Quotes and Questions: Public Rhetoric

Quotes and Questions

Habermas, Institutions of the Public Sphere

Quotes

“There was scarcely a great writer in the eighteenth century who would not have first submitted his essential ideas for discussion in such discourse, in lectures before the academies and especially in the salons” (Habermas 34).

This quote captures the reasons why understanding the development of the “public” through the history of French lectures to German societies is important. The structures surrounding human interaction and community impacted the writings that retain influence. While the structures change, understanding of the rules and things that dictate the public still influence what is said.

“Thirdly, the same process that converted culture into a commodity (and in this fashion constituted it as a culture that could become an object of discussion to begin with) established the public as in principle inclusive” (Habermas 37).

While I think all three “institutional criteria” that the Tischgesellschaften, salons, and coffee houses shared are important, this statement of the third summarizes the second so it allows me to address both elements. The shift from the concept of private people to people who communicated to judge a product of culture led to increased generalizability of the topics discussed so that “the public” was not as exclusive as it had once been.

“Released from its functions in the service of social representation, art became an object of free choice and changing preference” (Habermas 39-40)

The concept of “the public” influences the creation of art. While this is alluded to throughout the discussion of “Social Structures of the Public Space,” this specific statement emphasizes art’s interaction with social representation in an important way. Whether music or literature, the art that exists for public consumption does not simply emerge out of thin air. Art, like anything else, is a product of its surroundings.

Questions

(A speculation question): Had these European institutions for discussing and enabling art not arisen, how would our concept of culture have changed?

How has social media and its redefining of public effected, freed, or inhibited creative art (literature, music, etc.)?

Are “publics” always as introspective and aware of their discussion as the last sentence “the public that read and debated this sort of thing read and debated about itself”) suggests? (Habermas 43)

Hauser, Civil Society and the Principle of the Public Sphere

Quotes

“Important for rhetoric, the arenas for public opinion formation were different from those of the polis in which the same persons populated both the agora and ekklesia. Whereas classical rhetorical theory theorized a politics based on civic virtue, the moral thinkers of the Enlightenment located political foundations in society” (Hauser 30)

Because the democracy of ancient Greece was not as free is as often assumed, when the ideas remerged and a new public sphere came to existence in the Enlightenment, the focus shifted from civic virtue to civil society. This focus is important for rhetoric and the understanding of the purpose of public spheres.

“The contemporary Public Sphere has become a web of discursive arenas, spread across society and even, in some cases, across national boundaries… collectively these web-like structures of a particular public sphere, such as a political party or a social movement or even a metropolitan areas’s conversation on local issues, are joined to others in the reticulate Public Sphere, where their collective rhetorical practices produce society” (Hauser 35).

Today’s public sphere, in many ways, does not look like its predecessors. Technology has enabled public spheres to transcend traditional boundaries, and rather than hurt the influence a sphere might have, this change continues to enable the production of the social order (in ways greater today than Hauser predicted/speculated on in 1994).

“Because civil society is constituted by difference rather than identity, by diversity rather than unity, contact with alternative ideas and traditions is inevitable” (Hauser 36).

Part of the power of a Public Sphere is its ability to bring together opposing ideas in an arena where they can be discussed and greater civic understanding can emerge from the divergence of ideas. This was important in the historical journey of the creation of public spheres, and it continues to be important today (which leads to the question below).

Questions

Based on the quote “Because civil society is constituted by difference rather than identity, by diversity rather than unity, contact with alternative ideas and traditions is inevitable” (Hauser 36), and given the recent trend of Facebook’s algorithms to filter newfeeds so only stories that the user agrees with are highlighted, is social media becoming less of a Public Sphere?

In what ways does Hauser agree with and build upon the ideas presented by Habermas (pages 21, 30, 31)?

What elements are essential to the formation of a successful Public Sphere, both philosophically speaking and looking at instances in history where Public Spheres were effective?

I wish to argue (30)

“In sum, the conditions of public life encompassed by the public space of Greek antiquity were distinctly pre-modern. While expressing ideals of high political involvement, the Athenian experience does not mirror the realities of civil society following the intellectual and political revolutions of the enlightenment” (35)

Significantly, both failures and successes of actually existing dentocracy are a function of the rhetorical practices that define the ihscursive character of any given public sphere at any given moment in time. (36)

Public opinion requires public dialogue. An exdiMge of views is essential to arriving « a balanced judgment on competing interesu. The partisan nature of political discourse would never esc^K personal prejudice without open exchanges of informed and compelling expressions of preferences and reasons that could contribute to achieving a common mind.

Loeb, Intro Soul of a Citizen

Quotes

“By risking taking a stand, they shifted history in small but significant ways” (Loeb 7).

The memorable figures who made large gestures were able to make the changes they did because of the organized efforts of the many people lending small and lasting efforts to whatever the cause might be. Thus, when looking at making social change, the small movements should not be discounted.

“In the chapters to follow, I’m going to try to convince you that our most serious problems—both the public ones and those that seem more personal—are in large part common problems, which can be solved only through common efforts” (Loeb 9).

A community is necessary to solve the troubles that threaten communities. The line between what is personal and public in terms of problem and their ability to be addressed is interesting.

“But people are spurred to action not so much by knowing the right facts and numbers as by hearing stories that affirm human worth and purposefulness, and embody a worldview that makes sense of the confusion and contradictions in their lives” (Loeb 17).

This reason why people are moved to action and change is crucial in understanding the roots of social change. The underlying basis that confusion and contradictions exist for everyone makes addressing it a natural outcome.

Questions

How is learned helplessness combated by Loeb’s examples of influential people who enacted change?

In referencing the “gated community of the heart,” Loeb claims that “public participation is the very soul of democratic citizenship, and that it can profoundly enrich our lives” (3). How do the varying degrees of public participation effect and change democracy?

Loeb’s initial emphasis on the small movements seem to depend on an organized network (unless I’m totally misinterpreting his argument entirely, which is quite possible). Who organizes the network, and do they fit into Loeb’s model of the citizen’s soul?

Warner, “Publics and Counterpublics”

Quotes

“Whether faith is justified or partly ideological, a public can only produce a sense of belonging and activity if it is self-organized through discourse rather than through an external framework” (Warner 70).

Discourse is a central element to the existence of a public, and out of that discourse self-organization can lead to the feelings of belonging and action. This concept leads to the interesting “chicken or egg” debate that Warner then discusses about the formation of a public.

“The act of attention involved in showing up is enough to create an addressable public. Some kind of active uptake, however somnolent, is indispensable” (Warner 88).

A public works best when its members participate. Because of this, public discourse often seeks attention and activity so that it can endure.

“Over the past three centuries, many such scenes have organized themselves as publics, and because they differ markedly in one way or another from the premises that allow the dominant culture to understand itself as a public, they have come to be called counterpublics… Counterpublics are publics, too.” (Warner 112-113).

Given the conversation in class and the title of this chapter, this quote (and really the entire paragraph seemed important to the context of the excerpt. While it is important in offering a preliminary definition of counterpublics that is then built upon in the following sections, I think the distinction that even counterpublics are publics creates an interesting (and slightly confusing for this newcomer to the subject) distinction. I feel like I’m trying to figure out the difference between a rectangle and a square again. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t a square (or something like that)…

Questions

What level of participation is necessary to be involved as a member of a public? How does this (“Texts clamor at us. Images solicit our gaze. Look here! Listen! Hey!” relate to clickbait (warner 89)?

Warner supposes that “one way the internet and other new media may be profoundly changing the public sphere is through the change they imply in temporality” (97). Do the “stories” originally (I think?) on snapchat and now also on Facebook and Instagram add an extra degree to this temporality that further changes public spheres?

What are some current examples of publics, subpublics, and counterpublics?

Reif and Bawarshi, From Genre to Public Turn

Quotes

“We explore the intersections of rhetorical genre studies and public sphere scholarship, with a focus on overlapping interests in the relationship between discursive formations and the formations of public life and an examination of the ways in which genres serve as both occasions for productive interaction/resistance and frameworks for critical analysis of publics” (Reif and Bawarshi 5).

This introduction highlights the overlap between research in rhetorical genre studies and public sphere research while also pointing out the research gap in linking the two. Using the framework of genres provides greater analytical opportunities for understanding the concept of publics.

“Indeed, a focus on the multiplicity of publics and on marginalized or oppositional publics within public sphere scholarship can inform critical approaches to genre—expanding perspectives on public genres and their uptakes as emergent and enacted through complex ecologies of publics. Conversely, RGS’s focus on the generic sites of articulation—where genres work to reproduce and reinforce power relations within and between individuals and cultures—can inform public sphere scholarship by focusing attention on the ideological discursive sites where multiple publics are enacted and potentially transformed” (Reif and Bawarshi 9).

In an almost cyclical way, the two areas of focus lend greater understanding to the other because they build upon a similar foundation. At the same time, their differences in scope inform the other side of scholarship in a powerful way.

“The historical study of public genres not only enables a reconceptualization of genre invention as a rhetorical, strategic process but can also highlight the interaction between rhetoric and materiality and between rhetorical actions and public actions” (Reif and Bawarshi 16).

This question of the material’s involvement in both public studies and genre research becomes an increasingly interesting question as that which is digital enters the conversation. Importantly, this quote also discusses action that proceeds out of these theoretical concepts of public.

Questions

Has social media as a genre blurred the line between what was once private disclosure and is now public? (What is the opposite of public?)

How does uptake and the importance of uptake for both genre and publics change in a digital setting (Reif and Bawarshi 11)?

How does this connection between rhetorical genre research and public sphere studies connect to action that individuals might take (Reif and Bawarshi 18)?

Miller, Genre as Social Action

“The urge to classify is fundamental, and although it involves the difficulties that Patton and Conley point out, classification is necessary to language and learning” (Miller 151).

I’m so fascinated by this urge and necessity to classify. While I realize this is largely an introductory sentence and that it does not directly deal with genre studies, it introduces Miller’s perspective and connections between material and genre well. Understanding fundamental reasons for areas of studies really helps understand the larger concept and deeper theories.

“Genre, in this way, becomes more than a formal entity; it becomes pragmatic, fully rhetorical, a point of connection between intention and effect, an aspect of social action” (Miller 153).

In this discussion of Campbell and Jamieson’s theory on classification and genre, the connection to social action seems important. This emphasis on action, rhetorical or social, sets Campbell and Jamieson apart from Fryer and Black. This definition of sorts also elevates genre with the significant claims. (Also specifically about action, I was feeling indecisive: “Because human action is based on and guided by meaning, not by material causes, at the center of action is a process of interpretation. Before we can act, we must interpret the indeterminate material environment; we define, or “determine,” a situation” (Miller 156)).

“Studying the typical uses of rhetoric and the forms that it takes in those uses, tells us less about the art of individual rhetors or the excellence of particular texts than it does about the character of a culture or an historical period” (Miller 158).

In a way, this quote reminds me a bit (and maybe incorrectly, this is still my first taste of these theories) of Habermas. In the same way that studying publics tells us about the historical period, studying rhetoric must also be taken in context. In Miller’s sense, this makes understanding rhetorical genres clarify whatever it is that is being studied.

Questions

Why is there a fundamental urge to classify?

While discussing Fisher’s four motives of discourse, Miller states, “The four motives describe more about human nature than they do about rhetorical practice” (154). How is human nature different from rhetorical practice?

What is the difference between “meaning” and “material causes” (Miller 156)? Are there some instances in which these are the same in terms of their ability to motivate and guide human action?

Warnick and Heineman, “The Internet and the Public Sphere”

Quotes

“As the Web has grown in popularity, geography has become increasingly less relevant; distinctions between public and private have been blurred, and the norms of deliberation have had to adjust for digital contexts. Because of these and other mitigating factors, existing models of the public sphere must be reconsidered in light of both technological and cultural changes” (Warnick and Heineman 9).

This thesis of sorts becomes such an important foundation for so much research. These studies and distinctions are so interesting and worthy of conversations because the phenomenon of the Internet is still so relatively new, but its effects reach far.

“Counterpublics stop being ‘counter’ when they are acknowledged. In fact, for a counterpublic to persist, it must ‘make no attempt’ to ever present itself as ‘the public’” (Warnick and Heineman 13).

Warnick and Heineman’s discussion of the distinction between publics and counterpublics clarified much of the theory we have read this week, so I appreciated this definition. It acted as the puzzle piece that finally helped me understand how all of these terms work together (though I’m still not entirely sure where I disagree or agree with the theories).

“However, the complexity of both public sphere and counterpublic sphere theory often makes either concept less than accessible to the study of many real-world cases… there are other useful techniques for critiquing how political discourses circulate, shape personal identity, and effect change beyond those provided in the public-counterpublic literature” (Warnick and Heineman 15).

I finally reach a level of understanding, and then sentences like these complicate matters while also validating some of my confusion. As is evidenced by most of the questions I’ve asked this week, examples are necessary to my comprehension of a theory, and it is very problematic when what happens in the real-world does not fit into the theories.

Questions

Will geography ever become completely irrelevant in terms of public spheres and cultural changes? Has it already, or should it still be considered as a factor in discussing “politics beyond the public sphere” (Warnick and Heineman 9)?

What are some examples of counterpublics on the Web that have stopped being ‘counter’ because they were acknowledged (Warnick and Heineman 13)?

Is the public sphere truly in a crisis? And if so, is this a bad thing (Warnick and Heineman 29)?

Grabill and Pigg, “Messy Rhetoric: Identity Performance s Rhetorical Agency in Online Public Forums”

“We all engage public issues more frequently and perhaps more passionately via spaces that are not explicitly understood as deliberative forums” (Grabill and Pigg 100)

Disinhibition because of the anonymity offered by the internet creates a difference between activity that happens online and in face-to-face conversations.

“Our analysis shows that identity is performed and leveraged in small, momentary, and fleeting acts. These identity performances work productively as non-rational argumentative moves within online discussions…

Given the nature of most online interactions, participants often do not build fully formed or coherent portraits of who they are as people, but rather draw on parts of their identity to accomplish other goals within the conversation” (Grabill and Pigg 101, 102)

Identity is such an important moving target; getting identity “right” can change an entire situation, but it is almost one of those things that must come naturally. Trying too hard can be a detriment to an online identity. It is particularly challenging to understand identity online because it is so easy to provide small snippets of identity rather than paint a full portrait of who you are.

“But the larger point is that identity performances create movement, which we believe to be a particularly powerful form of agency in public, online discussions. The rhetorical agency these identity performances enabled is particularly interesting because the performances are not based on claims to expert status

or the use of typical identity attributes of power (e.g., claiming the identity of a scientist

to win an argument)” (Grabill and Pigg 115)

When identity is used well, it changes discussion and gives agency that has a power to change the digital space. Interestingly though, most of the successful identity in this study was based on relatable claims rather than expert claims.

Questions

This article discusses and researches what could be considered very personal details. What are the ethics behind this sort of research conducted online? If information is published publically, can it be researched?

How generalizable is this research with Science Buzz to other forums, from experience and from a research viewpoint?

How do we build and cultivate an effective identity for achieving social change online? Or can we, does it have to be spontaneously authentic?

Vie, Carter, and Meyr, “Occupy Rhetoric”

Quotes

“Aligning with others around shared identities and forming collective identities are both highly rhetorical activities that rely on understandings of individual ethos (or background and credibility), collective ethos, and the problem or issue that the collective thus responds to (what rhetoricians define as the rhetorical situation and its exigency)” (Vie, Carter, and Meyr 180).

The role of identity, once again, becomes very important in understanding rhetorical activities of groups whether they occur in person or if they are mobilized online. Ethos of the individual, group, and issue are crucial in shaping and conveying this identity.

“However, today’s governments are savvier in understanding social media and its possibilities for use in digital activism, illustrating how the rhetorical situation has significantly changed through the overarching exigency—fighting against repressive political regimes—has not” (Vie, Carter, and Meyr 184).

In the case of the protests in Egypt, social media was used to mobilize and draw the attention of those who would have not previously cared, but even as the tools for protest and activism change, so do the tools of those whom the protests are filed against. It is a classic cycle, and it can add to learned helplessness that would cause one to never act, but it is still important in understanding the purpose and importance of social activism.

“While none of these digital activism events can be said to have caused each other—they are, instead, a matter of multiple simultaneous rhetorical invention—it is important to note that Occupy Wall Street (OWS, or #Occupy) owes much of its clout to tactics and techniques espoused earlier by the Arab Springs participants and indignados” (Vie, Carter, and Meyr 188).

It is so interesting to see how these movements learned from and built off the tactics of other social media heavy activist movements. I’m also so intrigued by the idea of “simultaneous rhetorical invention.” That very concept makes studying this topic so exciting and essential.

Questions

Has there been a similar time in history where multiple moments of rhetorical invention occurred simultaneous while also being immediately built upon for the success of other movements of activism (Vie, Carter, and Meyr 188)?

How is slacktivism combatted for productive activism? Or should it be, is that the point of the essay—that slacktivism is actually rhetorically effective (in specific instances) on its own?

Vie, Carter, and Meyr conclude with the statement: “we should strengthen the rhetorical, digital, and organizational skills of activist to better support their success” (191). Practically (and beyond further research and a different approach), what does this mean? How do we strengthen these skills?

Lauri Goodling, “MOAR Digital Activism”

Quotes

“The desire and willingness is out there. The work is being done. The forum is valued by those who are doing the work. But there is a disconnect in labeling the work as activism” (Goodling 3).

The separation between a name and a behavior makes this work crucial for study, and (biasedly) study within Composition and Rhetoric (Composition Theory taught me to value the rich opportunities present in areas that have contested/insufficient labels).

“The hybridization is best illustrated in mobilization efforts, where social media is used to supplement BoTG efforts, to communicate either a call-to-action or the logistics of a specific event. While this hybridization might not be essential in digital activist work in the future, as tools and technological capabilities continue to expand, it seems to serve both the image and impact of activism for now” (Goodling 8).

Bringing together “Boots on the ground” activism with digital activism is currently necessary because they complement each other in such important manners. It is fascinating to think about what will be essential in the future of activism, but that is also a great point of this research—debating can limit doing.

“Activism isn’t, nor should it be, judged by actual, tangible, quantifiable change. Sometimes efforts can be directly linked to accomplishment of goals; other times, the efforts simply contribute to general education or enlightenment, which might eventually lead to actual change” (Goodling 19).

The measurements of activism, much like education, are not always as quantifiable as perhaps we would hope. But like Loeb emphasized in the intro to Soul of a Citizen, the small and “unseen” changes are invaluable to the changes that can be more easily noted.

Questions

How exactly have social media forums become a blend of salons and public spheres? (“Social media forums—discussion boards, Facebook, Twitter, Volkalize, Blogger and Wordpress—offer community building and networking opportunities, prompting the establishment of new publics. They have become something of a blend between the Habermasian salon (a space where individuals converge to discuss and debate issues of a civic, community, or political nature) and Gerard A. Hauser’s (1998) public sphere, a ‘discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest, and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them’ (p. 21)” (Goodling 5).

Are these technological (and communicative) tools able to be incorporated for all composition pedagogies, or do they work best specifically within a civic/multimodal pedagogy? “We want to provide them with the tools—both technological and communicative—to help make this possible in the 21st century and beyond. This means we have to expand our notions of civic engagement and public or community writing beyond simply teaching them to write the letter to the editor” (Goodling 19).

What are some examples of participatory media lessons/activities that can be performed in a composition course: “As academics and activist teachers, we are keenly aware of the fine balance of power in our world. Checks and balances are essential, and participatory media is perhaps one of the most effective ways for us to demonstrate how what we do in the classroom translates to meaningful writing in the real world” (Gooding 17)?

#Habermas #PublicSphere #Quotes #Questions #PublicRhetoric #Hauser #Loeb #Warner