Malesh, Patricia. “The Battle Within: Understanding the Persuasive Affect of Internal Rhetorics in the Ethical Vegetarian/Vegan Movement.” Argument about Animal Ethics. Ed. Greg Goodale & Jason Edward Black. Landam, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2010. 53-76. Electronic.

In this article, Malesh writes on the “persuasive effect of internal and embodied rhetorics” (pg. 54) seen in the ethical vegetarians/vegans (EVVs) movement. She bases her arguments in Nienkamp’s and Foucalt’s work in internal rhetoric and the act of parrhesia or “the speaking of truth to power” (pg. 54). She argues that Nienkamp’s idea of internal rhetoric is a precursor to Foucault’s parrhesia, while also tying in Gregg’s concept ‘self and other directed movements’. Using all three of these foundational concepts, she defines the EVV movement as such: “framed by self-deliberation, internal rhetorics expose the ethical vegetarian/vegan movement as a self-/other-directed hybrid movement characterized by appeals to empathy that emerge within parrhesiastic narratives of human-animal interaction” (pg. 61).
She then delves into different narratives and rhetorical strategies that are used to promote empathy towards animals and therefore make them “inappropriate for consumption” (pg. 61). She tackles the idea of the popular rhetoric in today’s society hiding the hidden connection between animals and meat. Our culture sees the meat on our table as only that and not as a living breathing creature capable of suffering and emotions. In other words, reuniting food animals “with their bodies and, as a result, the ability to suffer” (pg. 65). This act creates a disruption and incongruency in social morals and thus creates a motivation to change. She then moves on to the idea of animals as agents, or animals being able to experience more than suffering, but emotions as well. This empathy experienced by humans for their animal counterparts creates EVVs as well as the more specified concept of affection.
While this focuses mostly on the facet of other-directed movements for EVVs, Malesh then moves onto the self-directed challenges that face members. She considers EVVs as an ‘outed’ group from mainstream society. And because of this juxtaposition, EVVs lifestyle choice is seen as a “confrontation to meat-eating as a social convention and with those who subscribe to it” (pg. 69).

Key concepts:

  • Ethical vegetarians/vegans (EVVs): “members of a socio-cultural movement that challenges and attempts to dismantle the cultural ritual of meat-eating” (pg. 53)
  • Parrhesia: “the speaking of truth to power” (pg. 54).

Sloop, John & Ono, Kent. “Out-law Discourse: The Critical Politics of Material Judgment.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 30.1 (1997): 50-69.

Sloop and Ono write about out-law discourse. An out-law they write, “acts on behalf of his or her own community via a local logic that, when translated into the dominant system of judgment, is deemed illegal, illogical, and immoral” (pg. 51). However, the author’s stress that they are not focusing on out-laws per se, but the discourse that they use and exhibit. The authors place a strong burden on academics and critics. Their main argument/concern is “that the role of critical rhetoricians is to produce ‘materialist conceptions of judgment’, using out-law judgments to disrupt dominant logics of judgment” (pg. 54).
In terms of framing judgment, Sloop and Ono cite and critique two other authors, Lyotard and Mouffle. Lyotard writes that “the project of philosophy is to create a politics of nonpriviledge, a politics that respects the differened and does not allow prescriptive choices of one phrase over all others” (g. 56). Sloop and Ono’s critique to Lyotard, is that it has a bias towards change—the authors believe that some idea of permanence should be sought after. According to Mouffe’s position, she argues that “progressive values such as social democracy, once freed from foundational bases, can be rearticulated on cultural, contingent bases” (pg. 57). Their critique is that “Mouffe is too willing to place the republic and its laws before people’s ‘lived’ experience” (pg. 59).
From here, Sloop and Ono move on to out-law discourses. The first category they list to shape this concept is under the terms of material and vernacular. They write that “out-law discourses concern judgments made in the practice of everyday life…and out-law discourses are found in the vernacular, the practice of everyday life, and oppose or are separate from dominant discourses” (pg. 60). Next, they make clear the fact that the out-law status is found in discourses and never the individual as a whole. Third, they write that “out-law discourses are not necessarily progressive” and finally, they “suggest that one possibility for the investigation of out-law discourses is the construction of logics and forms of judgment that disrupt commonsense ones” (pg. 63).

Key terms/concepts:

  • Out-law discourse: “loosely shared logics of justice, ideas of right and wrong that are different than, although not necessarily opposed to, a culture’s dominant logics of judgment and procedures for litigation” (pg. 51)
  • “The postmodern condition”: “our era is plagued by a scourge of indecision and relativity, a shift to a consciousness of simulation and the death of metanarratives” (pg. 52).
  • Differend: “a case of conflict, between [at least] two parties, that cannot be equitably resolved for lack of a rule of judgment applicable to both arguments” (pg. 55).
  • Phronesis: ethical knowledge (pg. 55)

DeLuca, Kevin. “Unruly Arguments: The Body of Rhetoric of Earth First!, Act Up, and Queer Nation.” Argumentation and Advocacy 36.Summer (1999): 9-21.

Through the examples of Earth First!, Act Up, and Queer Nation, DeLuca writes on the argumentative power of the body in protest rhetoric. He writes that they are notable for three reasons “they reject traditional organizational structures while forming radically democratic disorganizations”. Secondly, “they neglect conventional legislative and material goals while practicing the powers of naming, worldview framing, and identity-making” and “finally [and most importantly], they slight formal modes of public argument while performing unorthodox political tactics that highlight bodies as resources for argumentation and advocacy” (pg. 9). All three of these ‘disorganizations’ participate and skillfully use constitutive rhetoric or “the mobilization of signs, images, and discourses for the articulation of identities, ideologies, consciousness, communities, publics and cultures” (pg. 10). DeLuca focuses specifically on the concept of the body as the main site for argumentation during protests and gives detailed examples from each group.
Touching on Earth First!, he writes about the examples of a protestor in a giant tree, 180 feet off the ground, using his presence, his body to ward off loggers. Another he writes about is a protestor that buries himself in the middle of the road—to take on the perspective of the earth and disrupt traffic flow. Both of these protestors embody “bodies at risk” (pg. 14), becoming as vulnerable as their natural counterparts and thus, challenge the idea that humans have the power or right to control nature as we will. He then moves on to Earth First! as framed through the public eye via the media. Because of the disruption of social norms and passion/illogical motives seen in the protestors—the mainstream media framed Earth First! protestors in regards of war and violence, whereas in reality, “Earth First! practices non-violent civil disobedience” (pg. 16).
Act Up and Queer Nation are his next examples of using bodies in protest rhetoric. He writes that “Act Up has forced the United States to confront its homophobia on state, institutional, civil, and private levels” (pg. 17). They do this through “‘in-your-face’ body rhetoric” (pg. 17). By establishing ‘kiss-ins’ in very normalized and American public spheres and creating a ‘die-in’ during a Catholic Mass as a response to the Catholic church’s stance against safe sex and AIDS education. Both of these examples have protestors physically using their bodies as the main site for their protest rhetoric. Queer Nation uses the same concept of ‘kiss-ins’ to drive home their slogan “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it” (pg. 18).

Key terms/concepts:

  • Constitutive rhetoric: “the mobilization of signs, images, and discourses for the articulation of identities, ideologies, consciousness, communities, publics, and cultures” (pg. 10)
  • Bodies: “bodies are in any simple way determined or limited by verbal frames” (pg. 12)

Bruner, Lane. “Carnivalesque Protest and the Humorless State.” Text and Performance Quarterly 25.2 (2005): 136-155.

In this article, Bruner focuses on the carnivalesque forms of protest and their general success of achieving press, avoiding oppressive authority and remaining fairly peaceful. He writes “across the centuries, those on the losing ends of the political and economic spectrums have periodically counteracted repressive forms of government with carnivalesque forms of protest” (pg. 137). However, he argues that the level of tolerance for carnivalesque-style protests is directly related to the level of the state’s sense of humor (in terms of healthy republics or unhealthy totalitarian states.) Bruner writes “that a state’s sense of humor is proportionate to the strength of citizens’ rights and freedoms against the state, the general openness of the government deliberations, the breadth of depth of political dialogue, and the degree to which state officials are legally constrained to tolerate public criticisms” (pg. 137). In other words, carnivalesque protest can only be successful “when there are checks and balances in state power” (pg. 143), but there is an opportune ‘window’ of possibility for carnivalesque protest-style that can open and close quickly. But, Bruner writes that if carnivalesque protests take place during the window of opportunity, it has a good chance of being both appropriate and successful.
He then moves on to the characteristics of political carnival. According to Edmuch Leach, “masquerades, role reversals, and closing formalities” are some main features of the political carnival. He writes that “masks signify a breaking away from ordinary time and entrance into fictive or sacred time via anonymity and normal role loss; role reversal—or turning of the world upside down—signify a divine instance of group fusion as people enter liminal spaces where normally highly disciplined social roles are temporarily exchanged or discarded; and closing formalities occur at the end of carnival period to signify a return to the normal world of humorless repression” (pg. 140).
Bruner uses the examples of the “Orange Alternative” in Poland during Soviet rule. Protestors did such ridiculous things “that the police refused to fine them, particularly because it was difficult to know where to draw the line when it came to this obscure kind of political performance” (pg. 144). Another example was the demonstration against globalization during a World Trade Organization summit. In this situation, demonstrators dressed as turtles and peacefully blocked traffic in costumes, obtained a lot of media coverage and were generally untouched by the police. Whereas another group participated in more ‘normal’ protest movement strategies, which ended up in violence, arrests and skewed media coverage.
He then moves on to how to “measure” humor in a given state. He argues that “soft power, or the power of persuasion, also plays a major role in the humors of states…that is, changing the ways people think changes the kinds of communities they create” (pg. 150). He then briefly touches on the effects that 9/11 has had on such carnivalesque acts and concludes with the heavy task moving our focus toward universal rights and interests instead of being state-centric.

Key terms/concepts:

  • Carnivalesque Protest: “a brief…opportunity when hegemonic social roles were reversed and usual restrictions on public behavior were officially relaxed” (pg. 138). A moment for society to “pretend” by wearing masks and reversing hierarchical roles.
  • “Level” of government humor: How open or restrictive a given government is to carnivalesque protest.

Class discussion:

In class, we focused a lot on the concept of embodied rhetoric. We mapped out the use of embodied rhetoric through examples online and in current events, while also discussing embodied rhetoric in each of the readings. The only reading that doesn’t deal explicitly with embodied rhetoric is Ono and Sloop’s article, however, as we discussed, there are many overlaps between embodied rhetoric and out-law rhetoric and can be a great area to develop and explore.

Application through examples:

Discussion: Occupy Wall Street

So far, there is no use of pranking (in light of last week’s readings) or carnivalesque protests in the Wall Street protests. However, some general insights include, the movement being labeled as “class warfare”, the rhetoric also matches this claim (ie: attacking, fighting, enemies). Occupy Wall Street is considered a middle class movement and a New Social Movement.

Application: Embodied rhetoric seen through examples

Greenpeace: Naked Bodies on a Glacier

In this clip, we see a large group of people strip naked and lay on glaciers as a movement of embodied rhetoric. Personal suffering is used to advocate for nature. The clip itself, as we noted in class, is framed like a PSA and thus a mixture between discourse and embodied rhetoric. The question then becomes—can the body itself, this image of naked bodies on the ice, be embodied rhetoric itself? Or does it need text or an explanation? This question is the most clearly answered by DeLuca, who believes that this idea holds true.

Critical Mass: Budapest

An incredibly large group of people grace this youtube video of bicyclists holding up their bikes in unison while cheering. The tone is very cheerful and jovial. However, the actual language is not English. So, while we can’t understand what they are saying through words, we understand through their bodies; their joviality, their use of artifacts (the bicycles) and their mere presence.

Critical Mass is a group that advocates for the use of bicycles over automobiles and blocks the streets during high traffic times to get their message across. This demonstrates the power of physical agency.

Critical mass: San Francisco

In this youtube clip, there are no spoken words, instead there are two instances of text and jovial and cheerful music throughout. In their use of language through text, we see a title screen labeled “the people”. Following this are many images of different people, showing an explicit diversity within their community. The next text screen is labeled “the police”. This leads us into thinking that the bicyclists peacefully riding down the streets will be violently stopped somehow. However, we see a police car blocking traffic to ensure a safe demonstration. This puts the police in a place as allies instead of stereotypical enemies.

Critical Mass: Car runs over bicyclist

This Critical Mass clip is very different than the others. This is an amateur video of a Critical Mass demonstration that ends badly. We hear music blaring, bicyclists ‘taking over’ the streets and from behind, a car crossing the divide. This car ends up running over one bicyclist’s foot, while running over another. Another car pulls up to the group and asks “what is this for?”

This leads us to an obvious discussion on the issue of safety during movements, but also a question of: who is your audience? Certain communities, due to ethnicity and class, may not respond to a given movement the way another community would. The community in the last video we as a class agreed that this was a community in the former sense. However, does this mean that the message is therefore disregarded or unheard? One may argue that because of that assumption—certain communities will never be exposed to these alternative view points and by bringing movements into these communities, demonstrators are opening perspectives and viewpoints among all classes, ethnicities, etc.

Also, as a demonstrator, the question becomes: are you willing to suffer for your movement (through embodied rhetoric).

Questions for Further Discussion:
Rhetoric vs Discourse
  • An issue in the Ono and Sloop article was that discourse and rhetoric became interchangeable in the piece. We discussed that there is a lot of overlap between the two terms. And that, in general, discourse can be related to social science (more quanitatively based) and rhetoric can be related to humanities (more qualitatively based).
Occupy Wall Street
  • Almost everyone can identify as 99%. Is this a brilliant strategy in terms of including others in the movement who may not agree with you?
  • Who is co-opting who?
  • In terms of the “1%”, by targeting it as an enemy, we elevate it and give it power.
  • How do you fund raise when money is the rhetoric of the enemy?
Embodied Rhetoric
  • Is visual rhetoric more effective than language rhetoric? In a visual society, does this hold true? Social movements are required to express visual output for media/pictures, etc. Groups must establish their “30-second, 1 minute, 5 minute” sound bite. Therefore, is visual and/or embodied rhetoric the strongest way to get your message across?

Small Group Discussion Questions:

Find the thesis. What is the author's main claim? What are the supporting claims (on what assumptions is the claim predicated? what are the implications?) How long is the thesis? How many claims comprise the author's general purpose for writing?


“Ultimately I argue that political corruption leads state actors to lost their sense of humor…that there are important civic lessons to draw from the similarities between critical political theory and the carnivalesque, and that the most effective way of addressing state corruption, at least under certain circumstances, is through the creative use of carnivalesque protest” (pg. 138)

Supporting Claims
  • Effective throughout Western Europe– provides examples from multiple time periods
  • “Carnivalesque protest is simply not possible if the state is so oppressively humorless that it utterly eliminates all public opposition” (pg. 149).
  • “Democracy and humor in a state tend to develop when there is a persistent and effective balance of powers” (pg. 151)
  • “There also appear to be windows of opportunity in corrupt states, if opportunity structures are in place for the expression of popular unrest, for progressive forms of carnivalesque protest or forms of protest that use ambiguity and humor to undermine the false seriousness of the self-interested. However, those windows quickly close when opportunity structures evaporate” (pg. 151)
  • “So long as states are only concerned with their own common good they are inscribing a humorless limit on the truly common good of the international community” (pg. 151).


“The study of EVV identification processes makes overt the rhetorical dimensions of cognition and embodiment” (pg. 55).

Supporting Claims
  • "EVVs can and should be understood as part of a sociocultural movement that challenges and attempts to dismantle the cultural ritual of meat-eating"(pg. 53).
  • "Rhetoric, often found in narrative form, offers insights into the relationship among identity formations, socio-cultural norms, and resistance" (pg. 53)
  • EVVs blur distinction between personal and collective identity
  • Narratives as epistemological constructs to justify decisions (internal rhetoric)
  • Internal rhetorics allow EVVs to speak truth to power and, in the process, restructure dominant social logic by embodying an alternative to it.


“The aim of this essay is to explore the power and possibilities of bodies in public argumentation” (pg. 10).

Supporting Claims
  • “These contemporary activist groups…are particularly notable for three reasons. They reject traditional organizational structures while forming radically democratic disorganizations. They neglect conventional legislative and material goals while practicing the powers of naming, worldview framing, and identity-making. Finally, and most significantly for this essay, they slight formal modes of public argument while performing unorthodox political tactics that highlight bodies as resources for argumentation and advocacy” (pg. 9).

Ono & Sloop

“Communications scholars should study critically the rhetoric of outlaw discourse, and by doing so, they should use outlaw judgments to disrupt the dominant logics of judgment and ultimately produce materialist conceptions of judgment” (page 54).

Supporting Claims
  • An individual cannot be an out-law in this sense, only their discourse can be labeled as out-law
  • “Out-law discourses are not necessarily progressive” (pg. 63).

Overall, a useful strategy in regards to looking for form and utilizing it in our own papers, a thesis can be framed as “this essay aims to…” or “we argue that…” Also, a popular tendency (that DeLuca uses often in his article) is to frame what as an author you are not trying to accomplish in the paper. This narrows your scope enough and dodges some possible conflicts of larger picture concepts that you are not trying to tackle. We discussed this in class as a very useful strategy when confronted with problems or concerns by reviewers.

What tactic(s), phenomenon(s), community(ies) is the author studying? What theoretical lens(es) is s/he using to unpack his/her case study?
  • Bruner:
    • Carnivalesque tactics
      • Critical inversion of official hierarchies
      • An attitude of creative disrespect
      • Retextualization of social formation
    • Communities
      • Serfs of the middle ages
      • WTO protestors
      • Orange Alternative
    • Theoretical lens
      • Habermas, Baber, Zizek, Bahktin, Neitzsche, Foucault, Eagleton
  • Malesh
    • Studying rhetoric of EVVs
    • Internal rhetoric (Nienkamp)
    • Parrhesia
  • DeLuca
    • Earth First!
    • Act Up
    • Queer Nation
  • Ono & Sloop:
    • The authors are studying how society judges the rhetoric of out-law discourse.
    • Their response to this inability to judge is to take a more Aristotelian approach. They suggest the use of phronesis in making judgments in the practice of everyday life (page 60). So their approach is Aristotelian, but at the same time informed and improved by the notions from McGee's materialist conception of rhetoric
At first glance, it seems that these four studies seem very different through the lens of this specific question. Bruner is studying carnivalesque tactics through a more historical lens, Malesh is focusing on internal rhetorical concepts to be expressed outwardly to explain a movement, DeLuca is studying specific activist groups, and Ono and Sloop are addressing a specific discourse that is often used or seen in social movements.
The one concept that ties these articles together is their focus on the body. These communities, concepts, etc. listed above are, for the most part, being used to support their argument of the importance of the physical body in movements.

How does the author negotiate rhetoric as embodied praxis? How does s/he make the case for a body rhetoric? In what sort of relationship does the author place this sort of rhetoric with language? (and/both, in place of, before/after)?
  • Bruner
    • Argues that carnivalesque is embodied rhetoric, author makes case citing instances when carnivaliesque tactics are successful as compared to non-carnivalesque tactics at generating media coverage
    • On language: “there is a very interesting and thououghgoing relationship between language in use and political formations, both ideational and institutional” (p. 150).
  • Malesh
    • Specifically writing about internal rhetoric
    • EVVs as embodied rhetoric by being EVVs. Being an EVV and open about their diet prompts a response of “anti-meat eating”, even if they do not explicitly argue against meat eating. The act of being has rhetorical implications.
    • On language: EVVs give voice/language to animals, which are traditionally rhetorically silent.
    • Internal Parrhesia is a necessary precursor to outward parrhesisa
  • DeLuca
    • Provides real world examples of embodied visual rhetoric.
    • On language: Denies the traditional hierarchy of language over the visual and demonstrates a need for visual rhetoric.
    • Demonstrates how Condit contradicts her argument of “pictures do not argue propositions”
  • Ono & Sloop:
    • Doesn’t necessarily deal with embodied rhetoric.
Ono and Sloop are the only authors that do not explicitly discuss embodied rhetoric. However, it seems very worthwhile endeavor to relate out-law discourse and embodied rhetoric—as we discussed in class, they would have a lot to say to each other. I would argue that the other three authors who do focus on embodied rhetoric would make a case that the rhetoric of the body is an incredibly important field of study--some would argue more important than the words that follow. Clearly, DeLuca writes that he would place embodied rhetoric before traditionally language-driven rhetoric. He does this by explaining that when looking at a picture, a person will be ‘consuming’ rhetoric even without written words tagged on.

How is the article organized? What "sections" can you (or has the author already) broken the article into? Describe the "content" of each section. (Lit. review of XXX. Example that shows YYY)
  • Bruner
    • Intro
    • General Characteristics of Political Carnival
    • Carnivaleque Protests and Their Window of Opportunity
    • Humor, Corruption and Critical Theory
  • Malesh
    • Intro narrative
    • Framing of the narrative in cultural lens
    • Situates cultural into the theoretical framework
    • Case studies
      • Narrative
      • Testimonial
      • Conversations
    • Conclusion
  • DeLuca
    • Intro (lays out definitions)
    • “The Argument Force of Unruly Bodies”
      • Critiques Condit to show visuals can make arguments
    • Bodies in Nature
      • Earth First!
    • Acting Up
      • ACT UP
      • Queer Nation
    • Conclusion
  • Ono & Sloop
    • Introduction
      • Example of out-law rhetoric
    • The cultural crisis of authority
    • Rereading phronesis: Lyotard and Mouffe
    • Out-law discourses
      • Material and Vernacular
      • Not individual actors
      • Not necessarily progressive
      • Provoke social imaginary
    • Conclusion: Out-laws on the run
Each author organizes their article differently. I will discuss the differences in the introductions and conclusions in the following question. In regards to the content in the bodies of these papers, Ono and Sloop do not provide many examples of out-law discourse. This causes some skepticism and frustration by different readers—"show us or illustrate what you mean." However, DeLuca’s essay seems almost driven by examples and a couple of readers agreed in class that this article was much easier to follow and understand when compared to Ono and Sloop’s piece. Also, DeLuca explains, explains again, and then once more to fully make sure that his audience knows his goals and stance during the essay.
And as we discussed in class, the organization of one’s essay truly depends on the content. If the theory you are using is fairly simple (like DeLuca's), than you can weave it in and out of the essay at any given time. However, if the theory is fully packed and complicated (perhaps like Ono and Sloops--and Malesh), there will probably need to be a separate section to explain the theory. And if in doubt, Patty mentioned that it is almost always worthwhile to begin to tackle the problem/issue/argument of the article chronologically.

Examine the introduction and the conclusion. What happens in each, both in terms of content and form.
  • Introductions:
    • Bruner: Gives a historical perspective on the carnivalesque, almost chronological.
    • Malesh: Narratives/Examples
    • DeLuca: Defines terms and gives descriptions. He narrows his scope and repeatedly enforces his argument (and what is not his argument).
    • Ono & Sloop: Atlanta race riot example
  • Conclusions:
    • Bruner:
      • Moves on to a new topic of the post-9/11 world and a need for less state-centered protests and a more worldly view of justice and safety.
    • Malesh
      • Implications (why does this matter)
      • Review what happened in article
    • DeLuca
      • A direct call to rhetoricians to take notice of the visual and use it accordingly.
    • Ono & Sloop:
      • A review of what the article “suggested” and did not suggest, point by point. Typically, the conclusion ends with an exhortation from specific (examining our discomfort with the out-law’s judgment) to global (enact different ways of thinking and living).
      • Broaden appeal
      • Other questions (further study)
The introductions of these articles vary. Malesh starts with narratives—these really draw us in as a successful attention getter. Ono and Sloop do something similar and start off with an example. DeLuca opens with almost immediately discussing the terms, definitions and concepts he will be using (as discussed above, this is most likely due to the simplicity of his theory). Bruner opens with a chronological and historical view—because of his content it is almost expected because of the history that the carnival has. These differences are due to the specific content and goals of each article.
The conclusions are all fairly similar. However, while most of the articles work from presenting their theory at the beginning to tying it together at the end, Bruner introduces some very large concepts and ideas in the conclusion of his article. We discussed in class that this is a rather unusual process of forming an argument. While many authors go from inductive to deductive reasoning—we are usually taught not to bring in completely new concepts at the conclusion.
Also, in the realm of rhetoric--we discussed in class that one must make a case that what they are studying is fact considered rhetorical. This is also where different uses definitions come into play.

What concepts/key terms does the author overtly define? How does s/he do it? Does s/he insert another theorist's definition and let it stand on its own? Does s/he use, but then qualify/adjust an excepted definition? Does s/he offer an original definition?
  • Bruner
    • No original definitions—most are borrowed from others
    • Lots of definitions/standards for carnivalesque protest
  • Malesh
    • EVVs
    • Parrhesia
    • “In-between” Bruner and DeLuca in terms of original and borrowed definitions
  • DeLuca
    • Constitutive rhetoric
    • Bodies
    • Very original definitions
  • Ono & Sloop
    • Out-law discourse
    • “The postmodern condition”
    • Differend
    • Phronesis
    • Both borrowed and original definitions
In terms of definitions—the decisions the author’s made seem to fit their specific argument and theoretical lens. For example, Bruner’s focus on the historical aspect of carnivalesque tactics elicits the historic progress of definitions of what the carnivalesque entails. Malesh, uses a mix of both, it could be perceived that this is so due to the new ‘spin’ that she is taking on a movement. A mix between traditional social movement rhetoric and New social movements (seen in the mix between outward and inward rhetorics). As discussed above, it depends very much so on what exactly you are trying to achieve in your article.

Clip a good example of the author's rhetorical analysis of his/her chosen site, tactic, phenomenon. Detail how the author describes the site, tactic, phenomenon. Does this happen in a prior section in detail and then in brief alongside the analysis? The opposite? Does the author introduce us to the site, tactic, phenomenon as s/he analyzes it? What does s/he draw on to make her/his analysis? What does "rhetorical analysis" look like?
  • Bruner
    • In his final section: “humor, corruption and critical theory”, he details the characteristics and functions of carnivalesque protests. Following, Bruner does something rather uncommon. He gives more pages at the end of his argument to introduce theory, he unpacks it in a separate section.
  • Malesh
    • In the final section, “implications for social change”. Malesh discusses her rhetorical analysis by mapping out four ways that rhetoricians can theorize a given individual’s use of internal rhetoric.
  • DeLuca
    • Good example in the last two paragraphs of p.14 : “In short, these images of bodies…” an analysis of the use of the body in Earth First! protest.
    • DeLuca explains the organization and movements in the beginning and then analyzes the situation rhetorically.
    • He draws on prior definitions from the beginning of the article
  • Ono & Sloop
    • In the latter section of the article when the focus is on out-law discourse. The sections that map out out-law discourse being material or vernacular, not being individual actors, not being progressive, and provoking the social imaginary.

Summation Statement:
Overall, it seems like embodied rhetoric is not only becoming extremely popular, but also is extremely powerful. Through the act of embodied rhetoric, one takes the movement as a way of life and essentially becomes the movement. As seen in Malesh’s article, an EVV ultimately becomes the voice of the entire movement when confronted with someone not of the movement. While contributing to that rhetoric, EVVs also take on the unheard voices of the animals in the process. In DeLuca’s article, he focuses on the power of the body in rhetoric. Physical presence in his article plays a big role (ie: loggers not being able to cut down a tree because of a protestor taking residence in the tree). Physical presence is also seen vividly in the Occupy Wall Street movement. The very idea of the act of “occupying” is to take residence in order to be noticed and following, heard. Visual rhetoric has also played a role in the Occupy Wall Street movement. The pictures of the large numbers we see on the streets protesting for change has an inert impact and also, as we discussed in class, the very appearance of protestors; their clothing, hairstyle, etc. has an impact on how they are perceived. Carnivalesque protest may be considered a mixture of the two mentioned above. Members of the carnival must embody their stance by pretending to become someone else whilst inverting social norms and hierarchies and participating in the masquerade. While also, exhibiting their physical presence on the streets of the carnival.

In terms of out-law discourse, Ono and Sloop’s article itself did not mention or focus on embodied rhetoric, but one can play off of the other fairly nicely. Out-law discourse is that of rights and wrongs that are inherently different than the social norms. Much of the protest rhetoric (whether embodied, carnivalesque or taking up physical space) is that of people speaking out against social norms. Members of the carnival are, in a way, constantly participating in out-law discourse, by disrupting social norms and hierarchies. Therefore, much can be said about the relationship of the two.