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.

Donald Sterling as a Modern Day Earl Butz

It is impossible to ignore all of the online and offline discussion of the owner of the LA Clippers, Donald Sterling's racist remarks. He noted in a private conversation to his girlfriend that he didn't want her "associating with black people," and specifically bringing them to basketball games. The hypocrisy in Sterling becoming rich off of the labor of black bodies has been addressed better elsewhere, so I wish to address another important part of this discussion: the apologia. Using Kenneth Burke's guilt-redemption cycle, this post will discuss the similarities of Sterling's remarks to the racist statements of Earl Butz, and how these statements implicate the larger American public in the persistence of racism.

Donald Sterling and the Clippers's logo

Earl Butz was Secretary of Agriculture in 1976 who eventually resigned his position after racist comments emerged. This site has the full timeline of the events including the offensive joke. A scholarly article was written about that event by Dr. James Klumpp and Dr. Thomas A. Hollihan called "Debunking the Resignation of Earl Butz: Sacrificing an Official Racist." The title reveals some important terms and information that will inform this comparison between Butz and Sterling. I will also highlight some important differences that reveal modern racial tensions. Butz was "sacrificed" as Klumpp and Hollihan say, as a part of Burke's guilt-redemption cycle. This cycle describes how pollution, or some type of disorder, is introduced into an order, which creates guilt and a subsequent need for purification, purging, and redemption.

Earl Butz, retrieved from this site

For Butz and Sterling, the pollution was their racist statements that shattered the values of equality inherent in their respective social and political orders (government and sports). Both of these institutions are supposed to value equality, all Americans, and their constituents. As public figures, their voices can be seen as stand-ins for the groups that they represent. Butz was "sacrificed" by the Republican Party, who wished to separate their public appearance from racism. The NBA also separated itself from Sterling by banning him from the organization, fining him $2.5 million, and urging him to sell the team. The sacrifice can come in many forms, but it must make the punishment commensurate to the crime committed. Considering that the pollution for each was the potential crumbling of national organizations, the punishments were made quite prominent, public, and severe.

Some prominent reactions to Sterling's statements

Another important similarity between the two are the separation between public and private. Klumpp and Hollihan address this dichotomy by nothing that officials are sometimes seen as not have the right to privacy: anything said even in private could destroy a public persona, one's reputation, and career. Some were quick to jump to Sterling's defense such as columnists at Fox who pointed to the "thoughts" of Sterling as harmless and a personal right. Some articles went as far as to implicate the girlfriend (who recorded the conversation) as the real criminal. In the aftermath of the announcement, Mark Cuban echoed the words of a Fox News reporter about whether convicting people for statements in private could be a "slippery slope" to the thought-police.

Though some of these concerns were raised, there has been overwhelming support for Sterling's punishment. One might say that it was a "success" in some ways in that an athletic profiteer who undermined his own team and the values of the NBA (and perhaps, the country) would be receiving a just punishment. However, Klumpp and Hollihan raise a point of contention with these types of guilt-redemption activities. They note that by creating a sacrificial goat out of Butz and Sterling, we as a nation do not have to address underlying and persistent racism that we may all (or at least most of us) be guilty of. Instead, we can claim that wrongs have been righted and that racism is an individual issue that does not have to be addressed on a societal level. They note that these overt punishments of racism create a culture that "tolerates private racism and its consequences” (p. 11). Jon Stewart adeptly addresses the issue of post-racial society in his critique of Sterling and the recent SCOTUS decision to uphold Michigan's ban on affirmative action.

Retrieved from the Daily Show

What is to be learned by the Donald Sterling incident? One thing is perhaps most important: racism still exists. There is no magical, post-racial world because we have a black president. People haven't stopped being murdered because of their race, people haven't stopped trying to make relevant the KKK, and people still use the n-word. This is only the tip of the iceberg, however, as racism against other minorities, especially immigrant populations, is also a common American theme. Is this what America is all about? We need to take examples like Butz and Sterling and open our eyes to the underlying problems from which these individuals stem. Structural racism is happening and continues to happen; we cannot remain blind to it and only care when individuals break norms of keeping racism a private endeavor. All racism needs to be addressed, and we have a lot of work to do.

The Importance of Values in Polarization

Past research of my has focused on the difficulties in defining values and applying them to different scenarios. Despite the research complications, values remain an important aspects of politics, religion, culture, organizations, and relationships. My recent readings of the God Strategy and the Faith Factor have reinforced my respect for the "values voters" that make up the religious right and conservatively 1/3 of the US electorate. As a united front, they are an invaluable voting block for Republicans. They typically do not vote Democratic (though recently ethnic evangelicals have for Obama) and are concerned with electing Republican nominees who reflect their values of hetero-normative definitions of marriage, anti-women's choice towards pregnancy and birth control, and a general aversion to stem cell research. The marrying of religion and politics allows for values to remain integral aspects of candidate character and personality.

Cartoon from Times-Picayune

As mentioned before, this focus on values is pervasive for all of all politics, but is especially important for Republicans. As the Grand Old Party, associated with nostalgia, antiquity, and maintaining the status quo, their candidates must embody those values more than the Democratic Party. Democrats, instead, often emphasize abstract goals for future engagement, inclusivity, and are the pioneers in equality and acceptance of minority groups (e.g., the current fight for LGBTQ rights). What has changed in recent years, however, is the polarization of these values into groups that cannot compromise on basic ideas. There is less freedom to express moderate values and politicians are in near constant campaigns. For example, the environment has become a haven for political isolation where Democrats are expected to be environmentally conscious and Republicans who are can be considered traitors. The Republican values of free market and enterprise trump those of the environment, and that is avoiding the larger issue of religious identification that also complicates the issue.

The graph above is from the Pew Research Center American Values Survey that shows the gap between support for the values. The environment has increased dramatically from only a 5% difference in those that support in 1987 to a 39% difference in those that support the environment in 2012. This polarization shows more established party lines on values where compromise is precluded by trying to remain party loyal. What is the future of American politics? How can the polarization continue with politicians and the general public operating as enemies? The 2008 election brought about massive celebrations for Barack Obama's election and massive despair from people convinced that a terrible decision had been made. Similarly, Obama's reelection was met by rumors of secession and outrage by Republicans. Perhaps my favorite response was the emerge of "White People Mourning Romney" tumblr which emerged out of whites being the only race that Romney earned the majority of their votes. South Park's rendition of the hyperbolic reactions that people had in their episode "About Last Night" perfectly sums up the political polarization currently plaguing America.

I would like to be optimistic and predict a reverse in the polarization or at least a breaking point where the polarization is no longer sustainable, but it is unlikely. I do find hope in the small compromises, but they are few and far between. One solution could be a more critical, "unlovable" media that encourages compromise by expressing the dysfunction of current polarization. The Internet can also serve as a new public sphere where citizens can serve as fact-checkers and critical observers to the political process. In the future, the polarization might decrease or change, but for now, politicians seem to be more concerned with maintaining their seats than reaching across the aisle.

Post-Racial Society and Django Unchained

First, the title is a bit of a misnomer, as I believe there is no such thing as a post-racial society, a society "behind" or "after" race. It is merely used as a foil to the representation of slavery in Tarantino's Django Unchained and as an entry point into this inquiry into modern race relations and more specifically, the changing role of race in American society, culture, and politics. Here I will insert a fairly large disclaimer that I am not the person who can/should/ought to be writing about this topic, but I am attempting to broaden my rhetorical and scholarly horizons that have been opened to me by colleagues whom I deeply respect. This is an initial attempt to incorporate these discussions into my scholarly purview.

Photo from Wikipedia of the 1,000,000 Hoodie March in honor of Trayvon Marting
Walkers wore hoodies and carried Skittles representing Trayvon's outfit/pocket contents when killed

Considering the long, complicated history of race in America, it is naive to think that a simple presidential election could replace, mitigate, or somehow atone for the past. Stories that make headline news about the disenfranchisement of minorities in elections, Arizona's SB1070, and the murder of Trayvon Martin should reiterate that racial hierarchies and prejudice are still alive and well in America.

Though not "healed" fully in any way, Django Unchained has emerged as a cinematic reminder of how far we have come from the days of slavery some 200 years ago. Though there is little evidence of Mandingo fighting, the classic Tarantino emphasis on gore was a startling reminder of the gruesome way that slaves were treated. The whippings, dog attacks, punishments, and exploitation of "comfort slaves" serve as stark visual counterparts to the often diluted textbook descriptions. Though audiences have positively responded to Django, notable critic of Tarantino's works, Spike Lee, made a strong statement for not watching the film as blaxploitative and racist. I have already read further into this divide in an article by Sean Tierney called "Quentin Tarantino in Black and White" in the book Critical Rhetorics of Race. To summarize the argument with undeserved brevity, Tierney seeks to explain the negative opinions of Spike Lee towards Tarantino. Primarily, interviews with Tarantino and citing directly from his films show that Tarantino's co-opting of black culture is both offensive and hegemonic. Tarantino profits from black culture without acknowledging the hierarchy that allows him to do so without retribution or without the reverse being possible. Tierney (published before Django Unchained) also mentioned critics' aversion to the overuse of the n-word in Tarantino films. He mentions that the word is often removed from its political context and becomes what the re-appropriation was meant to avoid: having whites use the term and blacks use the term without respect to its political meaning. Though Django is set in times of slavery, the word is used over 100 times during the film, often times for laughs, quote Samuel Jackson, "It that a nigger on a horse?"

Django Movie Poster

I will admit that as a film, I enjoyed Django, but I find myself wondering, if it should have angered me. Over the winter break, I heard a story from my Mom who heard it from my recently passed Great Auntie Phil. She told me about her ancestors, my Great Auntie Phil and her brother, my Grandfather, and their family, who were brought from Africa to Jamaica as slaves. In Africa, the tribe my family belonged to differentiated wealth with bracelets made from various quality material. My Mom told me about the bracelet that she saw passed down to the youngest of the Harry's, my new baby cousin, a finely threaded bracelet of silver, a sign of wealth. I felt a pang of guilt, thinking of the unity of my family that represents a joining of white and black, free and slave, past and present, and what role I, as a blonde, blue-eyed white female, play in that narrative. I do not look in any way like my Jamaican and thus African ancestry, but like my 100% English father, a country that perpetrated much violence and conquered half of the world under the cover of imperialism, progress, and hegemony. Should movies like Django offend me in honor of my family history? The simple answer is that they cannot offend me in the same way they might have offended my Grandfather. Despite the history in my blood, I have not had, could never have, nor could ever imagine a life unlike the privileged one I currently have. Understanding that in and of itself has been a life-changing realization. The truth is that I did sit in the movie theater, ponder the recent readings on racial rhetoric, but at the end of the day, simply enjoyed the film as a Tarantino epic, an Inglorious Basterds of the Civil War era.

Political Cartoon retrieved online: thoughtful representation of race dynamics

I don't know what movies like Django Unchained offer to race relations in America. I would assume that these films complicate the relationship by glorifying a by-gone era and reinforcing that the changes from then to now is somehow sufficient or substantial. Spike Lee has said that he will not see the film, but I wish that he would. I would much appreciate a more critical and knowledgeable lens on the details of the film. I've merely laid brushstrokes over the existence of the film and its director. A more in-depth look into the film would be quite enlightening.

Award update: Quite a noticeable pan of Jamie Foxx's performance but great praise for Tarantino, DiCaprio, and Waltz this award season. At the Golden Globes, Django was up for best picture, Tarantino for best director and best screenplay (winner), Waltz and DiCaprio were up for best supporting actor (Waltz won), yet Foxx was not nominated. Again, the Oscars has Django nominated for best screenplay and best picture, with Waltz gaining the only actor win.

Civil Rights and Marriage Equality Metaphors: One and the Same?

The first time I was confronted with the metaphor that compared the current LGBTQ rights movement to the civil rights movement was on an episode of the Tyra show called "Gay Kingdom".

Part 1 - other parts available from YouTube

At first, the comparison seemed odd to me, especially when one considers the history behind the civil rights movement and the connotations that the comparison brings. The treatment of these two groups, black rights and gay rights, are obviously different in the treatment that they received from the dominant white, straight and patriarchal hegemony of the United States. But, upon listening to the metaphor of "second class citizens", the comparison began to make more sense. Are members of the LGBTQ community not being undermined because of their sexuality and gender identity to second-class citizens? Their love, their relationships, and their unions are relegated to a less-than-human status by being denied the same rights as straight, heterosexual couples.

This metaphor is not a perfect metaphor, as one cannot directly relate discrimination based off of race to one based off of gender and sexuality. The commonality of discrimination, however, may be enough to make this metaphor narrative fidelity. Walter Fisher proposed that stories have to have probability (likelihood of happening) and fidelity (coherency) in order to be an acceptable story for people to live by.  The deaths and torment that occurred under slavery cannot truly be matched by the LGBTQ movement, even though there have been terrible crimes, murders, and persecution of the group. But, if one removes the history (perhaps impossible) from the equation, and solely focuses on the rights movement of each group, their are parallels. Both groups are struggling against inequalities, being treated like second-class citizens, as less than human, and have been met with strong opposition legally, politically, and socially. There are real physical risks to those who support the movement and it is a human rights issue that people are willing to fight for.

This CBS article also uses that metaphor in a quote from Assemblyman Reed Gusciora who is currently sponsoring the marriage equality law in New Jersey. It is clear that marriage equality laws are up against large protests and oppositions by politicians in many states, with very few states allowing same sex marriage and heated battles raging in many currently.

This info-graphic has gained much attention online at the inequality of marriage rights and it comically and bluntly portrays the limited rights of homosexual couples. This struggle has only just begun and the success of Proposition 8 exemplifies the hardships that still await equal marriage even in more liberal states. Politically, I am cautiously optimistic about the progress of achieving equal marriage in the United States. It is an inevitability, but I am unsure how quickly and how easily the laws will be passed. Additionally, gay marriage only scratches the surface of rights important to the LGBTQ community including but not exclusively: gender identification for transgender individuals in schools, housing, legal forms, sports, and restrooms, bias in the job market, college admissions, and politics, crime and vigilante persecution of individuals, and many others. There is much work to be done for gay rights and I wholeheartedly agree with Hilary Clinton's United Nations speech where she argues that gay rights are synonymous with human rights. Undermining the rights of any human based on discrimination for any reason is a battle that the world should fight for.

I believe it is possible to compare the civil rights movement and the LGBTQ rights movement in terms of rhetorical power and metaphoric strength, but doing so brings up problems. The danger in making the comparison, thus, is over simplifying each group's story, reducing the narrative to its basic structure and removing the unique history, culture, and variation that makes the stories ring true. The final verdict here is no matter the rhetorical and narrative choices the LGBTQ movement and supporters make, there is a responsibility for the country to fight for LGBTQ rights for the sake of equality for all.