Passages of Power: Public Rhetoric and the New Pathos

Jenny Edbauer Rice, Assistant Professor
Department of English, University of Missouri-Columbia
University Research Board Grant Proposal
September 20, 2007

I am applying to the Research Board for a funded nine-month research leave in order to complete my book manuscript, Passages of Power: Public Rhetoric and the New Pathos. My project draws on research in rhetorical theory and recent cross-disciplinary work in the study of affect in order to analyze the ways that emotion impacts public communication about local community issues. Passages of Power argues that emotion, which has traditionally been considered a private experience, is in fact central to rhetorical exchanges in the public realm. My project examines three case studies of public debates about land development and gentrification issues in Austin, Texas. In an analysis of these civic rhetorics, we find that residents’ prior affective associations about city issues shape how they respond to later debates. These affective associations are created over time through public texts, such as newspaper articles and citizen newsletters. My project analyzes these case studies in order to explore the long-term effects of emotional discourse found in public dialogues.
Passages of Power addresses one of the central questions in rhetorical theory: How do arguments and beliefs gain adherence in public spaces? I argue that we cannot arrive at a full answer to that question without considering the role of emotion. Understanding how emotion helps to frame certain language in the public’s imagination, we can better identify why some arguments are rhetorically effective, while others fail. Although this is not a new question, my approach to the answer is unique. Rhetorical theory has traditionally assumed that audiences respond best to rational arguments supported by facts and demonstrable evidence. However, my project shows how arguments tend to persuade largely through emotional associations. The ability to understand why arguments succeed or fail in public debates is important for anyone seeking to persuade diverse groups of people.

Background and Rationale
At least since the time of Plato’s dialogues, rhetorical theorists have tended to dismiss emotion as a suspicious tactic of persuasion. The power of emotion leads many theorists to view it as a manipulative tool that discourages rational thinking. For example, an unscrupulous speaker might persuade individuals to donate money to his questionable cause by using images of third world poverty or childhood illnesses. Therefore, rhetorical studies has long valued logos (rationality) over pathos (emotion) as a mode of persuasion. Students of rhetoric are often taught to use emotional appeals sparingly when writing or speaking because emotion, according to rhetorical scholars, is not necessary for an argument to be persuasive. This preference originates in Aristotle’s Rhetoric and continues in today’s rhetorical theory. One recent survey of twenty-five popular rhetoric textbooks shows that well over half devote only a paragraph or less to pathos, or the persuasive use of emotion. Several only introduce the concept as a rhetorical fallacy (Moon).
However, scholars across disciplines have recently begun to address the imagined split between logos (rationality) and pathos (emotion). The work of neuroscientist Antonio Damasio is significant on this matter. Damasio’s studies have demonstrated how the mind interprets physiological sensation and affective feeling in order to create patterns of logical thought. Philosophy scholars Robert Solomon, Amelie Rorty, and Martha Nussbaum have also contributed to new understandings of how emotions help us shape personal judgments and logical thoughts. Additionally, rhetorical theorists Lynn Worsham, Laura Micciche, and Sharon Crowley have argued that emotions are learned through cultural habits.

My current project extends this interdisciplinary research on emotion even further by showing its relevance for civic issues. Traditional understandings of pathos fail to account for the fact that emotional effects of texts do not disappear once they have been read, seen, or heard. Not only do texts remain in active circulation long after they have reached their targeted audience, but the emotions associated with those texts also accumulate in a given public space. This accumulation builds up in what some have called the “social imaginary,” or a shared version of certain beliefs and feelings about subjects (Castoriadis, Calhoun, Taylor). Participants in discussions about local issues reinforce these associations through repeated communication and references in subsequent texts. In short, emotions associated with complex issues shape how we see, hear, and discuss those subjects.
This thesis is illustrated by my case study of three public debates in Austin, Texas stemming from the area’s changing economic climate. In the aftermath of Austin’s “dot com” collapse in the late 1990s, local newspaper stories, neighborhood association flyers, handmade protest signs placed around the city, and even televised words of city council members tended to reflect a common fear about the economic climate. This sense of fear helped to shape the ways in which certain issues were perceived and responded to by residents. For example, when a land development proposal was announced, local residents drew upon the language of fear in order to create oppositional texts. Those opposing the plan successfully framed the development issue as a threat for ordinary citizens, while the city’s attempts to persuade residents about the development’s benefits failed. As my analysis demonstrates, this “successful” argument was partly due to the emotional discourses of fear that had been circulating for some time throughout the city. Prior public discussions found in various texts emphasized anxiety about the recent loss of jobs, higher rent prices, and an explosion in population demographics. Because local residents had been expressing nervous concern about many city issues for some time, the land development proposal was easy to frame as another threat for local citizens. Many residents understood the complex issue of land development as a fearful prospect because of the emotional associations about the city’s changes that had already accumulated in the public sphere.

Significance of Project
Passages of Power contributes to two growing areas of rhetorical studies: the study of rhetoric and emotions, as well as the study of local civic discourse. Scholars across disciplines have begun to think about the public impact of emotion (Cvetkovich, Stewart, Ahmed), yet few rhetorical scholars have considered the effects of pathos beyond private exchanges between a speaker/writer and her limited audience. Furthermore, there has yet to be a thorough study of emotion and civic discourse in rhetorical theory. Although a number of scholars have undertaken theoretical and analytical studies of civic rhetorics, few have addressed the ways in which emotions shape how we talk about local issues. One exception is Sharon Crowley’s recent book Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. Crowley examines current religious rhetorics in the United States in order to analyze how emotion helps to shape public language about beliefs and faith. While Crowley’s project marks a unique contribution for rhetorical studies, my study is one of the first to examine how emotional associations in civic rhetorics are created over time through texts.
The main question addressed in my project–How do certain arguments and beliefs gain adherence in public spaces?–has significant consequences for how we attempt to persuade others, as well as how we teach persuasion. One larger implication of my project relates to troubling public rhetorics, such as racism, sexism, and other damaging forms of social language. My argument offers the potential for an improved understanding of how such troubled discourses gain popularity in public spaces. We might work to educate against injurious beliefs by addressing the emotional associations that have helped build these rhetorics over time. My study shows that discriminatory rhetorics cannot be addressed through changes in discourse alone, such as “banning” offensive words. Instead, new emotional associations—like the recent Girl Power! campaign promoting the “coolness” of math and science to girls—must be created with and through our shared public texts. Because of the larger consequences of my argument, this project contributes to an interdisciplinary understanding of civic culture.

Project Design
Passages of Power examines three different controversial issues in Austin, Texas during the city’s dramatic post-1990 economic transformations. My book involves both a theoretical argument and a careful analysis of actual public debates. Therefore, each chapter illustrates rhetorical theory through the context of actual exchanges. My analysis draws upon primary texts (newsletters, signs, flyers, articles, etc.) created and exchanged within each debate. I also rely upon interviews with individual participants. This case-study method can be found in an early version of my second chapter, which appeared as a lead article in Rhetoric Society Quarterly (Fall 2005). The first controversy relates to a land development proposal for a large “big box” shopping area located directly across the street from several independent businesses. This proposal was met by significant protests and public accusations that the city lacked support for locally owned businesses. The second controversy examines grassroots anti-graffiti initiatives. As graffiti proliferated around the city, including several newly gentrified areas, local citizens successfully lobbied the city to take action against this perceived “crime wave.” Finally, I examine the changing discussions about Austin’s eastside, which had earned the undesirable reputation as Austin’s dangerous area. After developers began aggressively marketing and “re-branding” areas of east Austin, however, public discussions about the eastside took a dramatic turn. I show how these changes were shaped by the lasting effects of emotional discourse found in shared public texts. My chapters are outlined as follows:

• Chapter One, “Pathos as Self-Consuming Substance,” examines how pathos (emotional persuasion) has been conceptualized in modern rhetorical theory. Through an analysis of both pedagogical and scholarly literature in the past century, I show that pathos has largely been treated as a private phenomenon. Drawing on the rhetorical theory of Kenneth Burke and the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, I argue that pathos actually creates contexts in its operation between individuals. This makes pathos an essentially public phenomenon, as well as an action that has lasting consequences. This chapter is drafted, but needs significant revision.

• Chapter Two, “Weird Ecologies: Accumulating Discourse and Public Pathe,” explores how emotional associations help to create popular arguments in a given public space. Through a rhetorical analysis of a land development proposal debated in Austin, Texas during the late 1990s, I explore the collection of texts through which this public debate took place: flyers, newspaper articles, handmade signs, pamphlets, and neighborhood newsletters. These texts repeatedly connect the land development issue with representations of fear and anger. In this way, one predominant emotional association—anxiety—was created among the debate’s participants. This emotional association helped to frame the successful argument against the proposal. Chapter two is partly drafted, but it needs more extensive research in order to expand into a book-length chapter.

• Chapter Three, “Returning (to) the Individual,” examines how people use emotional associations within public issues in order to create a personal identity. The case study in this chapter analyzes public conversations about graffiti around central Austin. Because graffiti had been linked with crime and danger in the public’s imagination, some local anti-graffiti proponents began to adopt the image of “neighborhood crime fighters.” Indeed, grassroots organizers who adopted the cause as a moral issue drove much of the anti-graffiti work done in the city. As I argue in this chapter, the grassroots images of “crime fighting” was created by the widespread association of graffiti and crime. This chapter needs a significant amount of additional research in order to complete.

• Chapter Four, “A Method for Disarticulation,” offers an argument for changing public ideas about local issues. Because popular beliefs and arguments are at least partly shaped by the emotional associations already in social circulation, any transformation of those ideas will demand new emotional associations. In this chapter, I examine changing public discussions about one area in Austin that experienced radical socio-economic transformations. The east side of Austin, formerly associated with crime and decay, eventually became a popular destination for artists and independent businesses. This change in public association is partly due to changes in the ways east Austin was discussed in public texts. I have not begun drafting this chapter beyond preliminary research.

• Chapter Five, “Rethinking the Affective Turn,” revisits the position of pathos in troubling public rhetorics, such as racism, sexism, and other damaging forms of social language. I argue that we might work to educate against injurious beliefs by addressing the emotional associations that have helped build these rhetorics over time. I argue that new emotional associations must be created with and through our shared public texts. This chapter remains to be expanded beyond an early outline.

Preliminary Work
My book comprises five chapters, each of which expands upon traditional concepts of emotion in rhetorical studies. One early version of a chapter has already appeared in a leading rhetoric journal, and I have also presented my initial research at several major conferences, including Rhetoric Society of America and the Conference on College Composition and Communication. At this point, I have fully drafted chapter one and written outlines for the remaining four chapters. In order to write full drafts of chapters two, three, and four, I will need to conduct more extensive research. My initial research took place in Austin during the summers of 2003 and 2004 for the purposes of a dissertation. Revising this research for a scholarly book demands more careful attention to data quality and quantity. A nine-month leave during the 2008-2009 academic year would allow me to conduct additional fieldwork in Austin at two local history archives. This fieldwork is an essential step in completing chapters two, three, and four. I will also use this leave time to draft chapter five and revise chapter one. This schedule provides enough time to make global revisions before sending out my book manuscript during my fourth year as an assistant professor.

Justification for Funding
My initial fieldwork and research for this project was completed in Austin, Texas during the summers of 2003 and 2004. I conducted this research as part of my dissertation. My research draws from a number of sources that document public conversations about local issues in Austin. These sources include some freely available texts, such as newspaper articles and websites, but they also include a significant amount of community materials, including flyers found in community locations, pamphlets, and handmade protest signs. I also draw from conversations that take place in a variety of public spaces: radio call-in shows, outdoor rallies, and community meetings. Gathering this material must be done through personal interviews and access to local and community archives, such as the Austin History Center and the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center’s Texana collections.
During a portion of my release time, I will travel to Austin twice in order to conclude research on three controversies I examine in my book: the city council’s land development proposal, Austin’s grassroots anti-graffiti initiatives, and the eastside’s socio-economic transformation. While in Austin, I will have access to The University of Texas’ Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, which archives a great deal of local material. Additionally, I will use the collections at the Austin History Center, whose holdings include a significant archive of community publications and ephemera. The Austin History Center also houses a large recordings collection of City Council meetings, oral histories, and local news broadcasts. Access to this material is essential for my manuscript’s completion. While in Austin, I will also continue to interview Andrew Garrison, the director of the East Austin Stories project, who is an expert on the eastside’s changing community. I also plan to re-interview Gordon Bennett, a leader of Austin’s Cherrywood Neighborhood Association, in order to discuss grassroots anti-graffiti initiatives. This additional research will allow me to complete three manuscript chapters that need to be significantly expanded for a scholarly book.

For research on chapters two and three, I will analyze language of the debates as found in community texts, including neighborhood newsletters and citizen proposals to the City Council. These texts are archived at the Austin History Center. For research on chapter four, I will use accounts of east Austin’s civic-business partnerships and citywide publicity campaigns, which are housed at the Harry Ransom Humanities Center. After conducting this research, I will complete a draft of chapters two and three. During the spring semester, I will draft chapters four and five. This writing and any further research will be conducted in Columbia, Missouri. My timeline is outlined below:
• Fall 2008: Research on land development proposal and citizen anti-graffiti initiatives. Conducted at the Austin History Center. Interviews with Gordon Bennett and others. Chapters two and three drafted.
• Spring 2009: Research on east Austin’s re-branding. Conducted at the Harry Ransom Humanities Center. Personal interviews conducted with Andrew Garrison and others. Chapter four and five drafted.
• Summer 2009: Chapter one revised.
• Fall 2009: Manuscript revised and prepared for submission.
• Spring 2010: Manuscript and proposals sent out to publishers.

Plans for Future Support
The contributions of my argument go well beyond theoretical disciplinary discussions. My conclusions can potentially impact how civic and community participants make arguments and approach public debates. Because of my research’s larger civic relevance, I am confident that this project will attract support from external sources. In addition to funding from the Research Board, I am applying for fellowships through the American Philosophical Association’s Franklin Research Grant program, as well as the American Council of Learned Societies. Although both of these fellowships are quite competitive, my project fits with the scope of previous awardees and their projects.
The fact that this project is located in Austin, Texas as not an insignificant detail. Austin’s socio-economic change in the past twenty years is a microcosm of the nation’s economic transformations. The arguments I examine reflect some of the most common public debates currently happening in U.S. communities: gentrification issues, community policing, and business development. Consequently, the civic nature of this project will bring national attention to The University of Missouri as a leader in public rhetoric scholarship. In keeping with the mission of the University to generate scholarship that serves a public interest, my work contributes to both a renewed disciplinary conversation and an effort to understand conversations in the community.