To subsume myself in the rhetoric I am speaking about: my intellectual gears have been pumping away here at the end of the semester, this swirl of thoughts exploding and fragmenting into an array of ideas that are at once disorienting and invigorating. My classes this semester have fit together brilliantly, and here at the end they have been particularly potent. I have had several instances that have really stimulated my thoughts, most notably a series of conversations with various people, especially one I just had with Laura Walls, and the analysis of the online conversations about nanotechnology that I’m doing with Gehrke. These have made me realize that there is a significant niche for me right there in this, as Laura put it, “new genre” of literature. The analysis of this genre will not only be fruitful in understanding a new and important socio-cultural and political phenomenon but will also lead me to be able to dissect out of this some really interesting philosophical and socio-cultural commentary in the long term.

The core of this new “genre” is what I will call, for now, “reverse historical narratives/studies” The terms came to me while talking to Dr. Walls today and she really liked it and I see it as incredibly fitting. What this involves is a sense of certainty of the future; writers and speakers of this genre speak of future events using the same method as people who write historical accounts. In a sense, there is a set future and a set past and the current course is just a matter of moving between the two. This doesn’t mean that these people necessarily agree on what this futuristic outcome is but they speak as if they are sure. That is, they speak of the future like historians speak of a contestable past event, rallying the same sort of evidence and using the same sort of language. A lot of times this involves taking the past and projecting it to the future, but it is not always the case.

Caught up in this is a melding of science into a narrative form. Science and fiction, essentially, are blurred together to form an inseparable mass.  The most common mode of speech is a form of speculation, that is essentially a strong thought experiment where the implicit assumptions are not recognized. Except here the speakers don’t recognize it as a speculation but claim it as the practice of science. That is, they dress it up in scientific language, use scientific terms, construct real looking models, give their items scientific sounding names, etc.  A good example can be found here, an article by Robert Freitas. (continue reading…)

I want to pause briefly from my late night studies to make an observation of some importance.  I have been struggling in my mind to establish strongly the connection of a great interest of mine, Rhetoric, to the other two branches of my study, philosophy and technology studies. This was really important because, well, rhetoric is the field I’ll be trained most heavily in and wherein I will teach and have to do a bulk of my work. I have known it connected strongly but I haven’t been able to articulate it the best, either in words or in my own mind. But as I sit here and read Aristotle’s Rhetoric it begins to become clear.

The technology studies-philosophy connection is clear because of what I call the “technology of philosophy” as opposed to the “philosophy of technology.” That is, that philosophy itself is molded by our technology because our technology makes up the core of our world and expands and shapes our ability to comprehend it.

This in itself assumes an anti-realist or relational knowledge point of view, that there is no such thing as “Subjective” or “objective.” Rather, while there may be a real Truth, our work consists entirely of constructing views of this truth that are merely heuristics or convenient ways of viewing the world–which might even work to, what do you know, make more technology.

In a world such as this, then, truth itself becomes constructed and construcatable. But how do we prevent ourselves from heading towards the terrifying territory of complete relativism where we lose sight completely of any concept of truth? Am I saying we just make everything up? No! It is in our relationship TO the world and our interaction with it that we create conceptions of the world and of truth. What is rhetoric? Narrowly defined in the greek sense it is about persuasion. In the broader sense, rhetoric is human ability to bring about action or force within the world. Given the existential view of our essence or being as more fundamental to anything else–as Sartre says, “we are made through our actions”–then we are essentially shaping truth and ourselves through our forms of rhetoric.

It is essential then as we move through the difficulties ahead in redefining ourselves within a new technological landscape that we formulate and enact new ways of being in the world yet still retain some element of ground, some relation to understanding, to the so-called “truth” of things. How we work out this truth is essential to our whole existence and to the perpetual progression of things. Thus rhetoric is intimately tied up in technology studies and philosophy, is even the core of the whole project. It therefore makes sense that I put it at the center of my studies.

Plus, rhetoric will get me an academic job easier than the other two

Yesterday I wrote a post about the problems with PETA’s marketing strategy.  Well, in the process of writing the post I became aware of an enormous ad campaign that somehow I had missed previously. Apparently PETA has caught on to the other emotional strategy: sex.  That way, if you can’t scare them, lure them. Yes, because Alicia Silverstone Bares All in Veggie Testimonial really does catch people’s eye. You can click it and watch Alicia Silverstone emerge naked from a pool as she talks about being a vegetarian. Lovely.  Likewise, if you head over to the list of their current print ads you’ll see that quite a few of them involve nude or nearly nude men and women.

Excellent. Now we can make a modifier on yesterday’s statement: PETA also is for creepy men wandering around the internet.

Ok, so there is no doubt that sex sells products–and not just to creepy men. As a guy, it’s just too hard not to notice a sexy ad when it comes up. It’s difficult not to make some sort of association.  I don’t like it but I can understand it–if you’re selling a product.

PETA isn’t selling a product, they are selling ideals, a viewpoint, a way of life. You cannot sell that with sex.  People will notice your ad, yes.  Guys will drool over Alicia Silverstone’s body and not listen to a word she is saying. Women will look at her with scorn and not listen to what she is saying.  The ad will appear successful in terms of times viewed and feedback simply because the men will click on it and the women will complain about it–or at least enough of them for the ad manager to think “gee, this is a great ad!”

In the end, what is accomplished?  If anything, PETA stirs up a bit of controversy.  They get their super bowl ad banned, which they can flaunt to no end (in which girls get sexual with vegetables).  Guys will go over there and drool over it as well.  A few, just a few, might really think it’s worth it to become a vegetarian so that they can “have better sex.”  But, honestly, it’s PETA talking.  Everyone knows those guys will do anything to convince you to save those poor animals.  It is hard to trust when PETA says “Studies say…”. It’s like trusting the cigarette companies when they say “studies show second hand smoking doesn’t cause cancer.” Except, admitedly, this is a good cause. But how many people will make that distinction? In both cases, smoking and becoming a vegetarian, you are asking people to make a huge life-changing commitment. Becoming a vegetarian isn’t something you do on a whim, otherwise you’ll last about 3 days.  Sex isn’t enough to get people to make that change. Especially a sex study cited by PETA.

See, once you lose your ethos, your credibility, you lose it all. Game over, you’re done. All you can do from there on out is try to regain it.

On another note, the “I’d rather die than wear fur campaign” is all done by celebrities…who are the only ones who really can afford to buy fur anyways. Again, just something for guys to drool over. Now, using celebrities to campaign is about the only good thing I’ve seen PETA do. After all, the celebrities carry their own respect and ethos.  But that goes down a bit when they are naked.

PETA has struck again. My fiance let me know yesterday that her sister has become a vegetarian after watching one of those disgusting chicken videos. Those get those preteens every time! Afterwards they become vegetarians for anything from a few weeks to a few years then…well it’s just too much of a hassle. 

Now don’t get me wrong. I am a vegetarian myself, for many of the same reason PETA promotes the lifestyle. However, what PETA does is frustrating.

It is like the abortion people whose idea of a “peaceful protest” is to roll strollers filled with bloodied babydolls around school campuses, like they did last week at Notre Dame.  What does this accomplish? 

Classic rhetorical theory (the study of the power of words)  consists of three elements: pathos, ethos, and logos. Logos is the appeal to the logic of individuals. Ethos is the appeal to the sense of character–that you are trustworthy and a good source to listen to. Pathos is the emotional appeal.  The three ought to be held in balance in order for a message to be accepted by an audience. If you lose one, your message doesn’t get through to a majority of your listeners. For example, if you have no ethos then no one will trust what you are saying and no matter how logical or emotionally valid it is, you will be ignored. Likewise if you make no sense in the minds of your listeners it doesn’t matter how good of a person you are, they won’t listen.

The lesson here is clear: protests like the violent PETA videos or the abortion pictures of aborted, bloody fetuses serve only one of the three elements: pathos. They get you on shock value.   Sure there may be some great logic behind the cause and many good authorities can hold the same opinions, but all this is lost in the pure overwhelming disgust.  Once that shock wears  off and the disgusting images fade from sight, what is left to make an impression?  There is no argument or logic to fall back on and the violent method of portrayal causes the source to look like a nut so there is definitely no trust in the character of the organization. Even though people do like a good emotional argument, they don’t tend to like methods that openly exploit their emotions like seeing a dead, bloody fetus or a brutally butchered cow does.  In the end these methods only win those who already have the logos and appropriate sources of pathos  to join the cause anyway. But those people are already on board. 

For the rest it tends to cause the opposite result: the people are much less likely to support those nutty “animal rights” groups. The same goes with the those “treehuggers” and “crazy anti-abortionist.” It gives the impression that they will do anything to get their viewpoint through and makes it difficult to take seriously. Again, unless you already believe what they are doing. 

The end result is that this kind of tactic tends to work best on young teenagers who are suseptible to the raw emotional appeals. Yet unless those teenagers develop some of their own logic for sticking with the cause, they will normally fizzle out after the shock value wears off. In the end, those same early supporters might end up more bitter about the experience, feeling that they were somehow taken advantage of.  

Come on PETA, you should know all of this. They teach it in your basic public speaking class, which is a required class in most majors in most colleges. Surely someone over there took it.

Picture Credits: BitchBuzz and PETA (They go well together)

Just last week I returned from my first trip out of the country, spending a week in France for school. On my way home, I was really looking forward to being back in America, realizing the immense power of the familiar sights, the warm temperature, and the decidedly muggy air of South Carolina. It was nice to be back where everyone around is speaking English and I don’t feel so out of place, even if I did enjoy the experience. But then I am sitting in the gate writing and I hear a clip of a talk radio show as some lady rants on about how Obama is going to undermine our capitalist society and how we’re not going to be able to…and I stop listening. Welcome back to America, home of the rhetorical nightmare.