Miranda Mozingo's Rhetorical Criticism of Pop Culture Blog

Initially I had no idea what to think about English 301 when I registered to take it back in December. The main thing that caught my eye was the title of the class, more so on how films and pop culture would be involved in the class. I became curious as to what films and pop culture would be analyzed since up until that point, books were the only thing I had analyzed in an English class. On the first day of class I had to ask many questions about the course material and the assignments that would eb given to us. I quickly realized that this English class would be completely different from others that I have taken. I had the freedom to pick what I wanted to use in my assignments, in terms of what I was analyzing, and that was something that I had never experienced before. The artifacts that I could choose from for my assignments could be video games, comics, television shows, movies, even YouTube channels were allowed to be used for analysis. On the downside, I initially had no idea what Rhetorical Criticism was, or its different perspectives of analysis. However, I learned each one of the perspectives of Rhetorical Analysis even if some of them I still cannot fully comprehend. I found myself enjoying analyzing what I wanted to analyze, especially since I did not have to limit myself to only analyzing books.

Before the class would discuss any of the perspectives of Rhetorical Analysis, first we had to learn about its history. We would learn who created the perspective and when it was created. Afterwards, we would learn the steps of applying the perspective to analyzing an artifact. We would learn how to select the appropriate text for the specific perspective that we were learning about. Then we would then focus on describing, interpreting, and evaluating the artifact using the perspective. The history of Rhetoric itself is ancient with it starting Greece around the fifth century B.C.E in the city-states with the main focus being on Athens. Athens made rhetoric “the focal point of advancing democracy and the liberal arts” (Sellnow, 33). As Rhetoric began to progress there began a demand for those who could teach those the art of public speaking. The Sophists met that demand and are credited with being “the primary reason public speaking courses in general education programs today” (Sellnow, 34). Aristotle would later add the main foundation of Rhetoric by describing the artistic proofs of ethos, pathos, and logos which are appeals made by the speaker to the audience. Ethos is the “perceived credibility, competence, and character of the speaker” (Sellnow, 34). Pathos are the “emotions stirred in the audience by the speaker” (Sellnow, 34). Logos are the “logical arguments based on evidence and reasoning” (Sellnow, 34).

The first Rhetorical Analysis perspective that showed me the Rhetoric functions the best would have to be the Dramatistic Perspective which I used in my blog post on short-animated film Hair Love. The Dramatisitc Perspective is grounded in “theories of action rather than theories of knowledge” (Burke, 1968, p.446). The way that this perspective is done is through PENTAD. PENTAD identifies and describes the; agent(s), act, agency, purpose, and motive of an artifact. The main focus of this perspective is to identify the motive behind people’s actions and why they break society’s rules. There are three main ways to absolve the guilt of breaking society’s rules; transcendence, mortification, and victimage. Transcendence is when a person breaks society’s rules because they are following a higher calling. Mortification is when a person admits the guilt of breaking society’s rules, is punished for it, and is then redeemed. Victimage is when a person attempts to absolve themselves by blaming something or someone else for the rule breaking. In the case of Hair Love the Dad is breaking society’s rule of doing the daughter’s hair is a role for the mom, who is not there at the moment. He goes against society’s definition of being a man to style his daughter’s hair because he doesn’t want to cop-out by putting a beanie on top of her hair.

The final Rhetorical perspective that I learned about, the Media-Centered Perspectives showed me just how much popular culture persuades society to act and think. I used this perspective in both my blog post and second Critical Essay on the final episode of Avatar the Last Airbender. The main thing it showed me is how desensitized people can become to violence and senseless tragedies if they are constantly seen. This is mainly shown in how all of the characters, except Aang, who were raised in a war-torn world immediately resort to fighting to solve their problems instead of having a civil conversation. Aang is the only character who did not see the genocide of his people and the atrocities Fire Nation committed towards the rest of the world until after spending 100 years in ice.

While I am still not the best speaker in the world, I have become a better writer than when I began the class back in January. For the first Critical Essay that I wrote on the short-animated film Frat, I required a lot of help from my teacher in order to properly write the paper, since it was the first rhetorical paper I had ever written and did not know how to properly format it. When the time came to write the second Critical Essay that I wrote on the final episode of Avatar the Last Airbender I had a better grasp of how the paper was to be properly written. My second paper was much more organized than the first, and I described the artifact better than I did in the first one. Even when it came to the peer reviews of both critical analyses, I saw the difference in the feedback that I got from my peers. I had much less negative feedback in my second Critical Essay than my first. In terms of my speaking, I had to present an artifact that I put in one of my blogs. I had no idea how I was to present it properly even though it was an informal presentation. I easily became flustered on the sheer number of questions that were being asked on my artifact and the perspective that I used to analyze it. After a couple of minutes though, I managed to answer the questions much easier than when I started. I took the feedback which I got from it to heart when it came to writing my papers.

While English is not my major, I would not mind expanding on what I have learned in English 301. I went from not knowing the definition of Rhetorical Analysis to being able to write a Media-Centered Perspective Analysis of the final episode of Avatar the Last Airbender. To me that is no small feat. I gained an insight in how the parts of popular culture that I watch affects the way I act and the way I think not only about myself, but about those around me. I hope that my schedule will allow me to take another Rhetoric or writing class such as this.

The artifact that I have chosen for my Media Centered Perspectives Analysis is the final episode, Sozin’s Comet, of Avatar the Last Airbender. This episode is a four part episode due to the length of it. The show itself is about a 12 year old boy named Aang, who is the Avatar and destined to bring balance to the world by mastering the four elements of air, water, earth, and fire. Aang origionally run away from being the Avatar when the war with the Fire Nation began, and became suspended in ice for 100 years until Katara and Sokka found and freed him. Aang is helped in his journey to stop Fire Lord Ozai and the Fire Nation from conquering the world by Katara, Sokka, Toph, Zuko, and a multitude of other characters. Katara is the last water bender of the Souther Water Tribe and teaches Aang waterbending, Sokka is her brother. Toph is a blind girl who is a master Earth bender and teaches Aang earthbending. Zuko is the banished prince of the Fire Nation who initially hunts Aang to restore his honor, he teaches Aang firebending. In the final episode Aang grapples with the fact that he must kill Ozai, which goes against his pacifist ways of being an airbender. Desperate he looks for a solution to Ozai without killing him, as the final battle approaches. Everyone, including Aang’s past selves, tell Aang that he has no choice but to kill Ozai. Aang finds the answer by meeting a lion turtle, a being who teaches Aang how to bend one’s spirit. Using this knowledge, Aang defeats Ozai after grueling battle and takes away the latter’s bending so that he can never hurt anyone ever again.

This shows the Social Learning Theory in how both Aang and Ozai act during the battle. Aang is doing everything in his power to not kill Ozai. Even stopping the Avatar State, when Aang is at his most powerful in order not to kill his enemy. Even before the battle when it seemed as though Aang ran away from being the Avatar again, and met the lion turtle who taught him how to bend a person’s spirit. Aang found a non-lethal way to deal with Ozai while staying true to how he was raised as an airbender. Ozai on the other hand did not hesitate in trying to kill Aang at any given opportunity, since he sees Aang as his only obstacle in conquering the world. Ozai was willing to do anything to ensure the Fire Nation, and by extension himself, came out ontop. The viewers see this and in such would act more like Aang seeing the consequences to Ozai’s actions, losing his bending. Ozai becomes powerless, when at the beginning of the battle was one of the strongest firebenders in the world.

I believe that the implications of this artifact is that there is always a way to get difficult things done without going against your beliefs. This is shown in how Aang defeats Ozai by taking the latter’s bending away and not killing him like how everyone else said Aang had to. This artifact also shows that there is always a price to greed. Whether the person wants more money or more power, there is always a price. In this case it is Ozai losing his bending forever and losing what he deems to be “his natural right” of ruling the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV04VQdVz8Q

The artifact that I have chosen for my Feminist Perspective Analysis is the episode Witch-ay Woman from the tv show Johnny Bravo. This episode is about how Johnny winds up angering a gypsy woman with his constant flirting, even after she tells him no, and she turns him into a woman. She tells him that the only way for him to become a man again is to learn what it really means to be a woman, and not act like men are God’s gift to women. Initially Johnny is set in his ways, viewing women as good looking only. He works to make himself as attractive as a woman as he viewed himself as a man. As the episode progresses Johnny, who is still a woman, sees how men will not leave him alone because the is a good looking woman. Johnny wonders what lesson he’s supposed to learn, since all he’s seen so far are men being annoying and unable to take no as an answer. Until other women intervene explaining that women are smart and not just for looking good. Johnny then realizes the lesson, that women are smart, and turns back to a man. Then all of what he just went through goes right out the window because he is surrounded by women and he begin to act just like he was before he turned into a woman.

The feminist perspective that can be applied to this episode, and the show as a whole, is the radical feminist perspective. The radical feminist perspective focuses on how inequities and oppression stem from how the system creates men and women differently. This perspective also deals with the “male gaze”, a phenomenon in which women are viewed as sex objects. Throughout the episode this is shown in how what the gypsy woman says is true, the men are acting like God’s gift to women. Johnny himself was most certainly acting like it in the very beginning and end of the episode. Johnny and the other men are unable to take no as an answer, which leads to the women beating up the men to get them to stop harassing them. There’s an entire song in this episode on how women are smart, which is sung by the women who help Johnny. Up until that point, all you see is how the men are nice to Johnny because he is a good looking woman.

The artifact that I have chosen for my Neo-Marxist Analysis is 1993 the film The Addams Family Values. The film is about how after Gomez and Morticia Addams have their third child, Pubert, they hire a nanny to help take care of him. The nanny, Debbie, is actually a serial killer who marries rich men to take their inheritances. She seduces Uncle Fester and tricks Gomez and Morticia into sending Wednesday and Pugsley to a summer camp.

According to the textbook the main focus of the Neo-Marxist perspective is to, “expose how material conditions and economic practices shape dominant ideology regarding taken-for-granted assumptions about who “ought to be” and “ought not to be” empowered.” Hegemony is the privileging of a dominant group’s ideology over that of other groups. The model are the characters who act and look in a way that is deemed “normal, attractive, or desirable” by society. The anti-model are the characters that act and look “abnormal, unattractive, or undesirable”.

In this case of this film it can be considered a subverted oppositional reading, in which it rejects hegemony outright. This is shown in how while the Addams family would be considered the anti-models, they are the ones who have the power over Debbie and the other “normal” characters of the film. Every time one of the model characters attempts to put themselves over the Addams family or change how they act, the Addams come out on top each and every time. This can be seen in how Wednesday overthrows the summer camp with her brother and the other “misfits” or how Pubert winds up saving the family from Debbie after he has returned back to normal.

I believe that this movie shows that no matter how strange or different you are from society’s definition of normal, society will not hold power over you unless you let them.

The artifact that I have chosen for my Symbolic Convergence Analysis using fantasy theme, fantasy type, and symbolic cue  is the “On your left” scene from Captain America: The Winter Soldier. This scene has Steve Rogers running past Sam Wilson a couple of times with each time the former saying “on your left”.

Using fantasy theme, rhetorical vision, fantasy type, and symbolic cue is how a Symbolic Convergence Analysis is done. Fantasy theme is how the artifact is communicated via a joke, metaphor, figure of speech, or another method along those lines. The rhetorical vision is the shareable way of interpreting the story. Fantasy type can also be considered the genre of an artifact. Symbolic cue is an inside joke that only those that know the story will understand.

The fantasy theme is Steve saying to Sam “on your left” every time he passes the latter. The sanctioning agent, the force that legitimizes Steve’s behavior, is him wanting to mess with a fellow veteran of the armed forces. With my Dad having served in the military I can say that this is actually common among veterans, especially if they served in the same branch of the military or in the same unit. The fantasy type is comedy even though the movie itself is considered sci-fi, action, and adventure. The artifact itself serves as a light and comedic moment in the film. The Symbolic cue is “on your left” since it’s usually said while being right next to the other person than running past them. I have actually seen joggers say “on your left” and other people who have never seen the movie think that the person saying it is just being polite.

The artifact that I have chosen for my Dramatisitc Perspective using PENTAD is the short animated film Hair Love. Hair Love is a short animated film about a dad trying to do his daughter’s hair.

PENTAD is the way Dramatistic Analysis is done. PENTAD identifies and describes the agent(s), act, agency, scene, purpose, and motive of an artifact. Attitude is considered part of the PENTAD and is attached to the agent. The main purpose of a Dramatistic Analysis is to identify the motive behind people’s actions and why they break society’s rules.

The agent(s) is/are the character(s) engaged in breaking society’s rules, which is the little girl’s dad and his attitude about the act is initially confused but then becomes determined after trying to cop-out of the act after upsetting his daughter by trying to put a beanie on her hair. The act is how society’s rules are being broken, in this case it is the dad doing his daughter’s hair when that is typically a role in society’s eyes for the mom. The agency are the tools, means, and methods employed to accomplish the act, in this case it is the girl’s tablet which is on a site called “Hair Love” and the girl’s hair products, including combs and hair gel.  The scene is where the act takes place in this case there are two scenes, the bathroom and the little girl’s room. The purpose is the reason behind doing the act, in this case it is to get the little girl’s hair done so that her and her dad can pick up her mom from the hospital on time. The motive is what is used to justify the rule breaking, in this case it is transcendence. Transcendence is when a person breaking society’s rules is justified because they are following a “higher calling” The dad is doing his daughter’s hair hair because his wife is not there to do it. While he relies heavily on his daughter’s tablet to figure out how to put her hair in a particular style, he does her hair because he doesn’t want to cop-out by putting a beanie on top of his daughter’s hair.

The main implication of this artifact is the stereotype placed on parental roles, in this case it’s which parent should be doing the daughter’s hair. Initially a lot of people would believe that the dad can’t do his daughter’s hair in the style that she wants, but he manages to do it successfully. I can personally relate to this because when I was younger and wanted my hair braided I went to my dad to have it done. If people complimented to me that my mom did such a good job braiding my hair I would immediately correct them by telling them that my dad did my hair, not my mom.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC6YV65JJ6g

1st verse (Maître Gims) :
My friends were hearing about the life that I had
Where people were waiting for me, I never came
If I confuse them, if I derange them
It’s because I’m a blend, a mix
I’m too complicated, I’ll never choose
Just the two sides, don’t ask me
Where I wanna go, even the monkeys imitate the wise
And all those wise people created cages to put us all in

Chorus (Maître Gims & Vianney) :
Eh, eh, aye, aye
Aye, aye, aye
If I bother you guys, well the feelings mutual
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual
Eh, eh, aye, aye
Aye, aye, aye
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual

2nd verse (Vianney & Maître Gims) :
We take boxes, we place the people that we’ll never, never understand deep down inside of them
Being that mankind is made of a thousand boxes, those boxes that we take are never big enough
I’ve followed a thousand paths and shook a thousand hands
It’s possible to like both Jacques Brel and Meugi, even like our enemies
I’m too complicated, I’ll never fit it
In your little squares, I live my life from day to day
And so I always zigzag with those black shades
I hear people wonder : “When will the mask fall off”

Chorus (Maître Gims & Vianney) :
Eh, eh, aye, aye
Aye, aye, aye
If I bother you guys, well the feelings mutual
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual
Eh, eh, aye, aye
Aye, aye, aye
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual

Bridge (Vianney & Maître Gims) :
You entered my life, Oh my beloved freedom
Life, is about having needs, needs before opinions
You entered my life, Oh my beloved freedom
Life, is about having needs, needs before opinions
Eh, eh, aye, aye
Aye, aye, aye
If I bother you guys, well the feelings mutual
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual

Chorus (Maître Gims & Vianney) :
Eh, eh, aye, aye
Aye, aye, aye
If I bother you guys, well the feelings mutual
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual
Eh, eh, aye, aye
Aye, aye, aye
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual
If I bother you guys, well the feeling’s mutual

The artifact that I have chosen for my Narrative Perspective Analysis using the three dimensions of description, interpretation, and evaluation is the music video to La Même by Maître Gims ft Vianney.

For description of a Narrative Perspective artifact you describe the; setting, characters, narrator, casual relations, temporal relations, and intended audience. The setting is a large studio which has a large well lit box in the middle of the studio. All of the characters in this music video are round characters in that they are the opposite of the stereotype that I initially placed on them at the beginning. The “proper” lady has tattoos all over her body, the body builder has leg prosthetics, the nurse is a break dancer, the exotic dancer is a caring single mother, and the six business people are gymnasts. There are two narrators; Maître Gims & Vianney. They both tell the story of society placing stereotypes and labels on people and how they’ve stopped caring about them. The main events are how all the characters are shown in the box, their stereotype, and exiting the box to show how they actually are. The main cause of this event is the human action of exiting the stereotype to show how they actually are and that they are not the stereotype that has been applied to them by others. The temporal relation between the events syntagmatic with the characters being shown in the box leading to them exiting it. The intended audience, to me, is society at large. Since many people subconsciously apply stereotypes to others, placing them in a “box”.

For interpretation of a Narrative Perspective artifact you interpret the moral conveyed. The moray that is being conveyed in is to not place stereotypes on other people, no matter how different they are from you. You would never expect a “proper” lady to have tattoos, a body builder to have leg prosthetics, a nurse to break dance, an exotic dancer to be a caring single mother, and six business people to be gymnasts. To me the genius of this music video is initially showing you these people in a way that you subconsciously place a stereotype on them while they’re in the box and shattering that stereotype once they’ve exited the box. Also for the majority of the video both Maître Gims and Vianney are standing on top of the box, showing that they’re risen above the stereotypes placed on them.

For evaluation of a Narrative Perspective artifact you evaluate the potential implications of the artifact. To me the potential implication is that people place stereotypes onto others subconsciously.

The artifact that I have chosen for my Neo-Aristotelian Analysis using the 5 elements of the rhetorical situation and the 5 canons of rhetoric is Greta Thunberg’s “How Dare You” speech that she gave to the UN on September 23rd, 2019. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/23/dare-greta-thunbergs-tearful-speech-leaders-un-video/

There are 5 elements to the rhetorical situation and they are; the speaker, occasion, audience, exigence, and constraints. The speaker is Greta Thunberg, a 17 year old Swedish environmental activist. The occasion is the UN Climate Action Summit in New York on September 23rd, 2019. The audience was the world leaders who she wanted to help fix the environmental situation that is currently going on. The exigence is the global warming crisis that is currently going on. The constraints are the leaders of the world who don’t believe in global warming or don’t want to actively try and fix it.

There are 5 canons of rhetoric and they are; invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. The invention of this speech is the science that is the science backing the fact that global warming is real. The pathos of this speech is when Greta talks about that if nothing is done about global warming then the future generations, including her own, have been failed. The logos of this speech is when she talks about that for 30 years there has been science proving that global warming is real and needs to be solved now, not 10 years down the road when there is a 50% chance of no solutions working. The ethos of this speech is that Greta has been an environmental activist from a young age and has done her research into global warming. There is also the fact that she is distantly related to Svante Arrhenius, the father of climate change science. The arrangement of this speech is how Greta opened by saying, “We’ll be watching you”. She began to talk on how she should still be in school back home instead of across the ocean instead of being approached to find a solution to global warming while she is still a child. She goes on to talk about how the ones in charge are more concerned about money and eternal economic growth. How there is science, has been science, for the past 30 years stating that global warming is real and is a problem and yet the leaders of the world want to wait 10 years before trying to fix it. The style of the speech is how Greta said, “How dare you!”, and “If you chose to fail us – then I say we will never forgive you”. Greta makes a very impassioned at the UN Climate Action Summit to the point that at certain times during her speech she was on the verge of tears. She puts the emphasis on the current generation to fix global warming as she is still a child and shouldn’t be responsible for having to clean up the mess that previous generations have left for her in terms of the environment. To me the main memory of this speech is how Greta said, “For more than 30 years the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying you are doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight?” It shows how little has been done in the past 30 years to fix global warming and other environmental issues even though there is plenty of science backing that fact that these issues exist. The delivery of this speech is how while you can understand every word that Greta is saying, how her voice trembles and you can hear her choking back tears.

The overall effect of this speech was an increase in environmental strikes across the globe and an increased interest in the environmental issues that are occurring today. Currently no new environmental reforms were made, but this speech could be the first of many that result in environmental reforms and science that can greatly reduce carbon emissions.

Hello,

My name is Miranda Mozingo and I’m a sophomore nursing major. The purpose of this blog is for my English 301-1: Rhetorical Criticism of Film/Pop Culture/Multimodal Texts class. I have never taken any rhetoric classes before this one. I will be writing rhetorical analyses of mainly cartoons and movies on this blog. My intended audience is anyone who likes any of the films or cartoons that I write my analyses about. The context of this blog is to be informative. I want to share my opinion about the films, cartoons, and other multimodal texts while also hearing the opinions of others on them.