A Theory of Contemporary Rhetoric (18 page)

The words could probably carry this advertisement on their own, but they are articulated with, joined with, an image of the kettle in question. Words and image have the same stylish economy; the elegance of design; the simplicity. Probably, the image could not, in this case, carry the burden of the argument, nor fulfil the function of persuasion. In this case, the image appears to function as an illustration but also as a bit more than that: as an icon, as the object of desire. It could be said that the highlighting of a domestic image like this does give resonance to the kettle. It is framed in a particular way, photographed in isolation from its packaging, its kitchen counter, its users, and thus given a prominence and life it does not usually have. It infers and suggests an argument but does not quite deliver an argument in the Toulminian sense of a claim, or series of claims supported by evidence. But it
stakes its claim to be recognized
as worthy of consideration. It is, in a sense, a
proposition
.

But can the visual argue without the help of words? Consider the famous photograph of Jean Shrimpton at the Melbourne Cup in 1965. It has been used before (Black and Muecke 1992) and is easily accessible.

The suggestion here is that certain single, still images can embody an argument through the tension between two elements in the image. In this case, Shrimpton, in her state-of-the-art London look of 1965, is foregrounded against the background of the conventional race-going look for women in Melbourne at that time. Her very presence at the Melbourne Cup caused controversy in the Australian press: it was a provocation, a counterpoint, an invitation to do something not only about dress, but about the associations of femininity and womanhood implied by this particular dress. Shrimpton, both at the occasion and in the photograph, is the antithesis to the middle-class race-goers thesis—except that they did not realize they were the thesis until she came along. This is “discussion with edge” of a cultural kind. Furthermore, the photograph is symbolic, not only of a moment in fashion and identity, but also of a pivotal moment in culture, suggesting a tension between constraint and liberation, propriety and impropriety, Melbourne and London at the time, and sets of values underpinning those positions.

There is an equally famous, or infamous case of two photographs alongside each other. The photograph, titled
Legs
, is by Mike Wells and shows two billboards in London, around the late 1970s, early 1980s. The one on the left is an advertisement for Aristoc tights; and the other is a Christian Aid advertisement showing what appear to be an old man's withered and bony legs. Whether the two advertisements were deliberately juxtaposed by the advertising agency, or whether it was the photographer himself who framed and captured the irony of the contiguity, is not known. The point is that two images alongside each other, with similarities and, in this case, stark differences, set up a tension that appears to suggest argument. If the two images were to change places, there would be no significant difference in the proposition: that comparisons of this kind make one reflect on inequity, on the ravages of age, on the unfairness of where you were born, and your lot in the world.

The suggestiveness and openness of the visual—its openness to interpretation, its refusal to be defined by words, its seemingly direct communication, its instantaneity—are contained to a degree by a
sequence
of images, where the
post hoc, propter hoc
principle comes into play. A well-established genre in this kind of visual argumentation is the photo-essay, often of a journalistic kind. Sometimes the photographs are accompanied by small or large captions or by a verbal essay, but the images can stand on their own and provide their own argument. In doctoral research with 12 and 13 year olds (Andrews 1992), using photographs that were used to sequence narratives and arguments, students said that once they were committed to a narrative
sequence, it would change the narrative to change the sequence but that it was possible to move the sequence around if the photographs were depicting an argument. This perception that the
post hoc, propter hoc
principle only goes so far in argument is a significant one, where an extra level of abstraction enables composition and recomposition of a sequence of particularities designed to convey the argument.

From the point of the photo-essay, it is an easy step to the multimodal slide sequence, as in Sam Strickland's brilliant
Engladesh
(2008), designed as a final submission for a masters in photojournalism at City University London, which combines sequences of photographs with voiceover, music, and some words, but with the images as the central spine of the narrative and arguments; and thence on to moving image: film and television.

In summary, as far as visual argumentation is concerned, it is clear that images can be used as evidence for claims and propositions. In this role, they go beyond illustration to providing evidence in a court of law, as incontrovertible “fact” in support of a thesis, or as a diagram of a process that is to be followed and that is based on a procedure that has been expressed verbally. But images can fulfil the function of claims and propositions themselves because of their multiple signification, and especially if they are juxtaposed with other images and/or they are set in a sequence that allows logical or quasi-logical connection. Their articulation constitutes an
argument
rather than merely persuading.

Argument is important because it rehearses in public life the various sides to a problem or a point of dispute. Its very identification of the sore points, or the points of tension in a culture or an individual's emotional life, is the first stage of solving a problem. By drilling down at the point of dispute, which is what school and academic life at their best are very good at doing, the elements and dimensions of the tension and dispute are laid bare: their “backing” revealed; the sets of values, theories, and ideologies underlying their very characterization made transparent; and the possibilities of reconciliation and “moving forward” are laid out.

The next stage is the mapping out of those possibilities, the arguing for this plan of action of that plan; for selecting from a range of possibilities the best one—the one that marries short- and long-term objectives, the one that is for the greatest good of a community, an institution, a department, a nation, and/or a personal life trajectory.

If we were to slow down the process of decision making so that the lineaments of each micro-decision were made visible, as well as the more protracted passage of major decisions, we would see a process of argumentation at work. Helping young people, old people, people of
indeterminate age to understand those processes, to give them power to challenge received ideas and generate new ones, to appreciate and compose arguments that are monomodal or in mixed modes … this is what education can do, and why I think that argument and argumentation have a very important part to play, not only in education, but in the reasonable progress and renewal of social and political relations more generally. As such, argumentation is a crucial component of a theory of contemporary rhetoric.

In
Re-Framing Literacy
(Andrews 2011) the case was put forward for an accent on
framing
as a key critical and creative act for the composer, as well as for the reader/audience, in any communicative transaction. Framing is especially salient when it comes to the arts, where the composer and the audience are particularly conscious of, or at least draw attention to, what is framed and how it is framed. If we were to depict rhetoric in allegorical and idealized terms, framing would be one of the key twentyfirst century tools in its armory. It is a modest element or device, too, often not drawing attention to itself; and yet it operates in every act of communication in important ways, defining the social and communicative
parameters
of the exchange.

Framing is not a theory. It's a device operating as part of a theory. The point of the present chapter is to illustrate how framing operates within a theory of rhetoric, and why framing is so important to rhetoric.

Goffman (1986) and subsequent education theorists and practitioners have developed theories of framing that build their thinking on the tangible notion of
frames.
These are close in nature to
schemata.
Although some schemata are intangible and invisible in that they are socially conventional constructs that guide the operation of behavior, they are nevertheless phenomena or entities. Similarly, the notion of genres as social action (Miller 1984) comes close to the idea of frames. What these phenomena have in common is that they are socially situated patterns of behavior that have linguistic and other modal characteristics. The emphasis on defining such phenomena is akin to an emphasis on nouns: these are things, notions, constructed ideas, or phenomena that can be defined and classified.

The accent of
framing
in the present theory of contemporary rhetoric is significant. It moves the debate about communication toward
process
rather than (albeit sometimes invisible) product. The focus of interest is
on a verb; indeed, a present participle. The suggestion is that rhetoric is always in motion, relevant to, and informing the acts of communication in the past,
present,
and future. The emphasis on the process of framing for both rhetor and audience allows the theory of contemporary rhetoric to be both simple and elegant. It does not have an architecture that is unwieldy and more complicated than the phenomenon it is examining. On the contrary, it is akin to light scaffolding, or to sketches of a building that can run through to fully fledged designs and plans. The important thing is the communication itself, not the theory that informs it.

To begin the discussion of the relationship of framing and rhetoric, here are three examples of social and communicative encounters. Each requires a different kind of framing; each sits within an overarching theory of rhetorical choice and delivery.

First, a public lecture at a university. A guest speaker is invited and flies around the world to give the lecture. The occasion has already been framed in a number of ways, partly to define its nature and partly to encourage an audience to attend. The means for the initial framing are posters advertising the lecture, located in the university and in the students' union; online notices and reminders, conveyed via email and on intranets as well as on the internet; and formal individual invitations, some of which are printed on a card and require a response. Behind these formats are the fact that this lecture is one of a series of three “public lectures” held by a faculty at the university and expressly intended to welcome and include anyone and everyone who wishes to attend. There is an important element of institutional framing in this fact because—in effect—the university is inviting anyone to attend the lecture without payment. The move is part of a general trend to “public engagement,” thus reaching out beyond the traditional frame of the university (bound by regulations, fee payment, registration, degree-awarding powers, etc.).

Once the invitations are out and the speaker confirmed, the occasion itself is framed in particular ways that enhance its social dimension. Tea is served beforehand. The lecture itself, and the lecturer, are introduced, setting them within the aspirations of the Faculty, the university, and its international work. The lecture, once over, is followed by a question-and-answer session from the floor, monitored by the chair, who decides how long that part of the proceedings is to take. The whole lecture, plus Q&A, is followed by drinks and canapés to encourage further informal discussion and social bonding. Food and drink serves an important purpose here: not only to keep people going through an end-of-the-day occasion, but to forge social interaction and to welcome members of the public to the university. There are other frames that we could cite that are at play
in such an occasion as this, but these are the immediate ones that help to shape and define the event.

What of the actual lecture itself? The particular lecture in question was on rhythms of social justice and the place of hip hop in literacy development, and on the relationship between in-school and out-of-school activities in this regard. The speaker
¹
began his 45-minute lecture with an autobiographical account of his early life and why this pertained to the theme of social justice. The
narrative
and
autobiographical
nature of this introduction served a number of purposes, rhetorically. It established the speaker in relation to his audience; it provided a rationale for the personal drive and momentum of the issues at stake; and it was engaging, as good narratives are, and thus served to “draw in” the audience to the argument that followed. In these senses, narrative operated with argumentational function (see Andrews 1989)—what we might call the
narratio
of classical rhetoric, or the laying out of the facts of the case—and partly engaged the audience through its personal and emotive import. The opening narration was followed by a more conventional academic presentation, with interspersed video clips of hip hop in performance. But that academic delivery was infused with commitment, passion, and energy, particularly at points in the lecture that moved beyond the conventional academic frame into committed and informed
invocation
for the audience to subscribe to the argument. The exploration of the rhetorical frame—or to put it more dynamically, the creative and critical
framing
of the talk—was a talking point for the audience as they enjoyed the frame-breaking, inspirational nature of the occasion. Given that the audience was mixed, involving students, faculty staff (both academic and professional), honorary guests, and members of the public, the pitching of the talk and management of such diversity was critically important.