When I read DeLuca's description of Earth First! activists "sitting in trees, blockading roads with thier bodies, chaining themselves to logging equipment, and dressing in animal costumes at public hearings," I couldn't help but notice how similar these strategies are to the strategies of children who cannot reason their way into getting what they want (229). I do not mean this to condemn the actions of Earth First!; their intentions are certainly good, and I'm not qualified to comment on whether their actions have always been justified. But my point is that this type of "argument" wouldn't have to be used for "good" purposes, and it would seem to be equally effective for either a worthy cause or an unworthy one.
When I read this, I wrote in the margins of my book, "Is this argument or manipulation?" This is still an open question for me. I have my doubts about how many loggers actually have had their minds changed by these tactics. Yes, Earth First! has managed to save some trees, but have they been able to change the minds of people who weren't already disposed to agree with them? DeLuca argues that "The bodies of Earth First!, then, question the possibility of property and the definition of the land as a resource and, instead, suggest that biodiversity has value in itself..." (232). It would seem to me that it takes a fairly dedicated, well-educated reader to understand this aspect of Earth First!'s argument, and I wonder, if this is the case, how useful is this argument? (And, for that matter, how do we define the "usefulness" of an argument? What is the point of argument?)
I think that asking our students to "read" this type of argument could be an interesting and challenging intellectual exercise, but I have questions about its practicality. (Of course, I realize that practicality is not the only criterion for what we should study/teach. I am studying English, after all!) ;) Any thoughts?
6 comments:
"Yes, Earth First! has managed to save some trees, but have they been able to change the minds of people who weren't already disposed to agree with them?"
Though such actions may not change minds directly, the spectacle draws attention to the issues with which the organization is concerned. Such exposure can lead to individuals looking at Earth First! in more depth. Perhaps some are then persuaded that biodiversity is a crucial issue. I think that often these types of symbolic actions serve a purpose in the larger social arguments that they presuppose. Rather than looking at the act itself as an isolated argument (that would be rather unconvincing), I think of it as a phase in a larger argument.
Leta,
Couldn't you also say that linguistic arguments can be used for either worthy or unworthy causes? The neo-Nazis who marched in Columbia this weekend made their beliefs known, but does that mean their use of language makes their argument convincing? Are they not manipulative and unfair as well?
I think the point you're making about the rhetorical strategies of non-linguistic argument is interesting. I also think it is practical to teach students how to recognize and analyze these types of arguments so they don't write off non-written or -spoken arguments as manipulative.
(...says the Visual Media scholar...and in words, no less!)
I think it's important and practical to teach students how to recognize and assess visual arguments as well, Katie. The visual element of argument can't often be entirely divorced from the written word. A poem like WCW's "This is Just to Say", for example, relies heavily on line breaks and space for meaning. Or consider any text we read, from a magazine article to a blog post to a scholarly article--we all rely on visual packaging as clues to the substance and theme of these written works.
I guess I should have been more specific about what I meant in asking "Is this argument or manipulation?" The reason I would see it as manipulation is that there is no way to argue against a person who making their body their argument-- either you allow their argument to stand, or you put their life in danger. To me, this seems manipulative, since it forces people with opposing views to act in the way the demonstrator wants.
Often, though, these types of symbolic actions are necessary for those who have been marginalized by the mainstream forums of argument. Chomsky's model of media representation predicts that, because the mainstream media are owned and controlled by those who hold a vested interest in the status quo (the rich and powerful tend to be rather conservative), those media will not be employed to deconstruct or draw into question the basic principles on which the larger system stands. Sound-bite news, two-minute interviews, constant marketing garbage in between: all of this together essentially eliminates the possibility of substantive debate. Radically alternative positions are simply unexpressed or marginalized through misrepresentation to the point of absurdity. In this context, I think the symbolic action is a legitimate outcry. It is not infantile; the possibilities of meaningful, traditional argument have been cut off in advance. Activists who employ such actions hope to broach the "arguable" issues by first drawing public awareness to a situation that has remained in darkness. The "crystallized" or "encapsualted" symbolic gesture can then be explicated in the form of arguable propositions.
Point taken. I guess my concern has more to do with when this kind of argument is okay (eg Gandhi's hunger strikes to protest injustice) and when it's not (eg Gandhi's hunger strike to stop a labor strike).
Post a Comment