Keith Olbermann pleads for politicians and commentators to repudiate violence and violent rhetoric. The Arizona shootings suggest the ways in which rhetoric acts as "symbolic action," but it also raises concerns regarding the ways in which rhetoric functions as a form of the real, how it enacts action rather than merely represents it. I am not merely speaking of "influence" here, but of the ways in which our immersion in a certain rhetoric interpellates us in ways that dispose us to certain kinds of action that seem unavoidable. Olbermann seems to be aware of the dangers of inflammatory rhetoric, particularly political rhetoric that gleefully indulges in violent metaphors as a way of creating an ethos for a movement.
on a interpellation (relevant to our discussion of vitriolic rhetoric):
- Anthony J. Cascardi (in Jost and Olmstead)
- James Jasinski (from Sourcebook on Rhetoric)
- via blog 2.0 on the visual and interpellation (think Palin's map)
More generally, here are several reports and artifacts related to the Arizona shootings. Perhaps by studying these, we can get an early sense of the powerful nature of rhetoric and its material effects.
- Naiman @ Huffington Post on press coverage of Palin's crosshairs map
- Giffords on the break in at her offices following the health care vote (and pundits attempt at "fairness")
- Megyn Kelly presses the Arizona governor on rhetoric and causality (she also accuses him of politicizing the tragedy; note that Kelly is the one to mention political affiliation)
No comments:
Post a Comment