The lastest installment in the wet/dry debate

Well, since last week, the applications for obtaining a license to sell alcohol in Boone County have been sent out. Apparently, the "drys" (as they are so fondly referred to) did not win an argument contest that there had been voting fraud and language inconsistencies that influenced the "wets" (again, another fond reference) win. In a discussion forum about this matter, an individual, coined hadituptohere, communicated the continuing debate over the definitions surrounding "community" and "quality of life". S/he stated "Why do they (the drys) continue to violently struggle and fight in the water they are so slowly sinking in and just putting off the inevitable? Why do they have to pretend we live in Mayberry or some fantasy place not of this earth (sic)?" As indicated in this posting, hadituptohere recognizes the ongoing arguments about what Boone County should be. For the "drys" it should be a town similar to Mayberry (a symbolic reference to the quaint, small town context of the Andy Griffith show) whereas the "wets" continue to push for a town that is closer in resemblance to Little Rock, AR. It is an argument about progress vs tradition and a debate about city vs town. What is interesting is that both sides continue to pinpoint specific people that are the cause of the town's demise. For the drys it is the newly elected mayor who will be making the most profit off of the newly passed ordinance. Mayor Crockett already owns and invests in companies that sell alcohol in Branson, MO. For the wets, they are pinpointing Connie Burks, a pastor's wife who spearheaded the contest against the voting results validity, and Christian groups as a whole. Yet, the argument isn't about one person. It is about an entire community. It is about a way of life. It is about the identity of a small community that is bursting to be bigger than it is.

Exploring the disparate arguments of Wet/Dry Debate

In my last post, I briefly outlined the diverging arguments occuring within the wet/dry debate in Harrison, AR. When first beginning this project I was under the impression that the arguments were more about a stasis of quality; however, the more I learn about the actual arguements I am starting to think that the different arguments are focused on a definition of "quality of life" and "community." For example, the Pro-Wet side continues to argue that a wet county would draw more restaurants and ultimately tourists thus increasing the economy of the small community. From this perspective, it seems as if the proponents of a wet county are arguing for a community that is more progressive and essentially a change from a small town feeling to a bigger city culture. For the opponents of the wet ordinance, the drawing factor of Harrison is its unique, quaint, small town culture. To these individuals, the passing of a wet ordinance would change the community in a way that is undesirable. It would transform the town into a reproduction of a bigger city and thus lose the traditional ways of life that have been a part of the community for so long. So, in identifying these disparate arguments how can we analyze the point of disagreement?

Those individuals supporting the wet ordinance are continually utilizing words such as "progress" "Civilization" and "improvement." While the people supporting a dry county use language like "moral" "responsibility" and "trandition" to support their arguments. What is clear in these arguments is that both sides are arguing about the quality of life in Harrison, AR. The Pro-Wet county defines quality of life as progressive. A town that emulates surrounding big cities like Branson, Mo and Springfield, Mo. These cities have a variety of choices in restaurants and entertainment. While some people argue that alcohol sales will bring more money to the small town, the majority of supporters are more concerned with the lack of choices they have currently. In fact, some individuals go as far as to claim that Harrison, AR. lacks civilization. Thus, from this perspective, it is apparent that the definition of a "civilized" society is one which offers a plethora of choices and certain cultural aspects that are presently absent in the small community. From the Pro-Dry side, the quality of life they argue for is one of tradition. A tradition that goes back 70 years. They fight for the "small town feeling". The definition of community then is identified as one that supports Christian beliefs, is family friendly, and provides a safe environment for generations to grow. The sale of alcohol in the community will not only permit immoral behavior, but it will also transform the unique town into a replication of a bigger city. It will replace the traditions of the past for the progressions of the future.

The Wet/Dry County Debate

As discussed in class last week, I have decided upon the wet/dry debate occuring in my hometown as the topic for my final project. In this post, I will outline the arguments and briefly describe my initial ideas for the paper's thesis.

For 70 years, Harrison, AR. has been a dry county, meaning that no alcohol sales were permitted. Residents of this small, country town had to drive 30 min to the state line if they desired alcohol. However, a few weeks ago this long-standing rule was unraveled and replaced by a new law that has turned Harrison into another wet town. The law, which received only approximately 8% more votes than those opposed to it, has sparked a widespread debate in this once seemingly quaint town. Those in favor of the law argue that alcohol sales will boost the economy, provide much needed employment, and is a sign of progress. The opposition, however, states that the permittance of alcohol sales will do more harm than good to the community. The rest of this post explains these arguments in more detail.
The "Let's Get Wet" Debate:
In the Boone County Spotlight news forum, those in favor of a wet county provided this brief description of why they support the change: "We believe Boone County needs to go wet to be able to attract and retain tourist (sic) and new business to Harrison. We will not be able to attract restaurants like Chili's, Applebees, Olive Garden, etc unless they have the ability to sell alcohol. We cannot bring or keep tourists here unless they have accessability to nice restaurants where they can have a drink with their meal." In this statement it is clear that the main argument for transforming Harrison into a wet county is to encourage tourism by providing various options of entertainment. Thus, the "Let's Get Wet" side insinuates an argument for a quality of life that includes progressive and new businesses. The supporters of the law are more concerned with changing the community than maintaining the "old town."

The "Keep Harrison Dry" Debate:
In the same news forum, opponents of the wet ordinance offered this statement to explain their side " 'Quality of Life' is what you get from a dry Boone County. More people are moving into dry counties in Arkansas than the wet ones. Dry counties have grown at an average of 22% while wet counties have grown at an average rate of 7.4%. What draws people to an area? Quality of physical care, quality of public schools, employment opportunities, lower housing prices, lower cost of living, relatively low taxes, relatively mild climate with varying seasons, and recreation opportunities available in an area. Summed up it comes back to 'Quality of Life.' " The supporters for a dry county directly state that 'quality of life' is their main argument for opposing the allowance of alcohol sales. They define quality of life, however, in a different way than the wet side. Unlike the wet side's argument, those individuals opposing the law define 'quality of life' in a variety of different ways that include maintaining the community as is and not transforming it into more of a big city atmosphere.

As we can see from both of these statements, the definition of quality of life as well as community differs significantly. One side perceives quality of life as a transformation while the other views it as maintaining traditions. It is at this point that both sides receive a point of stasis.
The next post for my blog will employ the idea of stasis to explore the diverging arguments in the "wet/dry debate."

Applying the Debate about Visual Arguments

In conjunction with my previous post, I continue to think about the idea of visual argumentation by considering the "Gibson Girl" as a case study. As mentioned in an earlier blog discussion, the "Gibson Girl" was an iconic image that graced a plethora of magazines, newspapers, and merchandise in the 1900s. This image was widely revered as the ideal woman; a woman who exuded grace, independence, and beauty. For this particular post, I analyze this image from the perspective of the scholarship that debates visual argumentation. To understand the debate from a more theoretical stance please see the previous post.

Besides the title of the photograph, which was not always easily identifiable by the reader, the "Gibson Girl" images were typically without text. As you see in the accompanying photographs, these pictures were dependent upon an enthymematic understanding from the understand. In other words, the author or artist relied upon the audience to "fill in" the missing pieces or meaning. However, in order for this understanding to occur, the audience had to be cognizant of the context and the context had to be identifiable. The "Gibson Girl" image often was illustrated in popular magazines geared toward the female reader. As show in Figure 1, the "Gibson Girl" is examining a tiny male figure through a magnifying glass and a knitting needle. The title of the illustration is "The Weaker Sex." The question that arises when analyzing this picture is whether or not the meaning of the image could be discerned without the accompanying title. In other words, if the title of the image were absent would the audience still be capable of depicting the artist's intended meaning?

Opponents of visual argumentation would most likely contend that the image cannot be considered an arguement without the inclusion of a written title. For these scholars, arguments are obsolete if lacking language. On the otherhand, advocates of visual arguments claim that the definition of language is subjective (see earlier post for examples of these scholars). Arguments, from this perspective, are constructed within people and are contextually based. For these scholars, Figure 1 could be considered an argument without the accompanying title because it is identifiable and intelligble to a particular context. The readers of magazines that included the "Gibson Girl" images were able to understand the meaning of the picture because of the context in which the image appeared. Thus, the argument was within the reader.

Perhaps, then, the question of intended meaning is an important one to consider. Could female readers understand the intended meaning of the artist without the title? Does it matter if the intended meaning was discernable or not?

Debating Visual Arguments

In 1996, the journal Argumentation & Adovcacy produced a volume issue that focused primarly on the debate regarding visual arguments. Scholars argued against and for the notion of images as primary modes of argument. For anyone studying argumentation and especially those scholars concentrating on visual rhetoric, knowledge about this debate is paramount to understand the criticisms that abound about the field of visual argumentation. Thus, this blog post is dedicate to briefly identifying the variety of positions embedded within visual scholarship.

One of the main opponents towards the idea of visual argumentation is Fleming. In Fleming's contribution to the 1996 issue, he claims that argumentation requires the use of language. Citing Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyca he contends that "the theory of argument should concern itself only with the 'discursive means of obtaining the adherence of minds" (p. 8). Fleming further states that argumentation can absolutely not occur without verbal communication. Thus, the main argument put forth from his position is that for any statement(s) to be considered a branch of argumentation it must be accompanied by verbal discourse. Any nonverbal means of communication is then considered subservient to the omniprescence of verbal thought.

Similarly to Fleming, Kneupper (1978) states that non-linguistic signs can be used in argumentation only if each symbol is accompanied by a linguistic translation. Baltropp (1980) also concludes that the theory of argumentation is "inherently discursive and linguistic", therefore, any statement that ventures in the opposite direction fail to fulfill the definition of argument (p. 188). Ultimately, for those scholars who oppose the notion of visual arguments their chief contention is that argumention is inherently dependent upon language, and without language the communicative act is nothing more than a statement. Thus, for images to play even a slight role in argumentation they must be viewed as a secondary means of communication; the visual is subservient to the more important and powerful mode of verbal communication.

The other side of the visual argumentation debate claims that arguments can be made with images. These scholars call for a more comprehensive view of "discourse" and "the theory of argumentation." For example, Brockreide (1992) states that arguments are found "not in statements but in people" (p. 73). Additionally, Dale Hample (1992) contends that "the only necessary role for the message to play in a cognitive theory is to perform as a stimulus for the receiver's (cognitively generated) argument" (p. 3). The main claim for scholars in this position is that visuals do "communicate in a different semiotic mode than do words", nevertheless, images are still capable of being utilized as the primary means of arguments (Kjeldsen, 2007, p. 125). For many visual argumentation scholars, the most significant element of determining an image's role in an argument is context. Without context, according to Birdsell and Groarke (1996), it is difficult if not impossible to understand the purpose and meaning of the image within and as the argument. Thus, this position assumes that visual arguments call forth and are dependent upon a mutual understanding between the rhetor and the audience.

Overall, the debate about visual argument's place within the theory of argumentation is embedded within a larger discussion about the definition of arguments. As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyca (1969) explain, "The argumentative character of definitions always presents two closely connected aspects which must nevertheless be distinguished, since they deal with theo phases of the reasoning: definitions can be supported or validated by argument; they themselves are arguments" (p. 213). Those individuals opposing the idea of visual argumentation maintain that without linguistic communication a statement cannot be translated into an argument. Therefore, their definition of argument is dependent upon the notion of language whereas scholars advocating for visual argumentation define arguements as contextually-based and dependent upon the person instead of the statement. By understanding both sides of the debate, we can identify how and why visuals are justified or negated as viable forms of argumentation.

The "Gibson Girl": Creating a Prototypical Woman

Recently, I found a book about the visual stereotypes of women created by stereotypes. I was immediately intrigued. The book asserts that magazines geared toward the female have had a long tradition of creating the "ideal" woman. Now, while this idea might not be brand new I have found some parallels with what we have been discussing in our argumentation class.

First, in order to understand the meaning of "ideal" one must be given an example. In the aforementioned book, the author discusses the "Gibson Girl" as the most revered illustration of a woman on the front of a magazine. The "Gibson Girl" epitomized what it meant to be a woman. Mr. Charles Gibson introduced the "ideal" woman in the Feburary 1903 edition of the Journal magazine. Mr. Gibson offered society a pen and ink drawing of a woman that differed significantly from the oil paintings that had graced the covers before him. The "Gibson Girl" as it became widely known as presented a "type" of woman to society. The drawing disposed of the normal, realistic portrayls of women and instead focused on the prototype of a female. It was the first illustration of a female visual stereotype.

One newspaper reported offered an explanation of the "Gibson Girl" phenomenon: "Before Gibson synthesized his ideal woman the American girl was vague, nondescript, inchoate; there was no type of her to which would one point and say, 'That is the typical American girl'" From her introduction, this ideal picture of a woman became an instantly regarded representation of what a woman should inspire to be and what a man should expect of a female. What I find particuarly interesting about the "Gibson Girl" is that she was easily reproduced. Perhaps this was the attraction. Before her entrance into society, the drawings of women were unique and difficult to synthesize.

My overall question for this post is "What was it about the 'Gibson Girl's' ease of reproduction that made her so attractive to society?" More specifically, "How did the 'Gibson Girl' become such a powerful argument for the ideal, protypical woman?"

I hope to continue to explore these questions in future posts. I also want to explore the current debate about visual arguments. In particular, do visual arguments have to be accompanied by written text? I also want to identify the role of the enthymeme in visual arguments.

Visually Arguing Ethically and Unethically

Last Saturday I was traveling now North Avenue coming back from the Farmer's Market. As I was driving, I saw a man holding a peculiar billboard sized sign. It read something like "Warning: Planned Parenthood Atrocities Revealed Ahead." Immediately, I thought "Oh Geez...Here we go again." My initial reaction was correct. Once again, another religious group, had taken it upon themselves to "reveal" the "atrocities" of abortions. The message was clear: Planned Parenthood kills babies. No fewer than 20 billboard sized pictures of dead babies were being displayed alongside each road. This fact I could deal with. I've seen this type of protest before. However, it was the fact that the protestors were using young kids to hold up signs that were bigger than them that appalled me. It was at this point that I decided I need to explore through blogging the issue of ethical and unethical visual arguments. In this post, I will discuss the possibilities of assessing the ethics of a visual argument. While I understand these assessments and interpretations are strictly from my subjective viewpoint, I think it is an extremely important issue that needs to be explored. It seems that with each year, visual rhetoric is being used more frequently to communicate. Thus, for the protection of society, for the advocacy of social justice, and for the sheer influential nature that visuals have on audiences, we, as rhetoricians and members of society, must fight for ethical and appropriate employment of visual rhetoric.

Ironically, the night that I had witnessed the dead baby protest (a.k.a. D.B.) I also read an article in one of my "guilty pleasure" magazines that showcased, in my opinion, an ethical and appropriate use of visual rhetoric. This month's Marie Claire magazine discussed a campaign that has been gaining widespread attention since its introduction onto the world wide wed. Operation Beautiful, as the campaign is called, began when a 26 year old female caught herself questioning her image in the mirror of a public bathroom. At that moment, she wrote "you are beautiful" on the mirror, took a picture of the image, and posted it on a website. Her 'post-it' encouraged other women to create positive messages for other women in the United States. Millions of women are now constructing "post-its" and displaying them in various places to promote the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of females. The campaign is largely dependent upon women taking photographs of their messages and posting these online. Thus, the arguments embedded within Operation Beautiful all center on the idea that women should value who they are despite what society says about their weight, looks, intellect, etc. The visual messages communicate a sense of well-being and contentment in who a woman is as a person not what she looks like. Several magazines have covered the campaign and the press are now deeming it a "social movement." On the Operation Beautiful website, numerous testimonials illustrate the positive reinforcement that the visual rhetoric has had on their daily lives. This, to me, is an ethical and appropriate use of visual rhetoric.

To conclude, when comparing the D.B. act with the Operation Beautiful campaign, I cannot help but be struck at the shark difference in purpose, consequence, and use of a visual message. In the case of the D.B. pictures, the protestors were avocating for the abolotion of abortion. They were fighting to ultimately "save babies," yet to do so they forced kids (some looked as young as 5) to hold signs that displayed photographs no adult should even see. What was the purpose? Was it to evoke feelings of guilt and lamentation? Or, was it simply to shock? Whatever the purpose, I feel it was unethical. Thus, this leads me to the questions: "Can visual arguments be unethical? Should visual rhetoric be assessed in terms of ethics or would this assessment force too much of a subjective perspective on the rhetors?"

Whatever the answer, I am avoiding North Avenue for the time being and instead learning more about Operation Beautiful.