Arguing Monuments and Material Rhetoric

The concept of "materiality" and how physical objects argue is becoming popular in rhetorical criticism. Scholars are beginning to theorize that buildings, cities, monuments, and other physical objects can argue, influence people, and tell stories -- just like words. The history of "the material turn" is quiet expansive (as I've discovered while writing my dissertation about it), but I will summarize some key points before discussing examples.

Traditional rhetorical criticism focused on the speeches of great orators and analyzed the word choices and potential effects. Scholars slowly began to incorporate other objects of study like groups of speakers, genres of speeches, and non-elite speakers. These variations still focused on the spoken and written word, however. Larger changes emerged when scholars began looking at how physical spaces constrain or offer opportunities in the way that speeches invite or construct possibilities for audiences. Moving through a space that has physical obstacles is similar to spoken commands or laws that restrict movement. Physical spaces and objects can themselves be symbols (like words) that have embedded meaning, affect, and significance. Materiality invites audience participation and makes arguments.

The first example of arguing monuments is the Portrait Monument at the US Capitol. The marble monument shows three elegant busts of prominent women in the women's suffrage movement: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Lucretia Mott. There is room for a fourth bust in a lump of un-carved stone in the rear of the monument.

Picture retrieved from Architect of the Capitol

This monument makes a clear argument that the work of women's rights is unfinished. There may have been great women in the past who deserve to be honored, but there is still the need for activism, activists, and progress. Furthermore, viewers of the monument are invited to honor the memories of these three great women by continuing on their work. Their memories do not invoke a sense of completeness or finality; their faces encourage the audience to ask, "what more can be done?" Some people have thought that the unfinished section is meant to be completed when the US elects the first female President. This, however, goes against the intention of the artist, Adelaide Johnson, to show the perpetually unsolved state of gender equality.

Another example is the Atheism bench. This monument is the first public monument to atheism, or a lack of belief in divinity. The American Atheists lost a court case to have a monument to the Ten Commandments removed from a Florida Courthouse. Instead of removing the monument, the court offered them the opportunity to build their own monument. The monument is a bench so as to be a functional piece of public display. It is covered in quotations that specifically mention religion and the American political and legal systems.

Picture retrieved from Time Magazine

The Atheism bench claims space for non-belief outside of a courtroom that, like Lady Liberty, should be blind to concerns of religion. The bench argues that religious belief should not be a factor in the courts. The bench also argues that public space should be free and open space where no ideas should dominate and none should be excluded. The bench also includes, in writing "consequences of breaking the Ten Commandments" as a direct verbal argument against the Ten Commandments monument displayed on the other end of the courthouse.

These are just two examples of how physical spaces can produce arguments. Oftentimes, memorials are coupled with verbal statements, like the Atheism bench, but it is important for scholars to note that images, monuments, and material things can produce independent, standalone arguments.

Visual Communication Reflection 3: Testimony

The panel concluded with an evaluation of two types of eyewitness testimony: serial and sequential. Although the presentation looked at media representations of suspect identification and the preliminary results of an ongoing experiment, the researcher (and apparently the scholarly community) are inconclusive about which is best.


When selecting an image of a potential suspect, eye-witnesses are either shown images one after the other in separate pages or screens, or are presented as a part of a line-up with multiple faces present simultaneously. The issues surrounding these two methods is which is the most accurate for selecting a suspect. Each method has its own positives and negatives. The serial method allows for comparison of faces and features, but also forces the witness into a choice to select someone on the page when the suspect may not be present. The sequential method allows for less distractions and full recognition of a face or person, but also makes witnesses hesitate to pick someone if they are not completely certain. The first makes it more likely for an innocent man to be convicted, the second more likely to release a suspect. The researcher hopes to continue experimentation with eye-gaze tracking software to see how serial and sequential identification methods change the participant's gaze, speed, and accuracy.

The media representation that came to my mind first was the debate over testimony accuracy in 12 Angry Men. The eyewitness testimony claims to have seen the act of murder occur through a passing train car. This testimony is severely discredited, however, when a juror notices her eye glasses marks, indicating that her eyesight and its quality was in question. One could have 20/20 vision, however, and still provide inaccurate testimony. The jurors, especially #2 and #3, make the case that the shaky memory of the boy on trial is evidence on his inability to recall the movie he'd seen the previous day. Unfortunately, these lapses in memory are common for humans, even in immediate short term tasks. Remembering something from a previous day, especially under duress and extreme emotion, can be exponentially difficult. It was for the boy in 12 Angry Men and it is also the case for many who identify suspects after a crime. They are under pressure to select a suspect, are emotionally stressed, and may still be coping with the trauma of the crime. Under such circumstances, how could anyone expect accuracy? Yet, some court rooms and convictions still rely on it.

This movie originally came out in 1957, so the accuracy of such visual memory has been contested for many years. In many ways the eyes are the most easily deceived, yet are considered the best representations of truth. For example, even the hand is faster than the eye, making slight of hand and trivial magic appear miraculous to the naked eye. Yet, there is also the axiom, "seeing is believing." So how does one vision, eyes, sight become a dichotomous reality and deception? The key here is in negotiating the history of communication. All communication between people is a dilution of the subject being discussed. I may tell you about an elephant, but until you see one, the word does not have the proper referent. Seeing, thus, creates the connection between a word, symbol, icon, and the reality. Because of this connection, people often stop analyzing, critiquing, and evaluating once sight is confirmed. This leaves an opening for manipulation and deceit that can be left unchecked.


What is the future of eyewitness testimony? The researcher at the conference discussed the hundreds of scholars currently working on the issue and how it is unlikely to be solved soon. Some states are beginning to legislate eyewitness testimony and it has even been mentioned in Supreme Court cases, but until overarching research, data, and conclusions are achieved, there may continue to be mis-identifications and innocent people behind bars.