M. Garagin and P. Woodruff (Eds.), Early Greek political thought from Homer to the Sophists (pp. 190-195). Cambridge, Cambridge University PRess. (Original publication date unknown)

Pericles. (1194). The funeral oration. In J.J. Murphy and R.A. Katula (eds.), A Synoptic history of classical rhetoric (2nd ed.) (p. 217-221). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press. (Original work published in 430 B.C.E.)

[jennaroecker-blog]

*The Feminine Style*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question(s):What gender norm is constructed or undone in this artifact, how it is rhetorically performed, and/or how does it promote a dominate ideology over a marginalized group or push back against the ideology or gender norms? Is it productive/unproductive (ethical/unethical)?

To investigate these questions, I examined Beyonce’s music video “If I Were a Boy”. This song portrays the gender norm that boys are carefree, unaware and don’t know how to express love correctly by using the lyrics to characterize the male figure, further emphasized through the actions of the characters in the video . Overall this is unproductive as it relies on stereotypes to define how both males and females act and feel in a relationship.

Beyonce’s music video “If I Were a Boy”  was inspired by the breakup of a relationship. Both the song and music video depict the stereotypes between genders of those in a relationship and prosecute the male figure as Beyonce sings about if she were a boy. The theme of role reversal is present throughout the video, showing the female character to be “acting” like a stereotype male while the male character “acts” like a stereotype female figure. For example, Beyonce is seen to have the job as a cop while her male partner has a secretarial job which is often stereotyped as an occupation for a woman. During most of the music video Beyonce is seen to be acting as “one of the guys”; however, right at the end of the video roles are reversed and gender stereotypes resume. Along with the actual lyrics of the song, the music video depicts gender norms of males and females as individuals (in general) and as a couple through the usage of role reversal.

Judith Butler argues that we can use rhetoric to deconstruct and construct gender. Society utilizes symbols to provide meaning which allows a variety of meanings to be associated with a certain object or idea. Overall the feminist rhetorical theory pertains to the dominance of gender and its construction. The construction of this theory looks to create gender norms in a negative way while maintaining power of the dominant gender, which is often patriarchal. In the introduction she states that there is no one author which creates the terms that are associated with each gender (1). She brings up the question of how we can work to deconstruct the norms associated with gender and sexaulity as they can often be restrictive. Later on she goes on to say that “The terms by which we are recognized as humans are socially articulated and changeable” (2). Characteristics used to construct and destruct gender often stem from society and the norms that have been created. Being sure to ask questions like Butler as to whether the term “human” will include her in the definition based on what society creates as the meaning.

First it is important to look at the lyrics of the actual song as they rhetorically construct the gender norm that guys don’t understand love and are just carefree. At first Beyonce says ”If I were a boy… I’d roll out of bed in the morning and throw on what I wanted and go drink beer with the guys and chase after girls” which exemplifies that guys are somewhat careless by chilling with their friends and drinking while also looking for chicks. She then goes to say  ”If I were a boy… I think I could understand how it feels to love a girl”. By making this statement the song is saying that guys don’t understand how to properly express love towards their partner. Another stereotype expressed in the song lyrics is exemplified when she goes to sing ”I swear I’d be a better man, I’d listen to her… Cause he’s taken you for granted”. She is not only saying that guys don’t often listen to their partner, but that they take her for granted as well. Beyonce says that she would be a better man since she would listen and not take her partner for granted. At the end of the song Beyonce goes to say that “but you’re just a boy, you don’t understand….. You don’t listen to her you don’t care how it hurts… cause you’ve taken her for granted”. This sentence creates an overall message that boys in a relationship don’t understand girls, that they don’t listen to them or care about if they’ve hurt her because they’ve ultimately taken their partner for granted. The theme that guys are unappreciative or not understanding of their girlfriend is expressed throughout the entirety of the song’s lyrics. Starting many of her sentences with “If I Were a Boy” depicts that she would do something different compared to the general male stereotype which is portrayed in the song, both in the lyrics and the music video that goes along with it.

The music video which goes along with”If I Were a Boy” further enhances the gender stereotypes that are being constructed within the song. Throughout a majority of the music video role reversal between Beyonce and her male partner is depicted. At the beginning of the video Beyonce is seen throwing on an outfit as the guy is cooking a full breakfast for them; however, Beyonce leaves and doesn’t appear to appreciate the effort her partner put in. Typically in media women are seen to be the ones cooking for their family and men are the ones who just “throw on whatever”.  Another stereotype represented through role reversal is that Beyonce is a cop which can be associated with action, danger and physical work. Her partner holds a secretary/desk-job which is often stereotyped as being a woman’s job. All throughout the music video Beyonce is seen working hanging out with her friends and male work partner while her male partner chooses not to go out with his friends as he keeps trying to call Beyonce. At one point the couple is seen at a work function, but not together as there is a clear disconnect between the two. By the end he says “When you act like that I don’t think you realize how it makes me look or feel” and Beyonce responds with “Why are you so jealous, it’s not like I’m sleeping with the guy”. Women are often associated with being more emotional and here the male figure (portrayed by Beyonce) is being depicted as unaware as to what the problem is. Once this scene occurs the characters switch back and resume their natural gender roles. Then the male partner repeats the lines just spoken and Beyonce is visibly hurt by the words said as a tear rolls down her face. The end of the video shows the characters in their actual respective roles which fit with the gender stereotypes which have previously been made.

In Campbell’s intro to Man Cannot Speak for Her, she discusses the feminine style and the characteristics that come with it, plus she explores why we engage in it.  Campbell states “a woman had to meet all the usual requirements of speakers, demonstrating expertise, authority, and rationality in order to show her competence and make herself credible to audiences” (12). One reason why the feminine style is used is because women had to prove themselves as there were no assumptions made. There are numerous characteristics associated with the feminine style including “personal in tone, relying heavily on personal experience, anecdotes, and other examples. It will tend to be structured inductively. It will invite audience participation, including the process of testing generalizations or principles against the experiences of the audience. Audience members will be addressed as peers…” (13). Based off of the characteristics present in the feminine style participatory interaction, which is a connection between audience and rhetor, seems to be a relevant when applied to Beyonce’s song. Although it is a form of media and may not provide a direct connection between her and her audience, she is able to spread her message through various platforms. This allows her to connect to her audience on a broader scale, playing off of the emotions of the audience. Also present in the song is reliance on personal experience as this song was inspired by a personal breakup, allowing Beyonce to add her own personal tone while singing the song.

In conclusion, Beyonce’s music video “If I Were a Boy” exemplifies the gender norm that males are carefree, unaware and don’t understand how to properly express love. The rhetoric used both in the lyrics and the music video itself help in constructing this stereotype which is ultimately unproductive as it relies on norms which are being used to define how males and females act and feel in a relationship, even if that ultimately isn’t the case for couples. Instead of trying to go above and beyond the stereotypes of males and females in relationships, the music video and lyrics utilize gender stereotypes to establish these norms.

Butler, J. (2004). “Introduction: Acting in concert.” In Undoing Gender (pp.1-4). New York: Routledge.

Campbell, K. K.(1989). Man cannot speak for her. Westfort, CT: Greenwood Press. 1-15.

[jennaroecker-blog]

*Isocrates, Politics, and Rhetoric*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What is an example of an artifact that fits (or doesn’t fit) Isocrates’ criteria of good rhetoric (kairos, appropriateness, originality)? Is this example of “good/bad rhetoric” ethical/productive for democracy?

As my rhetorical artifact I used a scene from the movie A Star is Born in order to explore these questions. This movie clip demonstrates how bad rhetoric can be expressed through inability to speak and act, ultimately making it productive for society as it teaches us that rhetoric can be influenced by both the words and performance of a speaker.

A Star is Born is a movie centered around the careers and relationship between two musicians, played by Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper. The scene I chose occurs when Lady Gaga’s character wins an award and makes her acceptance speech, accompanied by Cooper, her character’s husband.  Prior in the movie, it shows that because of Lady Gaga and Cooper meeting her character begins to rise to fame as his begins to fall. In the scene as Lady Gaga attempts to make her speech, Cooper starts speaking and continually interrupts her until he embarasses the both of them and is removed off the stage. This depicts just one of the many problems they encounter within their relationship and their careers.

Isocrates defines “good rhetoric” as maintaining three components, and all components must be there, otherwise it is not good rhetoric (2000). The speaker must express kairos, appropriateness, and originality while speaking to be considered a good rhetor by Isocrates. Kairos is the ability to speak in a timely fashion, making sure that the speech is given at the right time and for an appropriate length. Appropriateness consists of displaying propriety and decorum while speaking, ensuring that the context of the speech is appropriate for the moment. Originality relates to being highly dependent on the context, but has some unique aspect that fits the situation. If a speech only has one or two of these characteristics it would not be considered good rhetoric. Based off of this scene, Isocrates would categorize the situation of this speech as “bad rhetoric”. Although what occurs during the speech (scene) is quite original, it lacks kairos and appropriateness which means only one component of good rhetoric is met.

In terms of kairos, the time in which the events of this speech occurred was quite inappropriate. While the speech itself was given at an appropriate time, as Lady Gaga won an award (in the movie), the events included when she gave her speech were in poor timing. As any award show holds some important weight, especially the Grammys, it is not suggested that one goes up on the stage heavily intoxicated and unable to control his/her actions. The time carved out is for the winner to give an acceptance speech, not be interrupted by inappropriate behavior that isn’t desired for that setting. In regards to timeliness, the speech wasn’t too long; however, this was influenced by the fact that Cooper passed out which ultimately determined when the speech ended. In fact, Lady Gaga was unable to say much of her speech as she continuously got interrupted by Cooper and had to end it early. The kairos of this speech wasn’t directly influenced by Lady Gaga making her acceptance speech, but by Cooper who affected the timeliness of the whole event. However, as Lady Gaga was affected by the actions of Cooper during her speech the lack of kairos would lead Isocrates to believe this wasn’t an example of good rhetoric.

Before even making her speech, Cooper is seen inebriated as he falls up the stairs and takes quite some time getting up, clearly disoriented while doing so. As he is still sitting on the stairs, getting ready to get up, Cooper starts muttering things like “You didn’t win”. Because of social norms, society knows that it is inappropriate to show up to events heavily intoxicated, especially in this case where they’re at the Grammys. The Grammys are a prestigious awards show and well-respected as it values artists’ contribution to the music industry; therefore, appearing drunk would be considered both inappropriate and disrespectful. By showing up intoxicated he is barely able to talk, which is apparent when he gets distracted by the big screen saying “Look” as the acceptance speech is being given. Additionally, it is clear that Cooper’s character is drunk because he is barely able to hold himself up, he looks sloppy with his head back and mouth open on stage, and by the end he wets himself. Societal norms tell us that not only is it inappropriate to appear drunk in a social setting like this, but it is also inappropriate to wet yourself as it displays inability to control one’s actions. As the events which transpired during this speech are deemed quite inappropriate, this displays how one’s actions can affect the rhetoric delivered by the speaker.

Although this scene might not have represented what an appropriate speech looks (and sounds) like, it appears to be quite original. It is pretty uncommon to see speakers being interrupted during an important speech, regardless of where it’s at, since social norms tell us that the speaker should be given their allotted time to say what needs to be said. Of course there are instances where this happens; however, it is often more uncommon than not. We are told that it is rude to interrupt someone while speaking, and in this case what makes this scene more unique is the fact that the husband is interrupting his wife as she gives an important speech. In an ideal marriage the two people are supposed to respect one another, but based off of this scene there is a lack of respect between the two as he continues to interrupt her. Additionally, the Grammys award show is quite a significant event and those who attend are expected to carry themselves in a respectable manner. Therefore, if uncommon situations like interrupting a speaker at an important event occur this isn’t considered to be normal behavior. Another thing that made this speech unique was the fact that Cooper’s character is inebriated to the point that he wets himself on stage. Due to the fact that it is unnatural for that to occur in public, let alone an important award show, this adds an original component to the entire event. Through Lady Gaga’s reaction it is clear that this was not planned and makes the moment even more memorable. The very little talking done by Lady Gaga paired with the actions delivered by Cooper make this speech scene much more original than others given.

In “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation”, Rummel further explains how Isocrates viewed part of rhetoric as “the speaker to please as well as benefit his audience” (25). He didn’t believe that rhetoric consisted of absolute knowledge, but instead judged speech based off it’s style, content and purpose. In the article it references “kairos”, right timing and wording, which Isocrates appears to value quite heavily (29). He wants the speakers words to have on impact on the audience and leave the audience thinking about the topic more. Based off of this interpretation of good rhetoric, like mentioned previously, this scene featuring Lady Gaga and a drunk Cooper portrays a form of bad rhetoric. The words spoken by Lady Gaga leave minimal impact as she is unable to say much due to the interruptions by Cooper. While the entire sequence of events may leave the audience talking, it isn’t necessarily the goal of the speaker. In this case, the audience would be talking about the train-wreck of events occurring during the speech instead of celebrating Lady Gaga’s success. Knowing when to speak, what to say, and how long to make the speech is crucial to make a speech be considered “good rhetoric” in the eyes of Isocrates.  

In summary, the Grammys scene in  A Star is Born exemplifies how a speaker can perform “bad rhetoric” based on the definition provided by Isocrates. The speech given by Lady Gaga does not meet the criteria of kairos and appropriateness; however, it does count as being quite an original (and memorable) speech scene. By having Cooper involved in this scene, his actions influence the events of the speech which as a result affect the rhetoric delivered by Lady Gaga. Although rhetoric stems from the speaker, it also appears to be affected by other factors which can influence how the speaker delivers his/her message.

Works Cited:

Isocrates. (2000). Against the sophists. (D.C. Mirhady and Y. Lee Too, Trans.) (pp. 31-35). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in c. 390 B.C.E.)

M. (2019, January 16). Jackson Wets Himself at the Grammys Scene- A Star is Born 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3jsl8hXFFM

Rummel, E. (1979). Isocrates' Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation. The Classical Journal, 75(1), 25-35. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296831