ryleysblogs

[ryleysblogs]

May 17th, 2022 - *Destroying the Self of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp*

Artifact Analyzed:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/breaking-down-the-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trials-most-explosive-allegations 

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: How is the rhetoric of maintaining a self used by Amber Heard and Johnny Depp?  How do they argue against each other using the idea of destroying a self?  Are their arguments/experiences presented in a productive or unproductive manner?

To further examine these questions I have listed above, I discovered an article titled “Breaking Down the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial’s Most Explosive Allegations.”  This article provides exact quotes and statements from each side of the civil case and provides some damaging evidence relating to each side.  Through the examination of this article, we will find that both sides of the civil case use the idea of maintaining a self and destroying a self by providing personal accounts that conflict and are presented in an unproductive manner.

The Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp civil case is an argument that has made its way to the courts and the public.  It is brought into court as a defamation of character case in which Johnny Depp is suing Amber Heard for statements she made about Johnny Depp’s physical abuse and sexual assault towards Amber.  Amber Heard counter-sued Johnny Depp as well.  The article, a post posted on the news site “The Daily Beast,”  that I have picked to examine has full accounts of what Amber and Johnny have explained to be the truths they have experienced.  

In the scholarly article titled “Introduction to Rhetorical Theory: Chapter 4 Making Commitments Through Rhetoric,” Gerard Hauser, an author and academic professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, defines the four ideas of a self.  In this rhetorical analysis, we will only take a look at the idea of maintaining a self and destroying a self.  These are terms used to describe how rhetoric can play a role in how someone defines themselves based on the experiences they encounter.  Rhetoric can maintain a self by allowing the person to gain “support and sustain an existing self” (Hauser 52).  Rhetoric can destroy a self by engaging in scapegoating or symbolically slaying the selves of their opponents.  Both of these selves are portrayed on each side of the trial.

Applying the idea of a self to this article, we will begin by explaining how Amber Heard and the trial portray the idea of maintaining herself and destroying herself.  The first self that Amber Heard is portrayed as is maintaining a self.  Amber Heard is described as a victim of domestic violence.  During the trial, Heard and Depp’s prior domestic abuse trial in the UK is presented and there is a statement that surfaces that said “In November 2020, a London judge found that there was ‘overwhelming evidence’ that Depp had assaulted Heard repeatedly throughout their marriage, and she was in fear of her life” (Melendez and Stern).  The idea that Heard states she was in “fear” of Depp backs up the idea of maintaining a self as a survivor of domestic abuse.  In the article, Hauser states that when rhetorical attacks are made, this can only serve to “maintain self-identity through differentiation from an external source” (Hauser 53).  This comes to show that Amber Heard is using the idea of fear to maintain her innocence in the situation.  Fear is a prominent idea that she brings up throughout the hearing.  Fear also implies that there is something to be fearful of, that being Depp.  Heard uses the idea of destroying a self in the situation where she states “I thought he was punching me, I felt this pressure on my pubic bone...I remember looking around the room. I remember looking at all the broken bottles, broken glass, and I remember just not wanting to move because I didn’t know if it was broken or if the bottle he had inside of me was broken” (Melendez and Stern).  She uses this account of sexual abuse to destroy Johnny Depp’s credibility and paint him as a sexual abuser.  The gruesome detail that she goes into backs the idea of scapegoating or blaming the other side of the argument.  She uses the idea of a unilateral argument, which is an argument that affects one person or group, to show that he is to blame for this and implies that he is dangerous.  Overall, Heard uses these rhetorical devices to the best of her ability during this trial.

Looking at the other side of the argument, we will now examine how Johnny Depp is portrayed as maintaining a self and destroying a self.  Johnny Depp stated specific instances where he suffered from domestic abuse from Heard as well.  His idea of maintaining a self is displayed when he begins to talk about his finger being severed from an argument with Heard.  The article states “As the conversation quickly escalated into madness, he went behind the bar to grab a bottle of vodka to pour himself “two or three stiff shots of vodka,” noting that he had not consumed alcohol in a “long time.” Depp then claims a “possessed” Heard walked up to him and “reached and grabbed the bottle of vodka and then just kind of stood back and hurled it at me” before grabbing another bottle that “made contact” with him” (Melendez and Stern).  He went on to state that the contact had severed off his finger which was then gushing blood.  The idea of maintaining himself is shown through his use of language like “made contact.”  This claim implies that Amber Heard had physically and detrimentally contacted Depp.  In this specific instance in the trial, he is maintaining that he did not injure his finger but instead, was injured by Heard's careless actions.  Hauser states multiple times that maintaining a self is commonly found through insulating themselves from an attack which Depp is doing in this situation.  Following the same situation that I just mentioned, Johnny Depp and his team use the idea of destroying a self against Heard in this same situation.  They paint Amber as this enraged, abusive, and “possessed” individual that no one can contain.  One proponent of destroying a self is to highlight what Hauser states is “immoral opinion or corrupt behavior” (Hauser 53).  This concept is prevalent as Heard is painted as an uncontrollable woman enraged by Depp as a person.  He also uses the statement "escalated to madness" and then goes on to explain that he separated himself from the situation implying that he was not part of this madness and was attempting to be the bigger person.  Overall, we find that Depp uses the rhetorical devices of maintaining a self and destroying a self to better prove his innocence.

Looking at each of the accounts presented in the hearing, the only conclusion I can draw is that each of these arguments is unproductive.  The content in the arguments in and of itself is not unproductive but the different takes on the accounts are unproductive.  Each party has its side of the story and each has different interpretations of what happened.  Going back to the finger severing situations, both Amber and Johnny have different ideas of what took place.  Amber states that Johnny had severed his finger on a “three-day bender” and external sources back up this claim.  On the other hand, Depp claims that Heard threw a bottle at his hand, severing it.  This is one example of the many different abusive situations that take place and each side has different recollections of the incident.  Overall, this shows that their arguments toward each other are unproductive because we do not know where the facts start and end.

Although the arguments presented in the trial appear to be unproductive, the voicing of these arguments, as previously mentioned, is productive because it allows for full context from each side so that a decision can be made on the trial.  The back and forth arguing from each side shows that there are multiple sides to the story and one of them could be deemed the right story.  Overall, this is still unproductive because most of the arguments presented in the trial are personal accounts from both Amber and Johnny so there is almost no way of proving what happened.

Richard Dawkins further backs up the idea of maintaining and destroying a self through his book titled “How a scientist changed the way we think.” This book touches on the idea that every human is inherently selfish and wants to present themselves in the best way possible.  In his book, he states that “the concept of selfishness only within a larger set of ideas, in which there is an entity to be selfish, a quantity whose numerical value says how well-off the entity is, and a range of possible actions that can be taken by the entity” (Dawkins 67).  This quotation further backs up the idea of preserving a self-image and gives reasons as to why people want to maintain their self-image.  As related to the Heard vs Depp article, each of these individuals wants to preserve who they are by being selfish.  Relating to the quote Dawkins had stated, each of the individuals has an entity in which to be selfish, each is well-off for money, and each has taken action against the other.  To maintain themselves, they use scapegoating to destroy the opposing side while building up their argument.  

Overall, we find that Depp and Heard each use the rhetoric of maintaining and destroying a self in this trial.  Amber used maintaining a self by maintaining her innocence throughout the trial and using destroying a self by painting a picture of Depp as a domestic and sexual abuser.  Depp uses the same ideas of maintaining a self and destroying a self as Heard does.  We find that each of their rhetorical strategies displays the other side in a bad light and plays a severe impact on the public perception of each of them.  I am intrigued to see what the court rules in favor of and hope that it provides some truth and clarity to the situation.  

Works Cited

Dawkins, Richard. “How a scientist changed the way we think.” Google Books, Google, 16 

Mar. 2006, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lYNyNIoJKf8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA66&dq=selfishness%2Bin%2Barguments&ots=ieSluuNA-l&sig=qEdIOungzdekpuQ7Vo41cjUN92k#v=onepage&q=selfishness%20in%20arguments&f=false. 

Hauser, Gerard A. “Making Commitments Through Rhetoric.” Introduction to Rhetorical 

Theory, Harper and Row, 1986, pp. 44–55. 

Pilar Melendez, Marlow Stern. “Breaking down the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial's Most 

Explosive Allegations.” The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast Company, 14 May 2022, https://www.thedailybeast.com/breaking-down-the-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trials-most-explosive-allegations. 

[ryleysblogs]

*Publics and Counter Publics: One Million Moms and the LGBTQ+ Community*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: What rhetorical language did the “One Million Moms” group use to influence Hallmark to take down the ads?  What public did it promote? What counter-public did it segregate?  Was the reasoning for the ads being taken down ethical or unethical?

“One Million Moms” is a ring-wing Christian fundamentalist organization that is created to give moms an impact on decision-making and an outlet to stress the messages that are being sent to their children.  Their main goal is to combat the homosexual agenda.  In this situation, their controversy arises when a Hallmark channel aired Zola ads showing same-sex marriage.  “One Million Moms” combatted the airing of these ads by stating “You will lose viewers if you cave to the LBGTQ agenda. Our family will change the channel and boycott Hallmark — the channel and Hallmark products — as long as the network surrenders to the LGBTQ agenda and airs controversial topics. For years, Hallmark was set apart from other channels because it aired wholesome content. Unless Hallmark realizes the mistake it has made by caving to LGBTQ activists’ groups, my family will have no other choice than to boycott Hallmark.”  The ring-wing conservative group then created a petition to remove the ads shown on the company’s channel which got around 39,000 signatures.

Rita Felski (1989) explains that a public is “a discursive community bounded by shared assumptions which define its boundaries and validates its claim to authority as the locus of informed public opinion.  Primary to these is the belief in rationality, which is intended to equalize all participants within the discourse…” (Felski 164-165).  Another aspect of a public is that “access is guaranteed to all citizens” (Felski 165).  Felski also touches on how capitalism can manipulate the public and counter-public displayed in rhetorical situations (Felski 165).  Felski continues to explain the idea of a counter-public and how it was created by explaining the feminist public sphere.  She states ‘the feminist public sphere does not claim a representative universality but rather offers a critique of cultural values from the standpoint of women as a marginalized group within society” (Felski 167) meaning that the counter-public has to address something different from the universal norm.  These counter-publics seek to internally - meaning find a common identity within that group - and externally - meaning to convince the society as a whole - to solidify their stance and objective as a counter-public (Felski 168).  

“One Million Moms” uses capitalism as a dominant and common public sphere for Hallmark to remove the ads.  One of the arguments made by “One Million Moms” is “for years, Hallmark was set apart from other channels because it aired wholesome content. Unless Hallmark realizes the mistake it has made by caving to LGBTQ activists’ groups, my family will have no other choice than to boycott Hallmark” (Justich).  The argument made by the group shows their desire to see the removal of these advertisements.  They use words such as “boycott” which implies that they will no longer participate in anything Hallmark-related if the ads are not taken down.  The “One Million Moms” group also includes the idea of “family” which they use to not only get their own point across but also include their family as a whole.  Family implies not just parents but also children which are a large part of the viewership of Hallmark.  Overall, this is found to be advantageous to each group because Hallmark would gain more viewership and the anti-LGBTQ+ community would be granted the removal of the advertisements and continue to enjoy the Hallmark channel.  Lastly, a common public sphere is manipulated by the idea of capitalism as Felski explains that “the consensual basis and critical function of the bourgeois public sphere slowly disintegrates under the dynamic of capitalist growth and the development of an industrialized mass society” (Felski 165).  The bourgeois public sphere is no longer valid when capitalism is involved because everybody enjoys money.  This speaks to how unethical “One Million Moms” statements are because they use the most dominant public sphere which is capitalist citizens.  Overall, using capitalism as a rhetorical argument is extremely unethical but it could be perceived as ethical.  The rhetorical language might be seen as ethical from the “One Million Moms” and capitalists' perspectives because they are providing the idea that viewership of the Hallmark channel will go down if they do not remove the ads.  To combat this claim, capitalism is based around money which is a dominant public sphere but capitalism makes no reference to sexual inequality.  Capitalism is also built off of the dominant white, heterosexual, male public the country was built upon.  However, neither of those reasons validates ignorance towards a group of differing sexualities.  

Kasm (2018) further defines a public sphere as “a progressive space for participatory engagement where public opinion is formulated, debated, and contested” (Kasm 100).  They also state that “given that the public sphere’s communicative infrastructure can have a profound effect on the amplification of unequal power relations and the “destabilization of political communication,” the cultivation of a democratic media becomes all the more important” (Kasm 102).  This last quotation from Kasm’s article is the most important because the public sphere’s infrastructure allows for “profound effects on the amplification of unequal power relations” and “destabilization of political communication” which diminishes the ability of a counter-public to properly combat inequality or universality.  As applied to “One Million Moms” rhetoric towards the LGBTQ+ agenda, they use a public sphere’s communicative infrastructure to show superiority over the LGBTQ+ counter-public.  “One Million Moms” states that “you will lose viewers if you cave to the LBGTQ agenda. Our family will change the channel and boycott Hallmark — the channel and Hallmark products — as long as the network surrenders to the LGBTQ agenda and airs controversial topics” (Justich).  This quote displays a consistent statement from the “One Million Moms” that the LGBTQ+ agenda is unequal to their own agenda.  They use key distinguishing language such as “controversial topics” to create a separation between traditional heterosexual relationships and LGBTQ+ relationships.  They isolate this group from the standard heterosexual dominant American public.  Controversial topics can also imply that an LGBTQ+ relationship is not a normal group within a society.  Further, they use rhetoric such as “cave to the LGBTQ agenda” as if it is a bad thing to be a part of that community further deferring people from combatting their claims about the Hallmark ads.  Through this examination of the language they use to paint these differences, they push the LGBTQ+ community and the LGBTQ agenda as the counter-public silencing this community and extenuating the positive ethical impact this would play if the ads were taken down, although they do this in an unethical sense.

In summary, “One Million Moms” use plenty of rhetorical strategies to separate their views from the LGBTQ+ community and their views.  They provide language surrounding capitalism and anti-LGBTQ+ to unethically get their points across.  After discourse from the removal of these ads, the LGBTQ+ community, and its supporters took fire on Hallmark.  The Hallmark president and vice-president, feeling the pressure, reinstated the ads onto their channels commenting that “We’ve always represented a diverse set of couples in all of our marketing messages because that’s representative of the couples who are getting married today and the couples who use Zola.  They come from all types of backgrounds, and the goal of this campaign was to show Zola’s here to help any couple who is choosing to celebrate their love” (Justich).  Furthermore, this agrees with the idea that “One Million Moms” unethically used reasoning towards taking down the ads.

Works Cited

Controversial Lesbian Wedding TV Ad by Zola, 29 Dec. 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtHJhCV_R9Y. Accessed 21 Apr. 2022. 

Felski, Rita. “The Feminist Counter-Public Sphere.” Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989, pp. 164–172. 

Justich, Kerry. “One Million Moms Calls to Boycott Hallmark after Channel Announces 'Active Negotiations' for LGBTQ Storylines.” Yahoo!, Yahoo!, 29 July 2020, https://www.yahoo.com/video/one-million-moms-boycott-hallmark-channel-lgbtq-storylines-222701451.html. 

Justich, Kerry. “Zola says Hallmark Channel pulled its lesbian kiss commercial following One Million Moms boycott” Yahoo!, Yahoo!, 13 December 2019, https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/one-million-moms-group-calls-for-hallmark-channel-boycott-after-it-airs-commercial-with-lesbian-kiss-222249634.html.

#rhetoricaltheory380

[ryleysblogs]

Rhetorical Analysis of “The Blind Side.”  What did the movie portray?

Ryley Knar

Comm - 380 Rhetorical Analysis

Professor Kunde

February 25th, 2022

 In this entry, I will examine the critical questions:  How can narratives be impacted by external sources?  In what ways can a narrative be laid out sequentially?  How is race displayed throughout this movie?

 In order to answer these questions, we must focus on a piece of literature that best applies to the questions at hand.  I found that the success story from the movie The Blind Side is a proper and substantial artifact to use to effectively analyze these preceding questions because it displays a growing, positive narrative throughout the movie.  This ultimately teaches the viewing audience that African Americans can succeed, even when it seems that they do not have a chance. Regardless of race, being a professional athlete can bring endless wealth that can last a lifetime.  

 This movie follows the main character, Michael Oher, who was previously homeless due to a poor family situation, poverty, and an unwillingness to work. Throughout the movie, we follow the narrative of Michael Oher who transforms from a complete nobody to a star offensive lineman who later (beyond the movie) gets drafted into the NFL.

 In Rhetorical Criticism Exploration and Practice, Sonja Foss communicates that “A second characteristic of a narrative is that the events in it are organized by time order.  A narrative is not simply a series of events arranged randomly; it is at least a sequence of events” (p. 334).  This explains that narratives must happen sequentially.  They cannot be randomly organized; they must have a consistent line of growth or decay.

 Another piece of input that Foss includes about narratives is that “A third requirement for a narrative is that it must include some kind of casual or contributing relationship among events in a story.  Narratives depict a change of some sort, and this third requirement defines the nature of that change by stipulating the relationship between earlier and later events in the story” (p. 334).  What she means by this is that narratives must include some sort of external source - a person, event, object - that will implement some sort of character development in a person.  This character development, in this case, is positive but some character developments can also be negative.  

  Another one of the narratives that John Lee Hancock displays is the idea of a sequential narrative where Michael’s narrative follows a specific timeline of character growth with a lot of character development for the greater good. Michael begins the story in poverty but towards the end of the movie, he has fame, a football scholarship, and a good family.  There are two specific examples of this instance.  The first instant of this occurring was when Michael began to play football (The Blind Side).  He had no idea how to play but the Tuohys insisted that he at least try to get better at it.  He eventually turns into an all-state lineman.  The second one was when Michael crashed the Tuohy’s newly bought truck with S.J., the Tuohy’s son, in it.  This shows a point of character development as he had, at that moment, realized the luxury the Tuohys had provided him and the idea that everything he gained could just vanish.  These experiences from the movie show that Michael’s narrative follows a specific path of ups and downs.  This plays an integral part in who he is as a person because it shows his care towards what he or someone else needs from him.  Michael’s narrative is persuasive because he shows that everybody can make something out of themselves.  Michael came from nothing and now he has everything.  Lastly, the fact that he is African American also continues to validate this.  

 On the other hand, the idea that narratives must be consequential could hinder some problems.  Sometimes, stories have hiccups in the road that might not make sense.  In particular, the idea that Michael was at the apartment where a shooting took place was out of order.  From what we could tell, Michael was a very respectful person and we would have never expected him to be at a house where that happened.  Although this was not the normal we had seen from Michael, we still conclude that he is a good person surrounded by positive influences.  This storyline did not play too harshly of an impact on his character and personality. 

 One of the narratives that John Lee Hancock, the director of the movie, provides for Michael in The Blind Side is the implementation of Leigh Anne Tuohy, Michael’s adopted mother, and her necessity to cater towards underprivileged individuals through her wealth and personality.  A key example displayed in this movie is when Leigh Anne and the rest of her family are driving home from a volleyball game and they find Michael walking outside with only a polo shirt, shorts, and a bag of leftover snacks from the volleyball game while walking in the pouring rain (The Blind Side).  Leigh Anne has them stop and ask Michael if he would like a place to stay for the night.  Throughout the purveying of Leigh Anne as a savior, Hancock shows that Leigh Anne would be willing to do that for anyone which strengthens her credibility.  Going off of this, care for other races is depicted in this because Michael is African American and Leigh Anne is caucasian.  This shows that she would extend her arms beyond just a certain race so no stereotyping is present from her.  

 With admittance, the Tuohy’s were white, and having a large, black man in their house was new to them - the whole family included.  This has called for some analysts to claim that the Tuohy’s or the depiction of the Tuohy is that they are “white saviors.”  In the article titled “Racial Discourse in "The Blind Side": The Economics and Ideology Behind the White Savior Format,” the author, Erin Ash, claims “What Vera and Gordon (2003) identify as the “White Savior film” portrays a model White lead character who is portrayed as powerful, brave, cordial, kind, firm and generous, and who takes on a mission to save people of color from their plight (Vera & Gordon, 2003; Giroux, 1997)” (p. 89).  Although this may seem like exactly what the Tuohys are, the movie portrays them as upstanding citizens helping someone in the community prosper.  The Tuohys, as shown through the movie, is content with helping anyone.  

 S.J and Lily, brother and sister respectively, were very unwelcoming at the beginning.  This implies that they were hesitant to let someone new into their home.  To combat this Hancock shows character development in each Lily, S.J, and the Tuohy parents as they became more accepting of him for who he is.

  In summary, The Blind Side is a great representation of rhetoric.  It has many different layers to it such as the need to have some sort of steady narrative set throughout the movie and also needs to have some sort of external force to aid their narrative.  Although this movie does have hints of racism, the Tuohys are depicted in a positive light and it is fair to say that Michael was very blessed to have them.  

Works Cited

Ash, Erin. “Racial Discourse in ‘The Blind Side’: The Economics and Ideology Behind the 

White Savior Format.” Studies in Popular Culture, vol. 38, no. 1, Popular Culture 

Association in the South, 2015, pp. 85–103, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44259586.

Foss, Sonja K. “Rhetorical Criticism Exploration & Practice.” 2004. 

Hancock, John Lee, director. The Blind Side. Warner Bros., 2009.