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.