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.

Intro to the Disco Sphere

Hello Followers-

In my part of cyberspace, I will be identfying and analyzing visual arguments. For rhetoricians, there is an ongoing debate about whether or not a visual text can stand alone as an argument, or if to be considered an argument it must be accompanied by written text. Currently, I am of the thinking that a visual text can stand alone because of enthymemes, but I look forward to exploring this topic further and perhaps changing my opinion. I have yet to decide what particular case/context/artifact I will be analyzing for the final project. It is possible that I will use this blog to "try out" a few different ideas. I have been working on a paper about the "How Can you Sleep" campaign by the Pathfinders organization in Milwaukee. The campaign utilized billboards and life-sized stickers that featured homeless youth sleeping in various places around the city. These artifacts were an attempt to provoke feelings of lamentation from the audience, which would eventually influence society to donate more money to helping homeless youth. I am seriously considering using this campaign as an artifact, but am not ready to commit this early. I look forward to reading other blogs and hope that a productive discussion occurs on mine. Cheers!

Reflecting on the class

Well, this has been quite the experience. Some experiences I have thoroughly enjoyed while others have been more of a challenge. Ultimately, I have learned a lot about myself, my expectations for education, the comfort I have developed in classrooms, and the process of challenging myself to learn differently. From the beginning of the semester I struggled with the amount of work that was required. It was not the amount of work necessarily, but the form that the work took. In a classroom, I discovered, I could easily contribute and participate in the dicussion. It seems I am more comfortable building upon and expanding the ideas of readings and peers when a synchronous conversation is occuring rather than presenting my ideas and waiting for responses. I think I am better able to articulate my perspective when the conversation is ongoing without interruption unlike the discussion forum which required me to think, stop, think, stop, think, stop. This was an uncomfortable experience and I increasingly became frustrated with the feeling of being disconnected from the conversation. Also, to be honest, in a classroom I can discuss for three hours. Once I leave the classroom, I move on to a new task. For the English class, it felt as if I had to be engaged constantly in the discussion in order to participate adequately. It was exhausting and eventually I had to cut myself a break and not contribute the ideal amount. I did what I could with the time I had. While this might have been an uncomfortable and frustrating experience, it did make me realize how taken-for-granted I took my comfort of classroom discussion. I think this is an important thing to realize because it also tells me how I have been socialized into education. The experience I enjoyed the most was learning new technologies like Windows Live Movie Maker and Prezi. I plan on using both of these technologies while teaching COM 335: Rhetorical Methods next semester. I am not sure I would have thought to integrate these into the classroom had I not been encouraged to do so through the English class. I feel as if the implementation of new technologies such as these will liven up the experience, teach the students about new ways of learning, and challenge them to venture outside their comfort zone. Furthermore, it teaches them unique perspectives and possibily presents arguments that would otherwise be unknown with tradtional classroom instruction. The final version was defintely the most enjoyable experience. I could have written a traditional paper, but felt like I needed the challenge. I have written papers-many many many papers. It was not easier to make a video. Not in the least, but it did allow me to use my brain and creativity in a unique way. I became more interested in the project than I had been before and I was able to avoid the pitfall of repeating research that I had already conducted about online activism. I was "forced" into considering online activism from another perspective by creating a project in a different format than the traditional seminar paper. I am proud of the outcome and hope to develop it into a conference presenation and possibily write a paper about the process.

There are some things I would do differently:

- Learn the technologies before beginning the class. The first few weeks were extremely uncertain and frustrating because I had never used wiki, twitter, etc. I immediately felt behind because of my lack of knowledge.

-Set aside a day to just work on English work. I kept finding myself at the end of the week rushing to finish my work and not having the energy to contribute as much as I wanted to.

Some things I would suggest for the class if it is taught again:

-The discussion forum was sometimes too overwhelming. Some students posted such lengthy responses that I could not sift through all of the posts. I simply did not have the time to read, reflect, and respond to all of the posts. I am not sure what the fix is to this problem, but I believe the discussion forum should have regulation as to how long a post should be, etc.

-I did not gain much from reading outside blogs. The readings for the class were sufficient in allowing me to gain a new perspective or reinforce things I already had learned. I felt as if the outside reading blogs were more of a task than a learning experience. I would encourage a reconsideration of including this part of the class requirements.

Ultimately, I am glad to have learned the things I have about myself and about digital rhetoric. I do feel lessons were learned that would have not been otherwise. Best of luck to the rest of my peers careers!

Final Version of Project

For the final version of the project, I decided to expand the video I made for the second version. Originally, I planned to write a typical seminar paper; however, as I was writing the paper I realized how much I enjoyed the video making process and wanted to challenge myself to continue with that project. It defintely was not easier than writing a paper. The making of the video probably took more hours combined than a seminar paper would have. But, I feel that I learned a lot more about the subject matter, digital rhetoric, and my own research abilities/limitations than I would have otherwise. Some things I learned:

-It is difficult to synthesize a paper into a video. I kept experiencing uncertainty at how much text to include, what sources were most pertinent, in what order did the text make the most sense, and what images reinforced the written ideas. I, also, had to pay attention to the timing: did the music connect with the written and visual ideas, could the observer comprehend the message in the time that I was alloting for the slide, what was too redundant, and what needed expanding. While a paper's organization comes quite easily to me by this time in my career, the argumentative side of the video was an entirely different story. I wrestled with different organizations and time allocations. I wrestled with images and music. I wanted the music to reinforce the powerful message of the images while simultatenously communicating the overall argument, but I didnt want the music to be too much of a distraction. I, also, had a lot of photographs I could use, but had to keep reminding myself that it was not the photographs that were the argument but instead the screen shots of the digital spaces (Twitter and facebook). It is interesting to me how difficult the video making process was in comparison to a paper. I kept asking myself "is this video length comparable to a 15 page paper?" I didn't want to create a 30 -min video. I was afraid my audience would become bored and disinterested in the information, thus, I had to figure out how to summarize the arguments I would make in my paper into a 10-min video. That was hard. Ultimately, the experience of making the video for a final project was a huge challenge but was the most enjoyable experience of the class. I really learned the different ways rhetorical arguments can be presented depending upon the format that the rhetor chooses. I hope you enjoy the video. I plan on developing this experience into a paper/presentation for a conference. I want to discuss the process of rhetorical arguments in digital formats such as video-making and the challenges a writer faces. Of course, I will have to put that project on the backburner until the summer or possibly next semester. Please provide any feedback that you think would be helpful for developing this future endeavor.

Here is the final version link to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZunUIxyDpw

Reflecting on the third version

My deepest apologies for the delay of the third version. It is finally up on my blog. In this version, I found myself fighting with the research questions that I have posed before about online activism. I wanted to continue to go in the same direction as I had originally when I began researching online activism, however, that was not the topic I committed myself to for this class. I have pieced together old and new research, but have yet to include class readings to make it more relevant to the course. Any ideas on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I hope to build upon the research that I have already conducted and make a stronger case for online activism. Academia, especially the communication discipline, is lacking in credible research and analysis about the way in which online activism is enacted in digital spaces with divergent digital rhetoric. I hope to fill this gap by the end of this semester.

Whew...third version

I am including my third version of the final paper. It is a work in progress. I have yet to add in readings from this particular class, but plan on adding in notions of control as indicated by Harriman. I am not sure what the best way is to make this text available. I have seen others copy and post so I will do the same.


Activism has taken a variety of forms including protests, sit-ins, and rallies. Based on a particular ideology, people band with one another as activists, attempting to fight for the dissolution of privilege and power. Forming a united front, these individuals actively pursue social change, fight for social justice, and encourage the end to social disparities.
The emergence of the Internet has complicated and redefined the way in which social activism is enacted. Protests, sit-ins, and rallies are but one type of activism. Now, with the Internet’s ability to transcend boundaries, activism has transformed from solely a behavioral action to acts performed within an online community. Whereas, in the past, groups were developed through physical, face to face interaction, the Internet now allows activist communities to enact resistance with their online discourse.
This change, however, has sparked controversy amongst critics who argue that online activism should be viewed only as a tool for prompting physical acts or a preliminary step for forming groups. Through this alternate viewpoint, critics insinuate that the Internet is simply a means to an end, a medium for physical action, and, by itself, an inauthentic form of resistance. One critic, D’Amelio (2005), states that sites utilizing online discourse as activism are successful if “their words can result in offline actions. Knowing the technology and having a website does not automatically translate into success” (p. 15). Chamberlein (2004) further supports this view by explaining that “cyberactivism happens online and that it is a process. We also know that offline actions count as cyberactivism if they are a result of online motivation” (p. 139). In this statement, the researcher is not explicitly clear on whether online discourse can be considered cyberactivism without the offline interaction. Yet, it is implied that cyberactivism is a step in achieving an offline action. Another argument is that online discourse is not sufficient in producing valid activism. Garrett (2006) argues,
Finally, technology-enabled additions to the repertoire of contention also potentially limit activists. By formalizing the role of participants, automated tools supporting online action offer a constrained set of actions, thereby excluding important opportunities for collective action (p.13).

From this perspective, activist sites have a tendency to be unreliable in provoking action that will actually motivate social change.
While there are researchers that support the continuance of online activism, there is a limited amount of information regarding cyber discourse as a viable form of activist action by itself. Thus, the central question that is at the forefront of the entire discussion about online activist is “can online activism be considered an equally effective mode of advocacy?”
The following project seeks to answer this question by arguing that online activism is indeed an effective form of resistance to social inequities. In fact, the introduction of the Internet in social advocacy requires a reconceptualization of activism. Without redefining the meaning of activism, society fails to adapt with the changing social world. Technology’s inclusion in the public sphere continues to gain authority in everyday life; therefore, we as a society can no longer resist the changing landscape of reality. Instead, it is vital to the success of our goals as advocates that we reconsider the meanings of activism. It is the author’s intention to call for a redefining of activism that includes online discourse as a viable form of advocacy.
I argue that the discourses embedded within this particular movement communicate a specific collective identity which is specifically represented depending upon the digital space. Vegh’s (2003) three classifications of cyberactivism assists in elucidating the purposes of different digital spaces in order to understand the role digital rhetoric plays in constituting a particular identity.
This essay examines three divergent digital spaces used by the Anti-Eviction Campaign (AEC) of South Africa: an organization website, Twitter, and Facebook. In analyzing the disparate and similar digital rhetorics of each site, the intended representation of the AEC movement and the ways in which online activism is being used becomes apparent. This study’s importance lies in its ability to provide an example of how a contemporary social movement is utilizing popular websites to promote advocacy for a specific cause. Furthermore, it illustrates the different strategies used for online activism.

Collective identity is often discussed in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this paper, Melucci’s (1996) definition seems to be the most appropriate. He defines collective identity as “an interactive and shared definition produced by several individuals and concerned with the orientations of action and field of opportunities and constraints in which the action takes place” (p. 44). Foster (1996) further communicates a similar idea when discussing identity within cyberspace,
Community, then, is built by a sufficient flow of "we-relevant" information. The
"we" or the collective identity that results is structured around others who are seen
as similar to the "me." In this sense, community, like any form of communication,
is not fully realized without a conception of self. (p. 25).

The following section will claim that the establishment of a group identity within online discourse enables the agents of the interaction to promote a specific viewpoint of reality and, thus, enacts a form of activism through discourse. With the Internet, rhetors utilize a divergent medium than that of the traditional, physical performance and instead call forth a reconsideration of authentic activism.
The presence of virtual communities is an ever-increasing trend. Besides breaking the barriers provided by distance, users have a wider range of accessibility to information, disparate perspectives, and a different sense of responsibility; however, online advocacy sites are dependent upon the establishment and continuation of an inclusive identity. Mobilizing an activist group requires that the foundation of the group includes a shared sense of reality. This similar perspective is unable to flourish unless a virtual community is established. Foster (1996) states:
Relating community to the symbolic act of communicating is useful in that the contingency of community is linked to the contingency of identity, and identity, as has already been demonstrated, is dependent upon the means by which we communicate it (p. 35).

Thus, in order to sustain the communication between users, individuals rely upon the similar ideologies of the members constituted within the online discourse. The communicative acts performed within this interaction illustrate the characteristics of the users, which have prompted them into the development of a unified front. Therefore, the group’s continued existence is reliant upon the members’ ability to resonate with other individuals by discussing social issues in a way that is attractive to the larger public (Carty & Onyett, 2006).
Foster (1996) further argues:
If we view the public as a communally shared life-form, the ideal of this sharing can only be obtained through communicative action-the ability of individuals to engage in substantive public discourse. The public sphere can then be seen as an ideal speech community, one which is not obtainable if individuals are excluded from involvement in the public discourse. (p. 30).

Advocacy in Digital Spaces

The discourses provided within the online websites have a purpose and a goal that is specific to each group. “Online activism is comprised of proactive actions to achieve a certain goal or of reactive actions against controls and the authorities imposing them” (Vegh, 2003, p. 71). Vegh (2003) classifies three types of online activism based on the activists’ goals: awareness/advocacy, organization/mobilization, and action/reaction. Awareness/advocacy, for example, includes websites that are attempting to access information, which might otherwise be unattainable because the powerful gatekeepers forbid accessibility (Vegh, 2003). Organization/mobilization, on the other hand, involves an attempt to carry out actions offline, perform actions that are more easily performed online, or actions that are limited to the Internet (Vegh, 2003). Finally, action/reaction refers to an active performance of cyber defacement, online resistance, and cyberattacking (Vegh, 2003). While these three disparate categories are a sufficient beginning for understanding online activism, it fails to define one form that is increasing in prominence.
In this paper, I employ Vegh’s categorization of online activism as my theoretical foundation for understanding the way in which the AEC utilizes different digital spaces to represent their collective identity.
Online activists seek to raise the public’s awareness about the disparities of power embedded within societal institutions through online communication. Langman (2005) reinforces this argument, “although general social movements still pursue traditionally conceived social and political goals, more paramount to NSMs (New Social Movements) is the construction and legitimization of collective identities for coherence and to articulate resistance” (p. 8). With this claim in mind, it is ineffective to evaluate the authenticity of online activism based on traditional measurements of successful advocacy. The change in technology and emergence of the Internet within the public sphere requires critics to analyze the practicality and viability of online activism groups as a separate entity from offline activism.
Categorizing Online Identities

Melucci (1989) claims that understanding the identity of a group will assist in identifying the purposes and goals of a social movement. He outlines three components for discerning the collective identity of a group: cognitive definitions, network of relationships, and emotional investment. Taylor and Whittier (1992) build upon these categorizations by creating three other distinctions of collective identity evaluation: boundaries, consciousness, and negotiation. For the purpose of this essay, both sets of categorizations will be utilized to analyze the collective identity of the CharactersUnite movement. All three theorists individually provide an array of choices for identifying a group’s identity; however, when used comprehensively the evaluation is more thorough. For example, Melucci’s network of relationships refers to the strategies that groups employ to associate and form a communal bond with other members whereas Taylor and Whittier’s idea of boundaries indicates a collective’s formation of insiders versus outsiders. Thus, separately both focus on a different but similar aspect of building a community with a collective identity; however, taken together one can understand that creating boundaries is utilized by social group’s as a strategy for establishing relationships within a social movement. Ultimately, the combination of both conceptual categorizations assists in providing a more thorough and complete picture for evaluating an online group’s identity as influential in provoking the collective action of building a community with dialogue.
Networking with Boundaries
Melucci (1989) argues that one of the most pertinent tasks for a social movement is to establish a collective identity. It is with the formation of a group identity that collective action can happen. The identity of a social collective communicates the purpose of the group, the goals set forth by the group, and the expectations of members. With this identity, members are able to identify why they are acting, what they are trying to achieve, and how they are supposed to act. In answer these key questions, the group is capable of moving forward as a collective instead of individuals. Melucci (1989) further argues against viewing the effectiveness of new social movements in terms of traditional social activism. He claims that evaluating groups from “an exclusively political view centered on the ‘instrumental’ dimension of action regards “as ‘expressive’ or residual the self-reflective instruments of the movements” (p. 73-74). In other words, a group’s ability to create a community and maintaining membership is a feat in itself, and salient to its success. New social movements then promote collective action that “functions as a new medium which illuminates the silent and arbitrary elements of the dominant codes as well as publicizes new alternatives” (p. 63).
Collective action, then, is dependent upon the group’s ability to create a “we” or a unified identity. The continued construction of the collective identity is particularly reliant upon individuals’ ability to establish relationships within the group. With these relationships, members are able to identify as an insider, as a member playing a role, and as an actor within the movement. Melucci (1989) writes, “Only if individual actors can recognize their coherence and continuity as actors will they be able to write their own script of social reality and compare expectations and outcomes” (p.58). However, in order to identify one’s membership within the collective, he/she must recognize their status as an insider.
Taylor and Whittier (1992) expand the abovementioned concept by claiming that collective identities are communicated through the formation and illustration of boundaries. Wall (2007) explains, “Boundaries mark the territory of the group – who is part of the movement and who is not” (p. 262). With boundaries, one understands who the characteristics that define a group members including any shared ideologies (dell Porta & Diani, 2000). Furthermore, the boundaries of a collective identity assist in creating trust amongst the members, which eventually helps reinforce a member’s commitment to the overall goal. This communication resource aids the group in ensuring that collective action can occur as a result of the communal bond that the boundaries encourage.
This essay will utilize both concepts, network of relationships and boundaries, to evaluate the collective identity that has been established within the CharactersUnite rhetoric. However, the term that refers to the conceptual combination is “boundaries.” By understanding the characteristics of its members and strategies for creating relationships, the purpose and goals of the website are illuminated.

Framing the Group’s Consciousness
Recognizing the shared understanding that is embedded within the group identity helps to identify the ways in which groups define social inequities and the issues that they adopt as central to their purpose. Melucci (1989) claims that collectives participating in a social movement create cognitive definitions, outlining problems salient to the group. Taylor and Whittier (1992) created a similar concept that focuses on the group’s consciousness that “encompasses the creation of cognitive frames or schemas for interpreting reality” (Wall, 2007, p. 262). Thus, in indentifying a social group’s frame, one can distinguish the pertinent issues that shape the collective identity as well as the lens in which reality is interpreted.
The following essay combines these concepts as denoted with the term “frames.”
Negotiating Emotional Investment
Melluci’s (1989) final categorization is emotional investment. Members become emotionally invested in the collective identity, strengthening their devotion to the group’s social movement by helping them to “recognize themselves in each other” (p. 35). Individuals, then, understand their membership with the collective by situating the group’s identity within one another. They identify similar ideologies, members’ roles, and expectations of the group by observing the communication of other members. Taylor and Whittier (1992) expand upon the concept of emotional investment by proposing that individuals of a collective actively negotiate their identity. Wall (2007) explains, “Members often must resist dominant evaluations of themselves and their values and offer alternative means of thinking and acting in both public and private spheres” (p. 262).
From these two concepts, it can be determined that groups involved in social movements often have members that are dependent upon others to illustrate the expected cognitive and behavioral actions. Understanding if and how a group negotiates emotional investment are particularly important to identifying the collective identity of a group in regards to the members’ expectations, characteristics, and action. For simplicity sake, the conceptual combination will be referred to as “emotional investment” in the analysis. By identifying these components, one can examine the strategies that groups employ to avoid the pitfalls of oppressive and dominant behavior enacted by outsiders.
The combination of Melucci’s foundational components with Taylor and Whittier’s additional categorizations assists a critic in identifying how a collective identity is established for a particular artifact. Also, it illuminates the specificities that comprise the collective identity. From here, one can also understand the collective action that the group hopes to invoke, and ultimately their efficacy as advocates. The following analysis describes an online community’s role in promoting and enacting activism. The research will illustrate the site as a form of advocacy by analyzing the ways in which different elements are utilized to establish a collective identity that are geared toward an implied audience.

3rd Version...

Working on the third version as we speak....will be uploaded soon.

Reflection...to come

Must step away from computer for the night, but will reflect on version 2 tomorrow.

Version 2-Finally

I chose to try a different technological medium for the second version. Using Windows Movie Maker, I linked images, sound, and text to share the story of South Africa's Anti-Eviction Campaign. I published it to YouTube because I thought that would be the easiest way to access it.

My YouTube username is SugarFree0329. Here is the link. Please let me know if you cannot access the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGjkbYkbcpk&feature=youtube_gdata

Oh and make sure your sound is on!

Paper Version 2

A second version of my paper is to come...I am a bit behind...*sigh*

Reflecting on the First Version

Well, I must say that I am quite excited about the possibilities that a Prezi provides. This statement coming from a gal that used to draw mind maps on her mirrors with dry erase markers so she could visualize her papers. The difficulties I encountered while making my prezi was the order in which to present ideas and how much to include in the presentation. In the end, I went with less information and focused more on the overall ideas of online activism. I am still trying to determine exactly how to word the questions that will develop into my final paper's thesis, but the paper is on its way for sure. The prezi was a great tool for visualizing a possible outline for a paper. Instead of the traditional word document outline, this allowed me to consider the different possibilities for presenting information. I consider myself a highly visual person so I really appreciated the Prezi's format and the opportunity of creating different "paths." I really want to use the Prezi more when I teach Rhetorical Methods next year instead of relying on just Powerpoint. I think the students would really gain something new or perhaps learn differently with this type of tool.

First Version-Let's try this agin

Here is my Prezi. I hope this link works. If you press the link "Twitter/Facebook Activism" at the bottom of this blog it will take you to full screen version.

Twitter/Facebook Activism on Prezi

Specific Reading: Week 11

I was particularly intrigued by Gee's presentation of gaming and its role in education. Not too long ago, I watched the PBS special "Digital Nation" which showcased schools that were adopting more of a gaming style of education. These schools, for example, were making any form of learning (math, science, english, etc) into a virtual reality experience. Students would learn how to interact with one another through the computer or they might play the educational games together in the classroom. Each game focused on the lesson they were expected to learn for that particular subject. It was the educators' beliefs that gaming had becoming such a central part of young people's experiences that the school system had to update its way of teaching in order to keep their students interested and engaged. Much debate has surrounded this perspective's consequences on students ablity to learn effectively, completely, and about social skills. To me, the debate is similar to the debate encompassing group work. Long before I was in school, educators disagreed about the role of group work in a classroom. Some individuals believed the educational system should exist only as a lecture style format: one teacher lecturing to a group of students. While other people believed that a more beneficial lesson would be to teach students how to interact with one another in a group, how to solve tasks in a group, and how to problem solve with other individuals who held different views. Nowadays, it seems that the new debate is the role of gaming in the educational system.
WHile I am not convinced that the entire educational system should be replaced by gaming, I do think that gamings inclusion into the learning process is an important point to consider. As Gee points out, good games are ones that allow the user to interact with others. WIthout this interaction, the game would hinder users from learning how to socialize with other humans-an important lesson that is often learned in school. Furthermore, games allow the user to become responsible for the outcome. They play more of an active role in the construction, mangagement, and communication of their reality. I believe this calls for a type of critical thinking which is too often absent in the traditional way of learning and the basic subjects. The user in this regard is responsible for his/her experience as well as the experiences of others. He/she becomes an agent in their reality and the social world in which they live. Thus, they are responsible for their learning.
Finally, gaming allows learning to become an individually centered experience. TOo often, the traditional form of education fails to take into account the different personalities that abound in the classroom, the disparate ways of learning, and the consequences of a generalized form of instruction. THerefore, inserting some gaming into the educational process would assist in making the curricula more specific to the user, meeting he individual needs of the student, and making it more relevant to their reality.
While there are consequences to changing a traditional form of education into a more modern experience, I firmly believe that the generations of today learn differently than the generations of the past. Furthermore, technology and gaming has become so central to their everyday experiences and the ways in which they understand what it means to be them that to ignore such a significant tool would be irresponsible of educators.

General Readings Blog: Week 11

Flanagan discusses the two chief arguments of gaming in order to shed light on the intricate nature of this particular culture. She explains that one perspective sees gaming as exempliying the existing social structure, a activity of leisure, and a tool for socialization. On the other hand, some individuals view gaming as ritualistic and illustrative of communicative behavior. Despite the perspective, it is evident that gaming teaches players about social norms as well as the self. Particularly interesting in Flanagan's account of gaming are the three prior habits of play that often becomes transposed into vitual gaming: reskinning, unplaying, and rewriting. All three habits transfers responsibility from the video to the player, making the player an agent in constructing the reality he/she desires. An intriguing consequence is the notion that social norms could become created and acted upon within the digital sphere before being physically translated outside the gaming universe. What consequences, then, would result?

Castronova in a similar vein as Flanagan analyzes the continually disappearing boundary between real life and game play as well as the blurring boundaries influence on everyday life. As Castronova notes, activities that are prevalent in "real life" are also being performed within the virtual world: conflict, drama, relationships, commerce, etc. Thus, "reality" is no longer viewed as separate from online activity, but is instead perceived as encompassing it. The "synthetic worlds" as deemed by Catronova have significant consequences on the way in which humans view their reality and the social world in which they exist. For example, virtual gaming has and will continue to hamper an individual's perception of how to handle conflict. Can, then, the synthetic worlds be effective tools of education or its players or is it instead hindering our own perception of what reality is and should be?

Ryan writes about the specific narratives that are told within the digital sphere. It is concluded that many digital media focuses on metaphor and myth to communicate these narratives. For example, digital media designers often utilize metaphors to glamorize and sensitize the computer so that it becomes a necessary addition to a person's life instead of a needless machine. In this way, the computer becomes the storyteller and the user its listener. Furthermore, the computer or the digital sphere is created in a manner that resembles that of a dramatic plot or performance. There exists a stage to showcase the performance (the screen), key players (The computer, the user, and others that might be invovled in the interaction online or offline), a plot (the purpose of using the computer that is continually evolving), and eventually a conclusion. When thinking about the computer and our interactions with virtual reality in this fashion, it is easy to see the extent to which the digital sphere becomes connected to the public sphere.

Gee focuses his attention on video gaming as an educational tool. He asserts that "good video games incorporate good learning principles, principles supported by current research in cognitive science." To play a game, one must first learn how to play a game. This learning process is indeed often the attractiveness of the game. IT is a challenge to overcome that is viewed as entertaining rather than simply educational. While some individuals argue that to learn a game is simply to learn the ins and outs of that particlar game, Gee says that, in fact, gamers learn other skills as well. His article focuses on how education can benefit from translating traditional classroom style into game speak or the ways in which people learn how to play a game.