|
Articles Conference Reviews |
200758HartSession 5.8: Special Delivery: The Production and Distribution of Multimodal Public Rhetoric
Jim Ridolfo (Michigan State University), Anthony Michel (Avila University), David Sheridan (Michigan State University) This panel was introduced as part of a larger project on multimodality and delivery. The three panelists hope to write a book regarding public uses of multimodal rhetoric, multimodality and democracy, models of the public sphere, and how they have adapted to each other. They seek to understand what cultural work multimodality can perform. Jim Ridolfo, Michigan State University: “Frame & Counterframe: YouTube & Rhetorical Circulation” Ridolfo began by showing Apple Computer's 1984 Macintosh Super Bowl commercial, available on YouTube, which “remixes” Orwell's dystopian vision of the future (“Big Brother” declaiming on a large screen, crowds of zombified people transfixed before it) with a promotion for the new Macintosh computer – tagline: “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.'” Ridolfo then showed a Barack Obama campaign video remix of the Macintosh commercial, also available on YouTube. In this video, the face and voice transfixing the masses belong to Hillary Clinton, and the tag line is: “On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like '1984.'” After showing the two videos, Ridolfo suggested that remix ought to be considered as part of the classical canon of arrangement or order. According to Ridolfo, in its first month of availability, the Obama 1984 video was downloaded more than one million times, suggesting that it was highly effective as a delivery vehicle for Obama's campaign, that it had created a “viral scene.” However, its author, “ParkRidge 47,” remained obscure. Viewers of the video began to wonder who this person was. Was he or she associated with the official Obama campaign? A grassroots activist? Obama himself insisted that his campaign knew nothing about the ad. Several people posted messages to YouTube asking “ParkRidge 47” who he or she was. Eventually, Michah Sifry, editor of Techpresident.com, received a response, in which “ParkRidge 47” declared that the ad should speak for itself and refused to identify him- or herself. Eventually, “ParkRidge 47” revealed himself to be Phillip De Vellis, a senior strategist at Blue Ridge Digital. In other words, as Ridolfo explained, he was someone who was politically trained and technologically savvy and who had worked on Web content for other Democratic campaigns, although this time he ventured out on his own. Based on this scenario, Ridolfo proposed a comparison between “ParkRidge 47”'s process and a generalized writing process: Composing Process Delivery Rhetorical Valuation Video Remix YouTube Upload Management of Delivery Ridolfo then went on to suggest that what makes the Obama 1984 video process particularly interesting is the post-delivery process, in which, through the withholding of his identity, “ParkRidge 47” managed to amplify the rhetorical effects of his text. In addition, this case is interesting not just for the technical aspect of the video's composition, but also for the political and ethical dimensions of the video's creation and subsequent delivery. Perhaps, suggested Ridolfo, this video is one example of a democratic aspiration to devise delivery systems that circulate ideas, information, opinions, and knowledge in public forums. In conclusion, Ridolfo suggested three aspects of multimodal publishing generated by this example:
Anthony Michel, Avila University: “New Media Technologies, Community Groups, and Social Movements” Michel reiterated his research interests in multimodal rhetoric and civic participation in democracy and the ways in which people participate in the public sphere. He characterized his case study as the “other side of the spectrum” from Ridolfo's. Rather than looking at a single-authored text, he studied a “loose network,” specifically the Kansas-based political group called “True Blue Women.” After the 2000 election, explained Michel, a group of women in the suburbs of Kansas City got together to share their disappointments and to commiserate about the election process. In particular, these women were bothered by the way in which Kansas and its politics were portrayed in the mass media. Michel described the group as a place-based organization concerned with identity issues such as gender and family who wanted to “speak back” to the national media about the ways in which the Midwest's, and particularly Kansas's, “family values” were being co-opted by conservatives. As a result of their conversation, these women decided to see who else might be out there in their area who shared their liberal political orientation. They began with fairly traditional grassroots community work, producing bumper stickers, handing out fliers, etc. In what Michel characterized as an “unintended consequence,” the group, as an afterthought, also decided to create a webpage. It was this venue, however, that had the greatest effect on the group's efforts to distribute their views. Michel went on to define several key terms used in his research:
“True Blue Women,” according to this definitional structure, is a Community Activist Organization. According to Michel, Community Activist Organizations like this one tend to use Internet Communication Technologies (ICTs) to forge alliances and to link their coalitions vertically and horizontally as well as to facilitate links between local concerns and global issues. For example, the “True Blue Women” raise concerns about and try to “reframe” the discussion surrounding family values, using as their main message, “Celebrate Commitment, Value Tolerance.” Their site also includes “reframings” of other key issues such as the mainstream science/evolution debate, the separation of church and state, as well as the principals of high education standards. By using their website to suture together these different interests through “reframings” of the language used to discuss them, suggested Michel, these women are creating a loose global network that enables an individual or group to participate in global discussions and to annihilate boundaries. In other words, the new media allows the group to facilitate global networks in a way that the old technologies of bumper stickers and fliers couldn't do. Michel then mentioned another web resource called “Coalition Builders” that is being formed by a man who doesn't think progressive issues were framed very well in the 2004 election. As Michel described it, this site represents another attempt to bring together like-minded people through Internet technologies, people who feel that the media is not a resource for local people and who may otherwise feel isolated and not get together. Next, Michel discussed the rhetorical decisions Community Activist Organizations must make about the use of ICTs. According to Michel, these organizations have to develop strategies that address the complex interplay between their own purposes, the affordance of ICTs, and the dominant characteristics of mass media. In the case of the “True Blue Women” site, since these women are not technologically savvy, their site is not really a multimodal site. Instead, it is a highly text-based site that resembles a newsletter. However, while the site may be modeled on an “old-fashioned” technology, it does take advantage of its state as a high-tech mobile tool of communication by linking local issues to national and global movements. As a result, the group has to balance its emphasis on place and community identity with a desire to expand. So, while the members of the group like to meet face-to-face as a way of maintaining the “integrity” of their group, they are also faced with requests from women in other states as well as men (both local and national) who want to join the group. Acknowledging that some members of the academic community try to resist the “pedagogical imperative” of research, Michel nevertheless concluded with his own set of questions that students might be asked to answer based upon the “True Blue Women” site:
David Sheridan, Michigan State University: “Where Do We Draw the Line?: A Framework for Deciding Which Technologies We Should Study and Teach” Sheridan began by asking the question, “What will people accept?” After all, he stated, it's one thing to ask students to write a text; it's another thing to do a video or a Flash animation. He then outlined what he described as “the story of rhetoric's inclusiveness”:
According to Sheridan, at Michigan State University in the 2006-2007 academic year the Writing Center conducted 35 workshops focused on I-movie. “So,” he asked, “where do we draw the line? Where does inclusiveness end?” Challenging Case #1: The Rhetorical Affordances of Games “Can the creation of a game be regarded as rhetorical practice?” inquired Sheridan. He then provided an example as food for thought. He showed the audience the “September 12th” game, in which the player has a “first-person shooter” perspective and is given the task to shoot representations of terrorists. However, when the terrorists are killed, the player/shooter sees people grieving over them. In addition, if the player/shooter inadvertently kills innocent people, he or she creates more terrorists because of the anger generated by the killing of civilians. This game, which involves the player/reader in a dramatic narrative, suggested Sheridan, serves as a rhetorical argument against war as a response to terrorism, a rhetorical move in which the player/reader is the one enacting the argument. Therefore, concluded Sheridan, he can imagine games as effective rhetorical practice and he might include game design, animation, and coding as technologies that writing instructors should study and teach. Challenging Case #2: Manufactured Objects/Accessible Engineering As Sheridan explained, MIT's “Fab Lab” is in the process of designing consumer-grade mini factories that anyone can set up in his or her own basement. For about $25,000, someone can purchase the equipment and materials, to conceptualize, design, develop, fabricate, and test “almost anything” using standard tools and software. Sheridan asked the audience to imagine a scalability scenario in which these “fab labs” become available on a large scale so that someone could email or distribute through the Web a design for an object that anyone else could then create with his or her own fab lab. For example, suggested Sheridan, imagine that the “True Blue Women” launched a campaign about sustainable environmental practices. Suppose they created the design for a mini-composter that could sit on a countertop. Might not that manufactured object draw attention to the practice of composting and thereby facilitate conversation about the larger environmental issue? Having presented his two “challenging cases,” Sheridan examined the status quo of rhetorical education in grades K-16:
He then suggested “Dave's Version” of rhetorical education:
Finally, he presented a framework for “drawing the line”
Question and Answer Sheridan: Great comment. One published iteration reviewer said, “You guys are a bunch of dreamers. You're not dealing with institutional realities.” So it's an absolutely crucial question of how to make an argument for funds for professional development, course releases, etc. We need to be clear about why we need these things and we need to articulate the benefits. Michel: Yeah, this is a long, long, utopian revolution with lots of material and ideological questions. First we need to work to get administrators and colleagues to address this question in the first place. We need to be aware of turf wars, of questions about where writing is being taught. This is the long change, the vision. Response: It could be argued that at the moment faculty are the least empowered to make these changes. We may have these visions, but it's sort of like fiddling while Rome burns. A: Well, we need to have the fiddlers, the visionaries. There are practical, pragmatic problems that need to be addressed such as resource allocation, institutional politics, etc. But we need to keep the hope, the possibility of moving in a visionary direction. Sometimes we have to do that up front, sometimes surreptitiously. Response: Perhaps one of the changes in attitude we need to make is the “of course adjuncts can teach writing” stance. Perhaps we need to elevate the project of teaching writing to make it harder to do in order to convince administrators to put value and money into it. The point is not to give up the utopian vision but to think strategically about how to get heard. Faculty can make inroads. For example, in Michigan we are now educating for a post-industrial economy. At MSU, we're going to be inclusive in the Writing Center. We're going to support all forms of media composing practices that result from a structure that's already in place. That way instructors who otherwise wouldn't have the resources or time to learn the technology well enough to teach it can take a risk by taking themselves and their classes to the Writing Center.
Comments? |