Rhetorical Analysis Notes: Objectivity and Text Design (Lecture Transcript)

Assignment and Approach to Rhetorical Analysis

• Purpose: learn to analyze a text as designed for a purpose (the designer’s purpose), not as a reflection of the analyst’s personal feelings or preferences.
• Core assignment: pick a text and perform rhetorical analysis.
  • Be prepared to extend your notion of what counts as a text beyond a printed page: it could be a comic strip frame, a cartoon, etc. (not a whole movie or a whole book, due to size).
  • The text can be in a different medium than traditional print, but it still has design choices aimed at a purpose.
• PowerPoint usage: for the presenter, not the audience.
  • Keep slides small and serve as a cue sheet: glance at the bullet, say what comes next, move on.
  • The slides are not the main content for the audience; they’re a personal guide for the speaker.
• Key orientation for the assignment: evaluate how the designer crafted the text for their intended audience and purpose, not whether you personally like it.
  • “I don’t give a damn if you like the text or not because the analysis is not about you.”
  • The goal is to assess how someone designed something for their purposes, and what those designs imply.
• Practical constraints: the text should be manageable in size for analysis.
  • Some texts are hard to analyze rhetorically because some aspects are recognizable as rhetorical techniques to experts but not to beginners.
• Central idea: analyze the design of the text, not just its subject matter.
  • The designer’s strategy may have unintended consequences; you should assess whether the strategy achieves its intended effect.
  • Example given: Cracker Barrel logo redesign as a case study for how design choices can have business consequences.
• What the assignment asks you to assess: how well the designer’s strategy was carried out, including outcomes that may not have been anticipated.
• You should be able to articulate why the text works (or doesn’t) for a particular audience, and what design decisions led to those effects.
• Toward objectivity in analysis: you must suspend personal preference to some degree and describe the text’s design in a way that could be understood by others.

Expanding the Notion of Text

• Text is broader than printed words:
  • It can be a printed page or a word on a page.
  • It can be a comic strip frame or a cartoon.
• It cannot be a whole movie or a whole book due to scale, but you can analyze smaller segments or frames within those media.
• The assignment will involve selecting a text and examining its rhetorical design.
• Example under discussion: Cracker Barrel and its icon; described as a “rhetorical fruit” of design decisions.

Analyzing for Design and Purpose

• Core rule: the analysis is about the design for others’ purposes, not about your personal feelings.
  • This detaches analysis from narcissistic self-reference and centers on the communicator’s intent.
• Texts are designed with specific purposes and audiences in mind; good communicators design carefully.
• The Cracker Barrel logo example illustrates a design choice with consequences:
  • The designer removed or altered elements to target a different or broader audience.
  • The outcome included a stock price reaction, illustrating business consequences of branding changes.
  • The design may be wise or foolish from a business perspective, but it’s still informative about how the design functioned.
• Assignment asks you to assess how well the strategy was carried out, including unexpected results (e.g., stock decline).
• You should be prepared to argue both sides: the designer’s intent and the actual market/behavioral outcomes.

Objectivity vs Subjectivity in Rhetorical Analysis

• Objective analysis means thinking about the text in terms of how it was designed, not merely how it makes you feel.
• Objectivity is not the same as pure, unbiased vision; it is a multilevel, disciplined process.
• All perspectives are biased to some degree, but some biases can be constructive or insightful; others can be limiting or erroneous.
• The aim is to learn to be less automatically subjective and to analyze from a disciplined standpoint.
• The speaker emphasizes that even objectivity has boundaries because humans are limited by time, space, and perspective.
• Language can be subjective, but you should move toward more objective language in analysis by describing design choices, purposes, audiences, and consequences.
• The speaker uses the Linda Ronstadt example to illustrate objective quality: while you may have a personal preference, there are observable, technical aspects (range, control, technique) that can be analyzed and explained.
  • Trained listeners can describe specifics (e.g., tongue position on vowels, neck movement) that contribute to perceived excellence.
  • The point: you can and should justify judgments with observable evidence from the text (or performance), not just opinion.
• The aim is to be able to describe why a text works for its intended audience, even if you personally dislike it.

Five Levels of Objectivity (as described in the lecture)

• Level I: You can acknowledge that you have a perspective (awareness of perspective).
  • Example: Acknowledging your own biases and vantage points.
• Level II: Self-awareness of the perspectives from which you process the world.
  • You know the lenses through which you interpret information.
• Level III: Broad-mindedness; you can understand and engage with other perspectives.
  • The story of intercultural diversity is used to illustrate how multiple perspectives can co-exist respectfully.
• Levels IV and V: Mentioned as part of the five levels, but not described in detail in the lecture.
• The process is framed as a critical thinking habit: move from subjective impressions to evaluating how the text was designed to work for particular audiences.
• The speaker underscores that objectivity is not about pretending to be someone else’s perspective; it’s about recognizing and evaluating perspectives that were intended by the designer.

Intercultural and Ethical Examples Used to Illustrate Perspective-Taking

• Diversity example with Daniel Lee ( Mainland China): a real-world intercultural dialogue about food, culture, and ethics
  • Daniel asks whether the narrator would eat dog; the narrator says yes, but with caveats about health and the dog’s fate
  • Daniel reveals his cultural perspective: he would not eat a family pet; the two perspectives are navigated with mutual respect
  • The anecdote demonstrates how multiple perspectives can come together in a way that values dignity and life (the dog) while acknowledging differing cultural norms
• Lesson: true intercultural diversity involves recognizing differences without sensationalizing them, and finding respectful ways to dialogue across cultures
• The broader point is that readers/viewers of a text are not merely passive receivers; the designer represents values, choices, and audience assumptions that must be analyzed and understood

The Cracker Barrel Logo Case Study (as discussed in the lecture)

• Context: Cracker Barrel’s logo change involved removing or modifying elements (the white man and the barrel) due to concerns about racial insensitivity and changing demographics.
• The designer’s intent: to align with values and audiences considered “more valuable” to the brand’s future.
• The execution: the logo was reshaped into a more generic design with less background context.
• The claimed reason: a concern that the original logo was racially insensitive and outdated; a move to be more inclusive.
• The opposing view: the change was a personal comfort decision for the designer rather than a strictly business decision.
• Consequences highlighted: the stock price dropped after the change, indicating a potential misalignment with investor expectations or brand strategy.
• Analytical takeaway: evaluate whether the design achieved its stated aims and what it may have sacrificed in terms of brand identity, investor confidence, or audience reach.
• The lecturer’s stance: you should articulate why the designer acted as they did, but also assess whether the design achieved its intended purpose, and consider unanticipated outcomes.
• Final point: the object is to analyze how the design works and for whom it was designed, not to simply decide whether you personally like it.

The Linda Ronstadt Example (illustrating objective analysis)

• The speaker uses Linda Ronstadt as a benchmark to show that there are objective qualities in a performance that can be described and justified by experts.
• Objective criteria mentioned:
  • Wide vocal range
  • Lack of visible strain on the performer’s face, implying control and power
  • Specific technical elements described by trained analysts (e.g., tongue placement on vowels, neck movement)
• Conclusion drawn: It is possible to describe why a performance is excellent using observable, analysable features, even if personal taste differs.
• Relevance to rhetorical analysis: demonstrates how to ground judgments in evidence about design and execution, rather than mere personal preference.

The “Dog Story” as a Practical Demonstration of Perspective-Taking

• Setting: A dinner with a mainland Chinese colleague (Daniel Lee) who has different cultural practices.
• Core moments:
  • Conversation about whether the narrator would eat a dog; Daniel’s question probes cultural boundaries.
  • The narrator’s discomfort is acknowledged; Daniel clarifies the cultural context for his own family (eating a pet is not acceptable to him).
  • They discuss a shared experience around Italian food as a bridge between cultures, showing how common ground can be found despite differences.
  • The host’s willingness to try to understand the other perspective is highlighted through the discussion of a dog’s health and mortality, the ethics of animal welfare, and the humane treatment of animals.
• Key takeaway: Diversity is more than superficial differences; true intercultural diversity involves recognizing beliefs, practices, and values across cultures and engaging them with respect.
• The broader point: this anecdote is used to illustrate how multiple perspectives can converge in a single encounter when analyzed with a respectful, objective-minded approach.

Practical Guidelines for Conducting a Rhetorical Analysis

• Choose a text that is manageable in scope.
• Focus on the design and purpose of the text, not the analyst’s personal feelings.
• Identify the audience and the intended effect of the design.
• Examine how the designer’s strategy is carried out and what consequences it produces (expected and unintended).
• Be explicit about the evidence you use from the text to support claims about its design.
• Consider potential biases in your own perspective and how objectivity can be increased by acknowledging those biases.
• Use objective language to describe design choices and their effects, moving away from purely subjective judgments.
• If you dislike the text, use that as a potential lens to understand for whom it might have been designed and why it might work for that audience.
• The goal is to describe the text’s design, the designer’s intent, and the audience’s reception, not to simply express personal sentiment.

Key Takeaways

• Rhetorical analysis is about design for a purpose and audience, not about personal taste.
• The concept of “text” is broader than printed pages; it can include visual and multimedia forms, but there are still boundaries (e.g., not whole films or books for a single analysis).
• PowerPoint should serve the speaker, not the audience; keep it concise as a cue sheet.
• Objectivity is a multilevel, disciplined practice; pure objectivity is impossible, but increasing objectivity is a teachable skill.
• Everyone processes reality through perspectives; the goal is to recognize and analyze those perspectives rather than pretend they don’t exist.
• The five-level framework (Level I to Level V) outlines progressive stages of objectivity, with Levels I–III described in the lecture (awareness of perspective, self-awareness, broad-mindedness).
• Case studies (Cracker Barrel logo, Linda Ronstadt analysis, intercultural dog-eating story) illustrate how to analyze design decisions, audience targets, and the ethical implications of communication.
• The analysis should consider both intended effects and possible unintended consequences, acknowledging that a design can be successful in one dimension and problematic in another.
• Always aim to articulate why a design works for its intended audience and how the designer’s choices drive those effects.