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.

Defining Life: Visual Representations of Life and the Anti-Choice Movement

I've titled this piece specifically in reference to a previous post justifying anti-choice instead of pro-life for the description of abortion right's opponents. The point of the post is to discuss a few interesting manifestations of visual rhetoric in anti-choice arguments that I've recently noticed. The visual tactics of the abortion movement have been documented well by those scholars who have come before me, especially in terms of the photographs and images of aborted and damaged fetuses as resembling born children in appearance and described action (Petchesky, 1987; Lake & Pickering, 1998; Condit, 1990). My first artifact heavily references these visual elements in equating the fetus to a baby. A new service called "3D Babies" allows for parents to upload photographs of their ultrasounds which can then be printed into a doll-like plastic sculpture.

Retrieved from 3D Babies.

These dolls reflect the argumentative tactic of representing life as starting from conception. Due to the physical resemblances of a fetus to an infant, the doll represents a visual argument for the protection of the fetus as one would protect a child. This image is described on the website as a 23-24 week old baby "measuring 8 inches from crown to rump." At 24 weeks, the fetus is nearing the end of the second trimester, so is nearly considered a viable fetus that could survive outside of the womb. Because of this, third trimester abortions are currently illegal in most countries. Consequently, abortions at this stage in the pregnancy comprise less than 1.3% of all abortions. The likelihood of a fetus looking like this doll when aborted is very low. This decision, then, is strategic in that the fetus is as far along as possible without being illegal to abort, thus appearing much like an infant. 91.8% of fetuses are aborted in the first trimester, (or less than 13 weeks) which makes their appearance closer to an embryo, only called a fetus at 12 weeks.

Retrieved from this blog

These visual choices are strategies to associate a fetus with an infant, one of the most (if not the most) vulnerable population on the planet.This is paired with cries to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The power of the visual and the associations that come from it can serve to overpower logic and the verbal by calling upon the aesthetic and the visceral. This is in part the strategy of laws that require ultrasounds before allowing access to abortions. The law provides a visual connection that the woman/mother and fetus/child share. If one sees the ultrasound images, one might be less likely to abort, directly associating the images on the screen with a potential life that cannot be avoided. The efficacy or ethics of this law could surely be debated, but the point I'm making here is the ingrained power of the visual to elicit emotion and its role as an anti-choice strategy. Facing visually one's actions is tantamount to removing agency if it clouds the judgment of agents. The intended purpose of this law is certainly to halt abortions or at least give women pause (or immense guilt). The woman, then, cannot make a personal decision of her own thought without the visual pressures of the potentially aborted fetus. The ultrasound and 3D doll images present that problem: that the fetus is a potential life, baby, and child experienced and seen as true.

The 3D doll can be purchased by whomever might want one, and I would hope that it would not be used as a persuasive tool to encroach upon agency. The larger issue for me is the laws that force the power of visuals on women making important, stressful, and life-changing decisions. Certainly images and narrative hyperbole about well developed fetuses (past the second trimester) being aborted are questionably moral actions. One cannot, however, stop them from being used in public forums, protests, and billboards. Something that should not be allowed, however, are deceptive images and unnecessary invasive practices forced upon women before receiving a potentially life-saving medical procedure.

As an informed public, scholars, and voters, we must all consider the potentially deceptive qualities of visuals and the arguments that they are making. For the ongoing abortion controversy, visuals and they employment are extremely important in helping the anti-choice movement portray women seeking abortions as murderers and masking invasive, sexist laws as protective statues. There are many intriguing documentaries about this issue, specifically as realized in America. I would particularly recommend Unborn in the USA that does directly discuss the visual strategies involved in the debate.

Housing Discrimination: Legalizing Hate?

There are certain classes of discrimination that are protected under federal law: race, gender/sexuality, color/ethnicity, ancestry/national origin, age, familial status, religion, disability, veteran status, or genetic information. Discriminating against these groups in places of employment, housing, or education are illegal and can be prosecuted. A presentation that I organized about renter's rights in Pittsburgh over the summer enlightened me on these aspects of discrimination of which I was unaware. The stories that the representatives shared about fair housing violations were shocking and raised questions for me about the nature of discrimination, the legality of discrimination, and the types that are not outlawed.

I have previously discussed the politics of hegemony and the negotiation of power in the highly hierarchical social and cultural structure of the Western-dominated world. This meeting brought to light for me the power struggles that are manufactured in everyday relationships. Outside of the larger hierarchies of humans, nations, and cultures, there are power struggles in personal relationships, such as renter and landlord. Before someone even becomes a renter, the landlord is the gatekeeper to shelter and a home for many in Pittsburgh and around the world. What is not shocking is that fair housing organizations file complaints on behalf of discrimination on the classes above. What I did find interesting, though, was the admittance of types of discrimination (defined as creating distinctions and outlining differences ) that are legal ways to choose renters.

The difference between outlawed and enabled avenues of discrimination became apparent to me quite quickly: choice. Perhaps arguably veteran status, religion, and familial status are choices in some ways, but economic situation, upbringing, and traditions form the bulk of these decisions over personal choice in some cases. The choice in these situations can hardly be defined as detrimental, poor decisions, or somehow reprehensible.

Other choices, however, ones that can be used as discrimination, could be argued to be the result of poor decision-making. Examples of this type of discrimination (which I would consider "choices") that are allowed are smoking, credit history, personality, or pets. These four examples could be considered discrimination based on the choices that the applicant has made. Smoking is a personal choice that is a potentially rental-damaging habit. As one landlord in the meeting brought up, it can be quite expensive to steam clean an apartment after a smoker has lived there, and there's no guarantee that the smell can be removed, damaging their ability to gain additional tenants and revenue. Though he regretted rejecting applications from smokers, he said at the end of the day that his property was a business. Credit history is obviously influenced by one's financial capabilities, but it is at least in part determined by one's actions with one's money, in terms of being reliable and responsible. One's personality is something more intangible, but the representative assured the landlord that differentiated based on personality preferences was allowed. Having pets is almost always a choice, and one, just like smoking, that can be damaging to an apartment and its upkeep. These forms of discrimination outline choices that people make for which landlords are allowed.

As I've discussed previously, when it comes down to choice, there is an alienation of certain groups. Not everyone has the same opportunities, backgrounds, upbringings, and choices in life. One could argue that some of the "choices" I've outlined above are not actually choices, especially when one thinks of credit history. Credit history is linked to another form of differentiating potential renting applicants: ability to pay the rent. Simply put, this can be a form of discrimination if one considers the economic opportunities that some have and others do not. Economic abilities are not protected, though, for the law still upholds the right of the landlord to receive money from renters. Progress is being made by providing public services for those who need housing assistance.

The final point I would like to make is simply a research/methodological question. For those trying to "prove" housing discrimination, fair housing groups send various testers to renting facilities to see if any discrimination occurs. The simple idea is that if someone is told that they haven't been accepted and someone else is, who is to say that the choice that was made was based off of protected discrimination? As someone who is interested in research methodologies, I find answering these questions quite interesting. It is hard and complicated to prove with any certainty, but the housing organizations rely on the offering of the apartment to one person over another as operational proof of discrimination. It appears to be successful as well, based on her many stories of case wins.

I'm beginning to feel a bit like Foucault in my recent blog assertions that "power is everywhere". In the objects and articles that interest me, I find the underlying power struggles an unmistakable pattern. The way that words, laws, and politics discipline and negotiate this power is a way that I find unity between rhetoric and cultural studies in my research, if only tangentially.

Rape as an aggressor-less crime

There has been much uproar about the new Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board advertisements to reduce binge drinking in teenagers. The Feministing blog has already published an informational piece about the piece:  Feministing PLCB article

What I would like this blog post, though, is to analyze the image surrounding this message, Burke's pentad, and what it means for constructing feminist forms. From the text and the woman on the floor, the advertisement paints the picture of a party-goer who has had too much to drink and now is making bad decisions that has lead her to this "underwear around the ankle" predicament. The outstanding factor for me is not the relative crudeness of the picture, but about how all of the focus in the text and in the image is on the woman and not the possible aggressor. It is highly unlikely that a woman, even when intoxicated could manage such a position without assistance, whether wanted or unwanted does not matter, for consent cannot be given while intoxicated. Despite the legal hypocrisy that the woman could not "say no" because of her condition, the actuality is that she could not say yes. For, it is a crime, known as "date rape" to perceive drunkenness as consent in any situation. The absence of someone to help her get to this state and the absence of any other person or player in the larger text paint a picture that the woman has done all of these actions to herself and is responsible entirely of her own imminent rape. This removes any blame from the other half of the rape equation and scapegoats the woman as the sole actor.

 It is clear in the text on the poster that the implications of the picture is that every decision made, even while heavily intoxicated and unable to control one's own actions, is the actor's fault. This focus on the actor as is explained above, has interesting implications in Kenneth Burke's pentad, the five parts of dramatism: the actor/agent, the scene, the act, the agency, and the purpose. Focusing or favoring one of these aspects over another leads to a changing lens of victimage and blaming. (Burke, 1945). When the actor or agent is favored as the dominant spoke of the pentad, there is a break away from the surroundings or scene and the mitigating circumstances, but places all of the agent that performs the act. In this scenario, these implications are especially offensive, as this paradigm would allow for the woman to be the performer of her own rape, leaving the aggressor completely blameless in the act. For it was the agent, the woman, as a drinker, party-goer, and bad decision maker that brought her to this point, and thus, she acts as the scapegoat for the crime committed. The advertisement even goes one point farther to implicate the friends of this woman, presumably more women, as agents in her rape for not intervening and correcting her bad decisions. This advertisement tells nothing of the man's responsibility to make good decisions, to not over-drink, and to respect, not rape, women. It says nothing about the man's friends who may have intervened to stop him from committing the act, but instead implicate the females for refusing to do what the law says they cannot: say no. These opinions are standard and can be related to the myth of man sexuality as strong, dominant, and overpowering and that man is weak when it comes to the fairer sex. Women, on the other hand, can control this urge, use it against a man, so thus, in any sexual encounter, the man is acting as expected, the woman is truly the one in control, and thus the one to blame.

If the scene had been the more dominant focus, the ad might have looked like a party, where people were standing, chatting, perhaps dancing, and drinking. The words over the image might have said, "don't let the party get carried away" or a phrase about the party getting out of control, or leading where it shouldn't. That would be an implication of the scenario, the situation as playing a large part in the act. It is the drinking, the party atmosphere, the fun-loving, free-spirited, and trusting nature of trying to have a good time, that leads to the impairment of judgment that can lead to date rape. This is opposed to the agent-focused view where the drinking is a conscious bad decision made by a female that leads to her own victimization.

In terms of constructing feminist forms, the advertisement offers a few conflicting views on the power of women. First, it perpetuates the stereotype of the woman as the Jezebel, as the sexual being that controls sexual encounters, and as the one to blame for her sexual conduct. There is something slightly empowering about the idea that woman are the actors and make their own choices and are not subject to the will of peers, the party atmosphere, or insistent males, but this lens forms cracks when judgment is impaired, for it allows for this same constructive view to destroy a woman's chance of avoiding victimization. Yes, a woman should be in charge of her own decisions, but this is a scenario where choice and judgment are taken out of the equation, and decision-making becomes not an aid, but a hindrance to one's safety. When constructing the feminine form in this ad, it is an obvious focus on the underwear as the only clothing visible. Is the woman wearing nothing but underwear? Or, more likely, is wearing something provocative, so that one might assume that her dress and manner of action is consistent with that of a seductress, an agent with a clear motivation.

In all fairness, this advertisement has been published with good intentions: to limit and discourage binge drinking. This is a goal that one would hope Liquor Control Boards would be worried about controlling. But, the larger issue here is that by trying to cut down on underage drinking, only one half of the equation, the woman, is blamed and scapegoated in a rape fantasy, portrayed by her pose on what appears to be a bathroom floor. Men are not implicated as having control over their actions, as being responsible just as the women are expected to be, but appear to get a pass on being blamed for rape and the guilt that comes from committing such a heinous and damaging crime. One could wonder about the amount of women who believe these fantasies, that they themselves are responsible for their rape, and thus do not report it. Is the production and expansion of these myths of feminine hyper-sexuality and responsibility for rape harming the reputation of women, creating leeway for men to free themselves from blame for committing rape, and destroying the possibility for prosecution of these crimes? I would say yes, completely and utterly yes.

Burke, Kenneth. 1945. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969