The Audience: The Director

The audience plays an undeniably huge role in the ethics of a rhetorical situation. In our modern age of technology, much emphasis is put on consumerism and tending to the needs of buyers and viewers of a given product. The audience likes that our model of public of discourse because the news is more interesting and appealing. Maybe the audience doesn’t understand our unethical form of discourse, but statistics show that when news is heavily covered, and done so maliciously, the view ratings increase. This is in line with our apparent love, as an audience, for reality television and other forms of staged entertainment. There are more obvious forms of unethical rhetorical situation and there also situations that are less obvious. The audience plays a larger role on those that are more obvious because the blatant, unethical tactics are generally for the audience. The less obvious tend to stem from the severity of the issue. In this case the lack of ethics stems from the producers, directors, etc. and the people who are shown in the situation. A key example of this, are the presidential debates. Though the audience still has a substantial role, namely political moderates, in the ethics of this situation, most of this is placed on the candidates because they have the power to stage and form the situation, as they feel most suitable. The audiences’ apparent love for the unethical rhetoric situation doesn’t justify the producers creating such dishonest, superficial work in the public sphere. The lack of knowledge, by much of these audiences, is the reason nothing is done regarding the unethical form of public discourse in a rhetorical situation. 

Honestly, What is Public Discourse?

Our current model of public discourse fosters bad faith argumentation. Though our examples of public discourse are appealing and extremely popular, their effectiveness in presenting quality ethical rhetoric is poor. The bad quality of public discourse stems from the media and the coverage of the public debates or interviews, etc. Instead of attempting to relay and find honest, important news, the media ask biased questions, attack celebrities and twist the things they are told in order to further there news, whether it is important and prevalent or not.

A key example of public discourse that foster bad faith argumentation are the popular presidential debates. First of all, the debates in actuality aren’t debates, but rather a staged question and answer that are generally presidents reaffirming their political, social or economic opinions. These debates are meant to compel political moderates to join a political side within the presidential race. They ineffectively do so as the only thing the debates do is reaffirm why democrats or republicans choose a particular side, and identify with those respective opinions.  The candidates themselves are also to blame for the lack of honest, ethical discourse due to their ability to approve or disapprove what is to be talked about and ultimately stage the debates. There is so much public attention given to such interviews or debates that the quality of them is more important than the quantity of what is spoken about.

Interviews of high profile people, or celebrities, athletes etc. are also examples of public discourse that foster bad faith argumentation. The media sets up interviews that don’t give honest news, but rather stage a story that is more appealing to viewers. Along with the poor coverage of public discourse, we as the audience also foster bad faith argumentation due to the fact that we like hearing such news and lies. Depending on the news, certain viewer ratings increase. It is the news that is falsely covered so that it is more appealing to the audiences. There are many factors that play into the fact that our model of public discourse fosters bad faith argumentation. And this model fails at presenting ethical rhetoric. 

Michelle Norris: Material Through A New Light

It was an informative experience getting to hear Michelle Norris speak first hand after studying her work, The Race Card Project, for a few weeks now. I gained new insight of her work and how it came to be. She spoke elaborately on the geography of the mind and how we think about things, specifically race. Norris constantly talked about what race means, which culminated into an answer through the revelation of her own story. Most of her career she ran away from her race and cultural identity, until she understood the power of being a black woman. It was at this point that she consequently realized the importance of the conversation about race and how talking about it would force progression of racial equality and understanding in our society. When she came to this realization she began her project that initially entailed her giving out cards and asking people to send them back with their thoughts about race and anything that pertained. Due to the mass reception she received she further developed her project into what we know now as, The Race Card Project, a site that has archived over 35,000 cards in its short existence thus far. Within the cards she spoke about similar ideas of racial tension and progression that come up in our AMST Black Social Movements class as well. She spoke about the role of everyone in the natural fight for equality minorities face. Norris stated that this movement effects everyone and there is more to be done, whether your cultural identity, race or ethnicity is connected with the ‘dominant culture’ or one that has been oppressed since the beginning of OUR history. Norris used events such as the March on Washington and Dr. King speech as a symbol of the progression we have made and a reminder of what still needs to be done. It was an honor being able to listen to someone with endless knowledge and experience, such as Michelle Norris, speak on this topic that affects us all. 

The Evidence

To find the best evidence possible for this paper, I found outside sources through search engines, such as google, to learn more about recent social movements that are not solely based around race and racial tensions. It is somewhat obvious to see the effect declaring your racial identification during a movement that attempts to implement or prevent social change that deals with race or class. Throughout the year we have analyzed social movements, like this, that deal with the Civil Rights Movement, Garveyism and other black social movements. However I feel that we get an honest, distinct answer, or perspective as to what the effect of racially identifying does to a movement and whether or not it promotes exclusivity when your race is not the most dominant factor in that given movement. I found evidence that dealt with the anti-consumerism movement that has become popular in recent years. The anti-conusmerism movement promotes people to purchase less material possessions and corporations to stop making purchases that are purely economical, without caring about the potential environmental, social or ethical concerns it may cause. 

The risk I run in attempting to find a movement that doesn't deal solely with race is finding one that doesn't answer the prompt; whether racially identifying is helpful or harmful to the given movement. The source, titled Distinct Consumption and Popular Anti-Consumerism, uses the movie Wall*E, "one of the most celebrated recent examples of a popular anti-consumerism that now appears all but obligatory, is an instructive example of their ideological instrumentality" to show the differences between how we consume and the effect it has on our world (McNaughtan 1). The source elaborates on this 'individualistic' idea of consuming, something most, if not all do, that directly affects everyone. It goes on to present solutions, that include different mindsets as to 'how we should buy' , for the readers to understand. The movement itself has little to do with race, and bolsters the idea of maybe not declaring racial identification, because it has no place within the movement. With that said, 'how we buy and spend' depends on what we have materially and financially. This idea can correlate with class and ultimately race. And with that understanding, different groups or class people, which may or may not cause racial distinction, will have different mindsets and goals regarding the movement. I am unsure if this article will connect to my argument within the paper, but it does bring up an interesting point that questions how different movements affect people of different races differently. In these cases, is it smart to identify your race and ethnicity for the basis of your argument? This topic is very specific, but also complex as there are may things that need to be considered in answering whether racial identification is helpful or harmful. 

Racism: The True Effect

If I put myself in Dick’s shoes and attempt to look at an event or social movement that I am unfamiliar with I will automatically recognize the similarities between the people who are organizing change and protest. However, I would be extremely confused, as I would have no basis or knowledge as to how I distinguish any differences or similarities between the people, and furthermore this unfamiliar idea of race. Dick and the other characters from 3^rd Rock From the Sun do not comprehend the distinctions and divisions amongst race, so the only differences they would recognize would be skin color, but that as seen in the episode would not help lead to a greater understanding of race or racial divisions. As I, being Dick, see the connection between these foreign human creatures, I began to see a separation amongst them, and potential animosity. But that is it. I see nothing else. I am dumbfounded by the idea of the humans separating themselves for no apparent reason and am curious as to what is the root of this evil. And I can assure you that my first thought regarding the source of the separation is not RACE, or even mere skin color. Well, if I stay in character. 

Race has had and does have an undeniable impact in the US and across the world. The mere notion that Dicks character was astoundingly far from the way most, if not all, people let race affect there connection with other people today in our world proves that race is indeed a dominant factor in our society. When most see another individual, they immediately identify the other persons race. As we progress as a society, in many cases that identification of race isn't necessarily malicious, but somewhat automatic. We must understand that race plays such a heavy role in our society today due to our history and how racism plagued it. Today, we either use race positively to remind ourselves of equality and the power within each race or use it negatively to inferior-ate a group of people. Racism has no basis, Dick proved, but it is apart of our lives and the question is not how do we eliminate it, but rather how do we deal with it; it will inevitably play a role in our society.