Reddit is so stinking hard to use. Bah.

For a visual talking about a lack of female presence in higher education, this image does the same thing. Or is it "equality" to use a figure that may or may not identify a gender? I doubt that. The hegemonic definition here is these are all male figures. Irony? I think so.

What would Kress and Van Leeuwen think?

So, the day after our last class meeting prior to Spring Break, I was pulled into a huge project at work (which is why I disappeared off Reddit until now - three volumes plus all the CDs were shipped out Friday). My team of proposal writers finished writing a solicitation from the Department of the Army. In one volume, talking about "how we plan to do the job," there were a lot of graphics. I'd like to post a few here for thought, because, after my brain re-engaged, I thought about them. I’d also like to preface that the graphics I’m analyzing were chosen for inclusion into the documents by the prime solicitor; my company would be sub-contracting should the prime win the contract. Finally, I don’t know where these graphics come from, other than a wild guess that there’s a “business people looking happy” photo website out there.

1.       It didn’t hit me until after the haze of solicitation production wore off: I couldn’t decipher who is actually the main focus in the picture. Neither male in the forefront are directly in the middle, both are gazing forward but their bodies are not completely forward-facing. The one person directly in the middle is out of focus in the background.

2.       The suits worn by the three individuals in the forefront, along with their body postures and facial expressions, could tell a story:

a.       A tan suit, relaxed posture, and big smile for the African American. Again, I believe this is supposed to reflect the actual President of the company. And yet, his shoulders tilt slightly toward the white male.

b.       An off-white suit, slightly sideways, and a more subdued but genuine(?) smile for the older white male.

c.       A black suit, standing sideways facing the two men (and at a slight lean into the shot) for the woman, who may be the “blend” (ethnically and professionally) between the two men. Though black is normally considered a power color, it’s a huge contrast between the leaders in the picture, who are wearing lighter colors.

d.      The other three employees in the background are out of focus, and feel like fillers to round out the crew. The white male in the middle is wearing a tan suit, as though he’s another odd blend of the two men in front. The younger woman on the right and the older man on the far left would be, in Web 2.0 parlance, photo-bombers. In reference to the colors of the suits, the younger woman has no business presence at all; all a viewer sees is her plain white business shirt.

 

These are the larger concepts that struck me after I had the chance to look back at this photo. While I was building the volumes, however, the forest took over the trees. And it’s only afterward I realized this may be the norm; the underlying visual rhetoric isn’t a conscious thought so much as “happy team that wants to earn your business.”

The second slide are various graphics throughout a section that talks about the management principles and how the management will operate to complete the work. Again, in the middle of the process, the graphics didn’t ring false to me, but I wasn’t consciously aware of them nor was I the writer inserting the graphics.

Now, here's a white anonymous (headless) male, wearing black-and-black (power suit!), with his finger on the pulse of the world:

Now, a (probably) Asian woman in what looks like stereotypical lab attire, including the requisite stark hair style and black horn-rim glass frames, managing the times, dates, and figures (the math) of project management. And she's blurry...

 

 

 

A list of "business core values" (ethical, trusted, honest, friendly...) that are empathic (pathos) in nature, accompanied by team photos of two women and an African American male. According to the website Empower Yourself With Color Psychology.com, “Blue is the color of trust and peace.” The employees here are dressed in more casual attire than their counterparts in the first graphic, in either off-white or colors of grey and blue. I admit that, to me, the male presence seems odd in these pictures. And I think it may be the preconditioning of “woman as nurturer” that makes a male in the picture seem out of place.

 

I'm not saying that the overall solicitation contained a large amount of these graphics, but these are very indicative of the "people" graphics I've seen in the short amount of time I've been in this current job. And again, I want to reiterate that I didn't consciously absorb the visual rhetoric while I worked on the project - it was only after that some of the above concepts struck me, as I glanced back after the fact. I would be curious to know how the prime solicitor's writers chose these graphics - if there was a conscious decision, rhetorically, or merely "this one looks better/makes a better (non-rhetorical anlysis) statement."

 

 

 

So, I was busy getting my research together - I forgot to blog! Bad Lancia.

For my track back project, I'm taking on terministic screens, from Burke to Bacon, with a sprinkling of Aristotle. If symbols inform language, then how we interpret those symbols informs how we shape our worlds. I want to explore pentadic analysis and metaphor analysis, since both examine viewpoints and context. I want to tie in a look at word choice, with Erasmus and "copia," since words can become metaphors, and the choice of words either make sense, confuse, or repel the intended recipient(s). Bacon is just as important as Burke in my project since the Humanist movement moved away from simply pandering to the elite, and wanted to shape a better, more involved man of the world - a symbol of returning to civic duty and responsibility akin to ancient Greece and Rome. Since Aristotle had little use for metaphor, I want to see if, after retracing the steps, he may have agreed with the basic premise, if not the purpose, of understanding metaphors - and therefore understanding the audience.

Pedagogy Paradigm Shift?

If language is ever shifting, and if we have more recently seen a massive shift in communication practices both in terms of presentation tools and global connections, how should rhetoric shift in terms of its instruction?


First, rhetoric is no longer confined to words. Music and pictures can shape our impressions of events; listen to "Dream of Abraham" by Daniel Bukvich or this picture taken by Steve McCurry. To dismiss the ways the world communicates to each other, especially across language barriers, does a disservice to the children who were born in the Internet Age. The song I mentioned brings to life the world of Abraham Zapruder, the man who filmed the JFK assassination decades ago. A picture, spanning 15 years, lays bare the soul of a war-torn and war-weary Afghanistan. Spoken or written word isn't needed there.

Second, a classroom isn't just desks and four walls anymore. Teleconferencing brings two (or more) cultures together in a space in time. A student in Texas can debate global issues with a student in Australia or Argentina - or both! Globalization has literally changed the metaphorical landscape of traditional classroom instruction. Cultures are mingling every day; so must the rhetorical genres.

Lastly, instructors should be encouraged to bring in these rhetorical modes into the basic composition courses. The same principles when writing a paper full of Aristotle's Five Canons, Bacon's psychology of moving the will, and Toulmin's logic can be applied to blogs and vlogs. Why not have students publish in the ways the world chooses (to some extent) to receive information or search for new views on the new topics? 

Draft in the works - Women in Direct Combat Dialectic

I started with the PowerPoint presentation lead-in because, frankly, nobody escapes PowerPoint, especially not in the military.

=======================================================================

Three people sit down in an empty conference room, waiting for a PowerPoint presentation: a general officer, a sergeant, and a young woman who isn’t wearing a uniform. As they wait, they strike up a conversation.

General: So, young woman, what brings you here?

Woman: I’m here for the briefing on how women will serve in direct combat positions in the military.

Sergeant: (scoffing)

Woman: What’s that? Aren’t you for the idea?

Sergeant: I’m wondering why women want to stare down the barrel of a gun. War is no place to test a political agenda.

General: Sergeant, women have been in battle for a long time, and at the very least serving as operatives and spies. And we have moved into a different time. Warfare isn’t the same anymore.

Sergeant: With all due respect, General, flying a drone, loading a C-130 in a combat zone, or servicing a tank back at base isn’t the same thing as pointing your M16 at someone charging your foxhole.

Woman: Are you saying women can’t handle direct combat?

Sergeant: I’m saying there are hardly any conclusive studies, or examples. Sure, women go out on convoys, work with the locals, and guard prisoners. I know that some men can’t handle it, and PTSD is no joke. But when it’s butts to nuts with the enemy overflowing your base, how am I supposed to just throw women into the mix and hope it works?

General: Now, Sergeant, just because there are no “conclusive” studies, doesn’t make it impossible. An absence of proof doesn’t automatically prove your point. If you remember history, women weren’t deemed smart enough to vote, much less land fighters on carriers.

Woman: Exactly, General. If I can put on the gear, shoot straight, and keep up with my unit, what’s the harm?

Sergeant: The harm is opening up the entire spectrum of direct combat positions without some type of insurance that the women who end up in my platoon can cut it – hell, that they even want to be there. If everybody in my platoon can hump for miles with ninety pounds on their backs, shoot or engage in close quarters, and sleep in a hole under a bush, then I’ve got no problem. But since I can’t pick and choose, I want something in place with a decent guarantee I won’t end up with the product of a social experiment.

Woman: What do you mean?

Sergeant: Whatever the General and the other policy makers do, I have no control. All I do is implement their plans. Since I’m low man on the totem pole for this decision, the very least they can do is make sure they think of me. I’m simply being honest. Hell, I don’t want a GUY who can’t carry his own weight. It’s about life or death. I choose life, whenever possible.

General: We aren’t asking you to die to prove a point, Sergeant. But we can’t ignore the fact we’ve kept women from the highest levels of military command, and from combat positions that they’re capable of. Even now, women are moving into some of the highest command positions in the services, and some of the toughest, such as serving on submarines. And women are asking for the chance to fight along with their brothers in arms.

Woman:  Sergeant, I haven’t been given the opportunity to prove myself to veterans like you. The services don’t give me the same opportunities to prepare myself, physically or mentally, through special schools and training, like they do for men. You don’t know what I’m capable of because I’m not given the same chances. Even now, when I do prove myself, I’m not assigned to battle because commanders think I “can’t handle it,” or I’ll “get pregnant to avoid it.”

Sergeant: Some women may, but I don’t personally think that’s the norm. And it’s been my experience that a few women want the shot, but not the majority. If that’s the case, then the biggest question, and I don’t think I’m alone here, is whether or not the generals are going to change the standards to make what they think is a more level playing field for women.

General:  I understand, but we aren’t going to allow services to rewrite their standards unbearably high so women can’t make it, either. However, some things will need to be taken into account. Right now, in honesty, we aren’t prepared logistically. The Navy, in particular, has issues finding separate spaces on ships and submarines for the enlisted women on existing platforms. Even though high command positions are open, there aren’t enough women of rank and experience to fill them. What looks like exclusion to some is merely a lack of resources.

Woman: But what about the Air Force, Marine Corps and the Army?

General: They’ve already started testing women in their respective services’ infantry and combat training courses. Many are making the grade, while men fail out. The Air Force has a mission distinct from direct ground combat, but women have already been flying F-15 and F-16 fighters and A-10 close air support planes. They are getting assignments on AC-130 planes and PAVE HAWK helicopters supporting combat rescue missions.

Sergeant: Outstanding! When do I get these combat women in my unit?

General: Well, to bring up your previous point about a lack of conclusive information, we are only using their success in combat schools for case studies right now. And before you protest, remember, you wanted proof they could handle the jobs. We’re building that proof for you.

Sergeant: Even more outstanding. So, let’s take this to another level. This is a matter of equality, right? I’ll front that women can hack it, proof is there, and now they get assigned to my platoon. Here’s the next question: are they gonna be drafted like the rest of us? In case of World War Three, will they get the call-up along with all the guys? Inquiring minds for the case of equality, and all that.

Woman: I don’t see why not. I know a lot of women who would answer that call without any hesitation.

Sergeant: That’s not what I asked. Would women be included in the draft, without any exemption that isn’t already in place?

General: That hasn’t been discussed in any large capacity…

Sergeant: Then explain this “gender-neutral” thing. If they’re supposed to be capable of direct combat, and women are asking for it, then they are just as capable of getting drafted into those direct combat positions. In the movie “Starship Troopers,” women joined up AND got drafted to fight the bugs without any sideways glances. They lived or they died. A true gender-neutral fighting force. Why should this be different in real life, when a world war is raging?

Woman:  Using a movie loosely based on a science fiction book written during the Cold War isn’t exactly proof, but I see your point. I know women see value in serving their nation as an honor and the duty of a responsible citizen, and want to show they can do it holding a .50-cal machine gun next to their buddies. I’m here for the opportunity to do that, but I know I can’t speak for every woman.

Sergeant: My bottom line is, as long as the right standards are met, training is taken and passed, and women don’t expect anything special, I’m game. To me, that’s fair for everyone. Women can find out if they cut it along the guys they’ll fight with, and men will get used to the idea that women can kick their asses on the rifle ranges. (After a moment) You have to know you won’t convince everyone this is a good idea, General.

General: To dismiss the fact women have been fighting beside men throughout history is to ignore the present, and future. Right now, women jihadists will eagerly strap bombs to themselves to blow up a building. Israeli and Peshmerga Kurd women are on the front lines of battle, guns in hand, to protect the very existences of their peoples. This is fact. There is no reason to keep them out of harm’s way based on the beliefs of a generation ago. If we set the standards appropriately, the programs will weed out those who can’t make it, and the studies will help us find the balance.

Renaissance Rhetoric - Looking at audience

As we moved into the Renaissance period of rhetoric, I definitely saw the shift from sweeping one-sided speeches into consideration for the audience, or audiences. I admit, I chuckled a little reading Erasmus' "Copia" (especially the section on "Indecent Words") because he went into such great detail. But I also had to admit that his methods have a rhyme and reason. Each word choice corresponds to the audience, written or spoken. When he goes into the methods, some of them may seem inane or self-explanatory, but how many of us read, or hear, rhetoric that makes us want to put a fork in our eyes? The same words and word usage repeated in the same text, or large, grandiose phrases when short and sweet would suffice. I paid particular attention to Method 9, "amplification." Broken down into two types, augmentation/comparison and inference, these are methods I've heard used in every-day rhetoric and considered exaggeration for effect. But after reading, and re-reading, about these devices, they have become more than mere ways to expand on the topic at hand. For instance, as I listen to state and local election campaign ads on the radio, Candidate A may state that Candidate B voted against a tax that would increase funds for education, therefore inferring that Candidate B is against education. I would argue that this type of truth-stretching is why Toulmin came up with his system of logic - the warrant must connect the data. Or, rather, the inference (claim?) must have a substantive argument (warrant) that backs up the political ad (data). I'm not suggesting this is the primary reason, but I believe if someone subjected political ads to Toulmin's logic, there would be some serious rhetorical failures.

What I also noticed from the lengthy introduction into the Renaissance rhetoric is how humanism encouraged rhetors to be more concerned with the effect of their speeches and texts. A little like the ancient scholars they studied (Cicero seemed to be a favorite), it wasn't enough to be an excellent rhetor; now a man needed to use words to be a responsible, moral citizen. I think humanism stressed this more than the ancients, but the Renaissance saw more than just nobles or elected officials getting involved in public affairs. Even women are encouraged and invited to study and learn, BUT only as long as their pursuits remained inactive, or merely a hobby, until marriage or orders. Baby steps, I guess.