Stella Ruane’s RCL Blog

    Built on the fingernail clippings, shreds of hair, and saliva, the power of deoxyribonucleic acid, as well as the further understanding and application of this molecule, has ultimately served as one of the most important discoveries of all time. Swiss chemist Friedrich Miescher was initially attempting to study the composition of white blood cells when he incidentally isolated a molecule from a cell nucleus. He defined this distinct molecule as DNA in the year eighteen sixty-nine, but it wasn’t until eight decades later that the true weight of this revolutionary discovery was fully unveiled. This self-replicating material that carries genetic information is the instruction manual for life itself. Not only is simply grasping the concept of this molecule a scientific milestone, but it has rippled into almost every facet of modern existence. Through the process of DNA profiling, where a specific gene pattern is obtained from a person and stored in a database, the criminal justice system has been entirely revolutionized through fingerprint technology. Cold cases over decades old have been solved at the same time as victims of crime have been identified in order to bring peace and closure to affected families. The utilization of DNA has reduced strain on prison systems while paradoxically filling them with new convicts in an interesting dichotomy where both criminals have been caught at quicker and more accurate rates while thousands of the falsely accused have been exonerated. DNA has been able to unite families worldwide through genetic analyses, pairing siblings together who were previously unaware of each other and serving as a bridge to reunite long lost family members. Conversely, this same process has torn apart relationships through the development of maternity and paternity tests, disclosing more unpleasant generational secrets. Not only is DNA just a personal identifier used to figure out scientific information about an individual, but this technology has reached back through history to redefine peoples genetic heritage through at-home DNA kits. All of this scientific innovation has not excluded ethical and statistical implications. The rise in genealogy has affected data that demographers use to measure population shifts and to monitor racial inequalities, and the level to which individual DNA profiles are being shared has brought up questions regarding consent and a person’s rights when it comes to balancing criminal justice efforts and privacy. Overall, the discovery of DNA has entirely changed the field of healthcare, criminology, and genealogy to name a few, rewriting history and unveiling a future of secrets hidden within one of the core elements of life itself.

  Throughout history, the delicate craft of forensic science has played a timeless role in upholding justice and unraveling secrets. The field has been exponentially advancing on its early origins in the thirteenth century, when crime specialists in Ancient India would use tactics such as filling a suspect’s mouth with dry rice to examine salivation in order to deduce innocence or guilt. A common method of reducing the identity of a criminal in the early 1900’s was eyewitness testimony. Oftentimes in the setting of a court trial, individuals tied closely with the events of a crime would describe their perspective and recount what they were able to visually observe about the incident. This depiction was usually crucial evidence in the conviction process. While the effects of this method was not entirely understood yet by the legal system, the commonplace belief in witnesses to accurately recall details about a crime was still ultimately harmful to the criminal justice system due to its strong tendency to relay inaccuracies. In a study done by the California Innocence Project, as many as one in four eyewitness identifications are wrong. This overbearing trust in eyewitnesses unintentionally led to a commonplace of wrongful convictions and misidentifications. Not only did this trend create a generally imprecise system of crime-solving, but black Americans were disproportionately affected. In the early 20th century racial inequalities were evident within the criminal justice system, with white individuals typically receiving lighter sentences, higher likelihoods of acquittal, and more favorable treatment in general- this oppression within the criminal justice system merely mirroring the trend of segregation across the United States within this same time period. African Americans and other minority groups were targeted at a higher rate due to systemic bias, arrested in cases of racial profiling, and convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. 

    Pre-DNA forensic science doesn’t only reflect racial inequalities, but can be used to illustrate class disparity commonplaces as well. Individuals with higher socioeconomic status were routinely shown to have easier access to legal representation, which gave them a much greater chance to receive favorable treatment. Meanwhile, those from lower class backgrounds that couldn’t afford quality legal representation were much more likely to face harsher sentences. This common bias wasn’t fixed until 1963, when the United States Supreme Court held that state courts were required to appoint attorneys to any defendants who could not afford legal representation on their own. Similarly, this same time period served as an uprising of American citizens desiring to secure racial equality and eliminate biases within governmental systems, commonly deemed as the Civil Rights Era marked by Freedom Rides, the 1963 Civil Rights Act, and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech.” While racial biases and class division was extremely prevalent throughout the twentieth century, which exacerbated the impact of unreliable eyewitness testimony and disproportionate legal representation, there was a general uptick in resistance against these commonplaces during the fifties and sixties. Despite these steps in the right direction, the criminal justice field was still far from its outside image of fair, just, and factual. 

    After centuries of a too-often inaccurate criminal justice system, the 1980s saw a revolutionary development in the field of forensic science with the application of DNA to crime. Firstly beginning to be utilized for this purpose in the United Kingdom, pioneered by the work of Sir Alec Jeffreys, the late twentieth century reflected a complete shift in criminal control methodology as this new science began to integrate with the legal system. DNA evidence was first used to secure a conviction in 1987 with the case of Colin Pitchfork, and ever since that turning point the field of DNA profiling saw a trend of rapid expansion. Around ten years after the first integration of DNA into criminal justice the United States passed the 1994 DNA Identification Act, which established the Combined DNA Identification System, otherwise known as CODIS. Secondly this act provided for the US National DNA Index System, which served as a comprehensive framework to regulate the collections and use of DNA evidence. DNA itself- or rather deoxyribonucleic acid- can be simply explained as a string of numbers that is used to identify an individual. Gathered from a saliva swab, a piece of hair, or a skin cell extracted carefully from a crime scene, this string of numbers is used by scientists to upload to a DNA database, where it is compared with DNA profiles from crime scenes. Law enforcement officials now routinely match DNA from crime scenes to DNA in offender databases. With this development forensic scientists across the world were rapidly implementing the uses of not only DNA, but the databases beginning to be built as well. When initially introduced most states required only serious violent offenders that were convicted of their crime to provide a DNA sample. Over the years legislators have grown to add robbers, burglars, and convicted felons. In present day America all states now require DNA from any convinced felon. As of right now, there are between thirteen and fifteen million DNA profiles within CODIS. The main purpose in this requirement is to provide new leads for crimes where law enforcement falls short. 

  This scientific methodology created a mass ripple effect that pervaded every aspect of the legal system. Firstly, criminal justice simply became exponentially more efficient. The core of this shift lies within DNA’s capacity to link crimes together through a singular defendant. By comparing DNA profiles from crime scenes to offender databases, investigations were accelerated in all aspects. This newfound efficiency not only saves time, but saves resources with a reduced strain on the already fatigued correctional system. The accuracy of convictions was significantly enhanced, as the risk of false accusations of wrongful sentencing was immediately diminished. Studies have shown that DNA evidence is ninety-nine percent effective, showcasing a stark contrast from eyewitness testimony and confessions. 

  Further evidence of the shift relies on the subsequent exoneration of criminals after the application of DNA technology. Companies like The Innocence Project began to revisit closed cases that had suspicious elements of flawed testimony and eyewitness evidence in order to re-examine the guilt of convicted individuals. DNA has served to verify alibi claims in order to exonerate individuals, meaning that a defendant can demonstrate conclusively that they were not present at a crime scene. Pre-trial DNA testing has been shown to prevent thousands of wrongful convictions already. For example, pre-trial dna testing has prevented the conviction of hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent rape suspects, mostly black men accused of raping white women. Post-trial DNA testing has led to the exoneration of thousands of wrongfully convicted individuals. Cold cases that have long remained unsolved were given a fresh chance at justice, offering closure to victims and their families. Furthermore, the impact of DNA technology reveals more than just who is guilty and who is not. This paradigm shift continues to reveal longstanding systemic flaws within old criminology methods such as lineups, eyewitness identification procedures, and confessions as more and more criminals are shown to be wrongfully convicted on the basis of these measures. Conclusively, the introduction of DNA evidence as a gold standard in criminal justice has raised questions about reliability of older methods, hastened an outdated and slow legal process, and began to spark broader conversations about evidence-based approaches and past convictions.

When looking deeper into the claim that DNA databases reduced racial stigmatism and overgeneralizations through line ups, biases, and incorrect eyewitness testimonies, it is important to simultaneously note the counterargument. Many criminal justice experts claim that DNA technology has a tendency to further racial stereotypes. This claim is rooted in the practice of forensic DNA phenotyping, also known as FDP. This relatively new addition to the forensic world, FDP technology is essentially a set of techniques that aim to predict physical features of criminal suspects, such as eye skin and hair color. FDP also can infer ethnicity through biogeographical evidence found in DNA samples. FDP generally relates common traits shared by different population groups. Although this practice is intended to be purely scientific, this method of grouping traits together to infer a person’s race can lead to collectivisation of the suspect population. Because of the overabundance of black Americans in the CODIS system, many forensic scientists express this worry about FDP merely mirroring racial disparities that already exist within biomedical research.

Through several studies, mainly spearheaded by Dr. Jennifer Doleac, a professor at the University of Virginia, it was discovered that DNA databases were impacting offender behavior at an unprecedented rate. As establishments like CODIS grew in the United States between 2000-2010, violent and property crime rates fell as a result, recidivism rates lowered, and criminals seemed immensely deterred from crime. 

The idea of deterrence is the analysis of the effects of threat of punishment upon crime prevention. Jeremy Bentham coined this famous concept and formulated a theory in which nearly all criminological policy and theory is based upon, and is specifically applicable when looking into how exactly this technological innovation enacted so much behavioral change. Betham stated that legal punishment had to be administered close in time to the act, and consistently and proportionally punished in order to be a constructive means of deterring delinquency. Everything that the pre-DNA criminal justice system was not. With the creation and establishment of DNA databases, both aspects of  punishment were entirely revolutionized, and following suit with the deterrence theory- showed massive impact on criminal behavior. 

In terms of Bentham’s first prong of his deterrence theory, criminal justice became exponentially more efficient with DNA databases. The core of this shift lies within DNA’s capacity to link crimes together through a singular defendant. By comparing DNA profiles from crime scenes to offender databases, investigations were accelerated in all aspects. Studies have shown that DNA evidence is ninety-nine percent effective, showcasing a stark contrast from eyewitness testimony and confessions. The ability for law enforcement officers to zero in on serial offenders more efficiently streamlines the conviction process, and can be used as an explanation for decreased crime rates after the implementation of DNA databases- criminals are now increasingly understanding the immediacy of punishment upon the delinquent act, and are therefore dissuaded from committing crime. Enacting a similar effect, the implementation of DNA profiling systems have become much more proportional, as Pre-trial DNA testing has been shown to prevent thousands of wrongful convictions already- evening out an unethical and biased past of mistrials. 

These two aspects of change within the criminal justice system didn’t just serve to statistically improve the prison system and formally fit the definition of what is needed to change offender behavior, statistics and research have shown genuine results. DNA profiling reduced recidivism within the following year by as much as 43 percent. 

Lower recidivism rates don’t just advantageously affect the criminals that are deterred from reentering prison systems, but they produce meaningful benefits for general society and public safety as well. Recidivism feeds the cycle of incarceration by leading to higher rates of re-arrest and re-imprisonment, which strains law enforcement resources, overwhelms courts and corrections systems, and drains taxpayer dollars.

Shortly, it is important to mention a specific demographic that disagrees with this assertion that the reduction in recidivism is due to the deterrence theory. Labeling theory criminologists oftentimes disagree with this entire claim, due to the labeling theory. The labeling theory states that once a criminal is arrested and found guilty of a crime, society then seeks to permanently attach a label to that criminal. In turn, that label becomes stigmatized by society and gets reproduced in the minds of criminals, which leads the criminal to accept this label and increase their own criminal behavior. This means that instead of citing the reduction in recidivism to the increase in DNA databases and their deterrent effect, some criminologists argue that this reduction is caused by other reasons and that DNA databases most likely increase criminal behavior because they add more of a stigmatized label to criminals. 

Lastly, the effects of DNA databases spread widely into more fields than just criminology. The popularity of public genealogy databases has made a remarkable surge with sites like 23 and me, where voluntary participants can order a testing kit online and send in a DNA sample to companies. Upon receiving this sample the DNA undergoes rigorous testing, where genetic markers are discovered and a detailed report on an individual’s ancestry composition, potential health risks, and carrier status for certain conditions are revealed later online. Also available with this type of testing are ancestry breakdowns and family connections as well. This new widespread trend of desiring to learn more about ancestral history through the use of public genealogy bases has created many interesting implications. For example, DNA is not just a unique personal identifier, but it can also reveal details about a person’s heritage. Advances in DNA technology have allowed for the surge of at-home genealogy kits that provide people with information about their possible genetic background. Thousands of people have discovered through genetic analyses that their parents were not who they thought they were. Others have found and been reunited with siblings they never knew existed. Such discoveries have implications for users’ wider family members, most of whom won’t have put their DNA in such a database.A new study by Stanford sociologists delves into how such changes could affect data that demographers use to measure population shifts and monitor racial inequalities. With thousands of participants figuring out new facets of their identity, it’s clear that the growth of these public databases is inciting a widespread shift in personal racial and ethnic identification. 

This new trend hasn’t come without ethical implications. As genealogy databases are growing there has been an unfortunate truth that biological information submitted to these websites could be used without the donor’s explicit consent. People who choose to upload their DNA could unknowingly be helping police to trace a relative — now and in the future. ​​The case of the Golden State Killer, linked to at least 50 rapes and 12 murders between 1976 and 1986, had gone cold — although investigators believed they had a reliable sequence of the perpetrator’s DNA. Next they needed a match. So, according to reports, they uploaded the data to a popular website that compares people’s genetic information to trace their relatives — in effect, creating a profile for him. They got lucky: a match with family members led them to identify and arrest Joseph James DeAngelo. This arrest lead to controversial implications for the DNA field. Many people supported this method of utilizing genealogy databases in order to catch a criminal and provide victim’s families with closure, whilst many felt as if this was a violation of privacy. 

In conclusion, the discovery and application of DNA technology have been transformative across various fields, reshaping the landscape of healthcare, criminology, and genealogy. From Friedrich Miescher’s isolation of DNA in the 19th century to the development of public genealogy databases like 23andMe in the 21st century, our understanding and utilization of DNA have evolved significantly. In the realm of criminal justice, the integration of DNA profiling has revolutionized investigations, resulting in more accurate identifications, solving cold cases, and preventing wrongful convictions. The efficiency and accuracy brought about by DNA databases have contributed to a significant reduction in recidivism, challenging traditional criminological methods. However, the implementation of DNA technology has not been without ethical concerns, raising questions about consent, privacy, and the potential for unintended consequences. Moreover, the expansion of public genealogy databases has not only reunited families and provided insights into ancestral heritage but has also introduced new ethical dilemmas, particularly regarding the use of genetic information for criminal investigations. As we navigate the intersection of science, ethics, and justice, the impact of DNA technology continues to unfold, offering both promises and challenges for the future.

 

    Built on the fingernail clippings, shreds of hair, and saliva, the power of deoxyribonucleic acid, as well as the further understanding and application of this molecule, has ultimately served as one of the most important discoveries of all time. Swiss chemist Friedrich Miescher was initially attempting to study the composition of white blood cells when he incidentally isolated a molecule from a cell nucleus. He defined this distinct molecule as DNA in the year eighteen sixty-nine, but it wasn’t until eight decades later that the true weight of this revolutionary discovery was fully unveiled. This self-replicating material that carries genetic information is the instruction manual for life itself. Not only is simply grasping the concept of this molecule a scientific milestone, but it has rippled into almost every facet of modern existence. Through the process of DNA profiling, where a specific gene pattern is obtained from a person and stored in a database, the criminal justice system has been entirely revolutionized through fingerprint technology. Cold cases over decades old have been solved at the same time as victims of crime have been identified in order to bring peace and closure to affected families. The utilization of DNA has reduced strain on prison systems while paradoxically filling them with new convicts in an interesting dichotomy where both criminals have been caught at quicker and more accurate rates while thousands of the falsely accused have been exonerated. DNA has been able to unite families worldwide through genetic analyses, pairing siblings together who were previously unaware of each other and serving as a bridge to reunite long lost family members. Conversely, this same process has torn apart relationships through the development of maternity and paternity tests, disclosing more unpleasant generational secrets. Not only is DNA just a personal identifier used to figure out scientific information about an individual, but this technology has reached back through history to redefine peoples genetic heritage through at-home DNA kits. All of this scientific innovation has not excluded ethical and statistical implications. The rise in genealogy has affected data that demographers use to measure population shifts and to monitor racial inequalities, and the level to which individual DNA profiles are being shared has brought up questions regarding consent and a person’s rights when it comes to balancing criminal justice efforts and privacy. Overall, the discovery of DNA has entirely changed the field of healthcare, criminology, and genealogy to name a few, rewriting history and unveiling a future of secrets hidden within one of the core elements of life itself.

  Throughout history, the delicate craft of forensic science has played a timeless role in upholding justice and unraveling secrets. The field has been exponentially advancing on its early origins in the thirteenth century, when crime specialists in Ancient India would use tactics such as filling a suspect’s mouth with dry rice to examine salivation in order to deduce innocence or guilt. A common method of reducing the identity of a criminal in the early 1900’s was eyewitness testimony. Oftentimes in the setting of a court trial, individuals tied closely with the events of a crime would describe their perspective and recount what they were able to visually observe about the incident. This depiction was usually crucial evidence in the conviction process. While the effects of this method was not entirely understood yet by the legal system, the commonplace belief in witnesses to accurately recall details about a crime was still ultimately harmful to the criminal justice system due to its strong tendency to relay inaccuracies. In a study done by the California Innocence Project, as many as one in four eyewitness identifications are wrong. This overbearing trust in eyewitnesses unintentionally led to a commonplace of wrongful convictions and misidentifications. Not only did this trend create a generally imprecise system of crime-solving, but black Americans were disproportionately affected. In the early 20th century racial inequalities were evident within the criminal justice system, with white individuals typically receiving lighter sentences, higher likelihoods of acquittal, and more favorable treatment in general- this oppression within the criminal justice system merely mirroring the trend of segregation across the United States within this same time period. African Americans and other minority groups were targeted at a higher rate due to systemic bias, arrested in cases of racial profiling, and convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. 

    Pre-DNA forensic science doesn’t only reflect racial inequalities, but can be used to illustrate class disparity commonplaces as well. Individuals with higher socioeconomic status were routinely shown to have easier access to legal representation, which gave them a much greater chance to receive favorable treatment. Meanwhile, those from lower class backgrounds that couldn’t afford quality legal representation were much more likely to face harsher sentences. This common bias wasn’t fixed until 1963, when the United States Supreme Court held that state courts were required to appoint attorneys to any defendants who could not afford legal representation on their own. Similarly, this same time period served as an uprising of American citizens desiring to secure racial equality and eliminate biases within governmental systems, commonly deemed as the Civil Rights Era marked by Freedom Rides, the 1963 Civil Rights Act, and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech.” While racial biases and class division was extremely prevalent throughout the twentieth century, which exacerbated the impact of unreliable eyewitness testimony and disproportionate legal representation, there was a general uptick in resistance against these commonplaces during the fifties and sixties. Despite these steps in the right direction, the criminal justice field was still far from its outside image of fair, just, and factual. 

    After centuries of a too-often inaccurate criminal justice system, the 1980s saw a revolutionary development in the field of forensic science with the application of DNA to crime. Firstly beginning to be utilized for this purpose in the United Kingdom, pioneered by the work of Sir Alec Jeffreys, the late twentieth century reflected a complete shift in criminal control methodology as this new science began to integrate with the legal system. DNA evidence was first used to secure a conviction in 1987 with the case of Colin Pitchfork, and ever since that turning point the field of DNA profiling saw a trend of rapid expansion. Around ten years after the first integration of DNA into criminal justice the United States passed the 1994 DNA Identification Act, which established the Combined DNA Identification System, otherwise known as CODIS. Secondly this act provided for the US National DNA Index System, which served as a comprehensive framework to regulate the collections and use of DNA evidence. DNA itself- or rather deoxyribonucleic acid- can be simply explained as a string of numbers that is used to identify an individual. Gathered from a saliva swab, a piece of hair, or a skin cell extracted carefully from a crime scene, this string of numbers is used by scientists to upload to a DNA database, where it is compared with DNA profiles from crime scenes. Law enforcement officials now routinely match DNA from crime scenes to DNA in offender databases. With this development forensic scientists across the world were rapidly implementing the uses of not only DNA, but the databases beginning to be built as well. When initially introduced most states required only serious violent offenders that were convicted of their crime to provide a DNA sample. Over the years legislators have grown to add robbers, burglars, and convicted felons. In present day America all states now require DNA from any convinced felon. As of right now, there are between thirteen and fifteen million DNA profiles within CODIS. The main purpose in this requirement is to provide new leads for crimes where law enforcement falls short. 

  This scientific methodology created a mass ripple effect that pervaded every aspect of the legal system. Firstly, criminal justice simply became exponentially more efficient. The core of this shift lies within DNA’s capacity to link crimes together through a singular defendant. By comparing DNA profiles from crime scenes to offender databases, investigations were accelerated in all aspects. This newfound efficiency not only saves time, but saves resources with a reduced strain on the already fatigued correctional system. The accuracy of convictions was significantly enhanced, as the risk of false accusations of wrongful sentencing was immediately diminished. Studies have shown that DNA evidence is ninety-nine percent effective, showcasing a stark contrast from eyewitness testimony and confessions. 

  Further evidence of the shift relies on the subsequent exoneration of criminals after the application of DNA technology. Companies like The Innocence Project began to revisit closed cases that had suspicious elements of flawed testimony and eyewitness evidence in order to re-examine the guilt of convicted individuals. DNA has served to verify alibi claims in order to exonerate individuals, meaning that a defendant can demonstrate conclusively that they were not present at a crime scene. Pre-trial DNA testing has been shown to prevent thousands of wrongful convictions already. For example, pre-trial dna testing has prevented the conviction of hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent rape suspects, mostly black men accused of raping white women. Post-trial DNA testing has led to the exoneration of thousands of wrongfully convicted individuals. Cold cases that have long remained unsolved were given a fresh chance at justice, offering closure to victims and their families. Furthermore, the impact of DNA technology reveals more than just who is guilty and who is not. This paradigm shift continues to reveal longstanding systemic flaws within old criminology methods such as lineups, eyewitness identification procedures, and confessions as more and more criminals are shown to be wrongfully convicted on the basis of these measures. Conclusively, the introduction of DNA evidence as a gold standard in criminal justice has raised questions about reliability of older methods, hastened an outdated and slow legal process, and began to spark broader conversations about evidence-based approaches and past convictions.

Built on the fingernail clippings, shreds of hair, and saliva, the power of deoxyribonucleic acid, as well as the further understanding and application of this molecule, has ultimately served as one of the most important discoveries of all time. Swiss chemist Friedrich Miescher was initially attempting to study the composition of white blood cells when he incidentally isolated a molecule from a cell nucleus. He defined this distinct molecule as DNA in the year eighteen sixty-nine, but it wasn’t until eight decades later for the true weight of this revolutionary discovery to be fully unveiled. This self-replicating material that carries genetic information is the instruction manual for life itself. Not only is simply grasping the concept of this molecule a scientific milestone, but it has rippled into almost every facet of modern existence. Through the process of DNA profiling, where a specific gene pattern is obtained from a person and stored in a database, the criminal justice system has been entirely revolutionized through fingerprint technology. Cold cases over decades old have been solved at the same time as victims of crime have been identified in order to bring peace and closure to affected families. The utilization of DNA has reduced strain on prison systems while paradoxically filling them with new convicts in an interesting dichotomy where both criminals have been caught at quicker and more accurate rates while thousands of the falsely accused have been exonerated. DNA has been able to unite families worldwide through genetic analyses, pairing siblings together who were previously unaware of each other and serving as a bridge to reunite long lost family members. Conversely, this same process has torn apart relationships through the development of maternity and paternity tests, disclosing more unpleasant generational secrets. Not only is DNA just a personal identifier used to figure out scientific information about an individual, but this technology has reached back through history to redefine peoples genetic heritage through at-home DNA kits. All of this scientific innovation has not excluded ethical and statistical implications. The rise in genealogy has affected data that demographers use to measure population shifts and to monitor racial inequalities, and the level to which individual DNA profiles are being shared has brought up questions regarding consent and a person’s rights when it comes to balancing criminal justice efforts and privacy. Overall, the discovery of DNA has entirely changed the field of healthcare, criminology, and genealogy to name a few, rewriting history and unveiling a future of secrets hidden within one of the core elements of life itself.

When reading the article “Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric: Towards a Transformation of Rhetorical Theory” written by Sonja K. Foss,  I quickly made a connection to my own life. The article artfully discusses a recent social trend in rhetorical work away from strict discourse, and towards a more inclusive environment within rhetorical theory that involves visual elements. 

Foss defines the concept of visual rhetoric as “A visual object or artifact and a perspective on the study of visual data.” Initially, I presumed that this article would be discussing paintings, analytic graphs, or drawings. Two-dimensional pieces. The further I read, the further I began to wonder- how does three-dimensional, real-life art fit into this analysis? 

I am a dancer, and while the idea of discussing dance- a physical practice- as “visual rhetoric” may seem flimsy and a bit too abstract, the more I read through the article the more I realized how much the shoe fit. When thinking about dance as a form of rhetorical discussion, I aim to focus less on stricter methods of movement such as Balanchine ballet or Fosse jazz where the body is trained to operate in a specific, uniform manner. I believe that the style of dance that mainly fits this perspective is the field of modern, expressive dance; which is a broad genre of dancing characterized by expressive, non-structured, free movement.  In dance groups around the country and throughout history, choreographed modern dances have been used to convey complex rhetorical ideas in a way that potentially couldn’t have been properly put into words. 

An aspect of the article that is particularly applicable to dance is the idea that the growing trend of visual rhetoric has been challenging and questioning the linguistic boundaries of the commonly used modern methods of rhetoric discourse. This notion is one of my favorite reasons as to why dance should be used more as a rhetorical device. In my opinion, a well choreographed and technically executed dance can communicate a thematic message just as well as an opinionated essay- and the magic lies within the fact that nobody in the audience has to speak the same language, or have a comprehensive education on the topic. 

While traditional methods of rhetorical discourse depend on the logos, pathos, and ethos of the speaker in order to convey a feeling to an audience, dance uses these same methods through body movement. Facial expression, posture, and dancer formation are all small pieces of the puzzle that correlate to the technical aspects of writing an essay or paragraph intended for rhetorical purposes. The article discusses how colors, lines, textures, and rhythms in a visual artifact allow a viewer to experience the intended emotion and interpretation of a piece. Dance is practically the same, except these two dimensional tactics are replaced by the flick of a hand, kick of a leg, or turn of a head when paired with a musical beat, made even more powerful due to its universality and inclusiveness. Anyone can dance, and anyone can interpret dance. 

In conclusion, I was riveted by the discussion of the use of visual art in the field of rhetorical theory which has been historically dominated by discourse. I was given a glimpse of a glorious future of rhetorical conversations, one that include film, photography, and potentially dancing. Not only is diversifying the methods of rhetoric exciting because it changes the way that we can now view social issues or discussion topics, but it changes who is able to be included in these conversations in general. Adding visual art, of any kind, always brings more voices to the table and allows for richer discussion, more productive discourse, and a combination of new perspectives.

HOOK:  To quote the famous Roman writer Petronius, “The dead outnumber the living.” Centuries later, American politician Richard Nixon upended this generally accepted fact by effectively raising the dead, and manipulating them into tactical tools to win the presidency. Instead of the literal dead, Nixon marshaled together a specific demographic of Americans to which he gave the name “the Silent Majority.” This group of people were the widespread, largely occurring, conservative blue-collar whites that despite being the physical majority, were only the minority of media attention. Consciously articulating a campaign strategy that attracted this middle ground of voters who didn’t participate in counterculture and didn’t contribute to public discourse, utilizing this cultivated fan base in order to win the presidency.  Ultimately, the specific demographic qualities of the commonplace of the routinely occurring, yet completely unheard, silent majority can be revealed through a deeper look into their historical uses. 

POINT 1: This phenomenon of the silent majority was similarly used in the year 2020 by president Donald Trump. Trump utilized the same strategy to manipulate non-college educated white men in rural and working class areas, which served as a large percentage of the silent majority demographic in the year 2020. In both cases, each president used the nation’s state of chaos, since they were both appealing to a country dealing with chaotic and violent protests at the time, as a way to portray the white house as a stable middle ground, ultimately for their own benefit.When analyzing these separate political manipulations of the same artifact, much can be revealed about the qualities of this silent majority, and why overtime they have reacted in the same ways.

Throughout this past week of performing as well as observing Civic Engagement Artifact Speeches, I have learned a lot about the art of public speaking. I instantly noticed within the first day of observing speeches that the volume and speed of how a person talks determines so much about how the content of their speech relays to the audience. While the content and deep meaning of a person’s speech may not fully hit me until I take a moment to process what they are saying, if the delivery of the speech is confident and well spoken I will automatically assume the points they are giving are valid.

 

The second realization I came to appeared when I practiced speaking my manuscript out loud for the first time. I tend to write in run-on sentences, and every essay I have ever written is consistently way too wordy. While I do have a preference towards these wordy sentences for essays, the first time I read my rough draft manuscript out loud I started laughing and had to stop myself half way through. Long and confusing sentences most definitely sound bad when spoken out loud, and a speech seems much more clear and effective when filled with shorter sentences. 

 

As for my own performance, I feel as if I could have definitely memorized more of my speech. I had an edited version of my manuscript with me while performing my speech that contained mostly all of the words. While I took the time to memorize my speech, I found myself checking for accuracy at way too many points throughout the performance. My manuscript was supposed to be a crutch in case  I needed it, but when I was faced with the anxiety and pressure of performing the speech I ended up simply reading off of it and doubting my ability to speak freely. 

In this week’s RCL blog, I aim to step back from my day-to-day interactions and analyze the communities I have seen here at Penn State on a broader scale. 

Month one has passed, and the abundance of friendship opportunities has slowed from an overwhelming stream of new faces, new friends, and new contacts in my phone to a slow trickle. Looking back on these few first weeks, I was able to observe several social trends in my quest to look deeper into the budding communities around campus. 

Day 2 at Penn State I instantly noticed how the East quad looked like some version of a Pennsylvania statewide track meet. Groups of ten to fifteen kids, all from the same high school, flocked together in clusters, passive-aggressively eyeing up their competition. It is only natural to lean back on the people that you know and trust when navigating the tricky waters of the first week of college, but I couldn’t help but notice that this common trend seemed to cause a ripple effect of unintentional harm. As I observed the large groups of high schoolers go out at night and eat together in the dining hall, I also observed the kids who came from out of state looking in envy. I even found myself looking in envy as well. 

I caught myself sitting in my lobby one day, doing my homework, and watching the large friend groups walk past on the sidewalks. Laughing, talking, skipping. I found myself creating a reality in my head that everyone at this school already knows each other, and already has their solidified group. I assumed that it’s probably time for me to just drop out, go to trade school, and move back in with my parents- abandoning the idea of ever finding college friends. 

The nature of communities around the school was that of a ship wreck. Those who had people from their past to cling onto used them like a lifeboat, whilst the people coming to college in hopes of making all new friends felt as if they were struggling to stay afloat by themselves. 

Luckily, this feeling began to fade by the second week as I detected a new era of friendships begin to form. The disintegration of the high school groups began to be apparent as the average size of friend groups spotted on campus dropped from 15 to 5. This is when I came to a second revolution about the communities here at PSU. 

Each day it seemed as if I had been making an overwhelming number of friends, and I thought I’d never be able to process these quick and hasty interactions of girls I traded numbers with on the white loop, or in line at Canyon Pizza, and turn them into genuine friendships. I always was left wondering whether the people I talked to would end up being my future friend, or if they would just turn into another nameless face in the student section sea of blue and white. I searched for a way to make sense of the constant influx and automatic organization of people into categories such as “potential new best friend” or into “girl I’ll smile at in the hallway” 0r even, “someone I’ll have to reintroduce myself too.”

This is when I began to notice the fly trap nature of college friends.

The people that make an effort, initiate plans, and are not ashamed to be on the active search for friendships, seem to stick like flies to my trap. Meanwhile, the people who don’t remember my name, or don’t end up following through plans, often flake away and drift off into the abyss. 

After the first two weeks, I am proud to say I have a pretty good collection of flies by my side.

No longer are the majority of people stuck on a lifeboat with the people they have known since high school, and no longer am I drowning by myself. I am carefully wading through the waters of forming connections and making friends, facing the trials and tribulations of freshman year, and focusing on keeping my head above water. 

Revised:

In the months preceding the 2020 election the small town of Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania- also known as “The Bubble” by most of the residents due to the exclusive “Keeping Up With The Joneses” nature- was split like the red sea. A deep ideological divide was visibly obvious as every car was marked with political affiliation stickers, lawns decorated with divisive campaign signs,  and the community Facebook page was a constant stream of aggressive and opinionated posts. 

Fox Chapel was a hotspot for civic engagement and political participation, excluding- of course- any type of productive discourse, legitimate campaign work, or any general motion for change besides just loudly and publicly asserting political opinions. The strict adherence to political correctness kept things civil, but hushed whispers and lingering stares over differing opinions caused tension that spoke volumes.  

This common problem of surface level social media activism- if it can even be called activism- can be symbolized by a particularly bold political statement made in October of 2020. A group of Fox Chapel high schoolers banded together to buy Donald Trump’s campaign signs in bulk, and then proceeded to drive around the neighborhood and physically surround every Joe Biden sign with twenty Trump signs. 

While most of the victims of this outspoken act of vandalism simply removed the merchandise and threw everything in the dumpster, there was so much left unsaid after all the signs had been plucked from the grass. 

 This new era of politics, marked by performative activism and fueled by social media, is completely turning upside down the commonplace of the American governmental system. This shift away from transparency in favor of performance and outrage in the political realm, risks undermining real solutions and effective change to pressing social issues.

The historical context of politics at the time plays a large role in analyzing this behavior. The year twenty-twenty was an explosion of significant social events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the impeachment of the president. These crucial events were so pervasive into everyday life that high schoolers’ attention was caught, and a movement of interest and seeking of knowledge began to become noticeable in political arenas. While involving younger audiences in politics is incredibly beneficial and positive, it is important to note that the yard sign statements were deviant from this productivity. 

The yard signs, as well as the way they were posted on social media with virtually no useful information or even a description to go along with the image (despite being edited to perfection with a filter) reflected an ingenuine and aggressive attempt at showcasing political party superiority, void of any productivity or substance. This specific trend grew as more and more teenagers in my area became involved in the political scene, the more it seemed as if they were doing so due to social pressures and to “hop on the bandwagon” instead of truly caring about the issues at hand. 

This lack of knowledge diluted the content of most of the local activism in my area – which was paradoxical with the serious political issues at hand. While activism efforts historically have been those of brave feats of boldly and confidently standing up for the unheard, this commonplace had been replaced by people posting in order to showcase moral superiority, or simply because they felt guilty if they didn’t address a topic. 

When looking outside“The Bubble” and into the general political climate of the United States, I realized that this picket sign harassment was a fairly accurate representation of the upheaval of norms relating to presidential candidacy, governmental customs, and civic engagement in general. Members of congress, senators, and even presidential candidates turned to social media sites in larger volumes than ever seen before in order to convey information to their constituencies. Coincidentally, at this time there was the largest partisan gap in approval for any president in the modern era of polling. Politicians strayed away from focusing on legislative topics solely but became focused on their popularity. Inflammatory language, vulgar rhetoric, and outspokenness was coming from members of congress, senators, and presidential candidates to a degree never seen before. Clearly this virus of sensationalizing politicians and their legislative agenda in order to wage a war between the right and the left seemed to be working, and spreading from the national government right down into the local government of Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania. 

Draft:

In the months preceding the 2020 election the small town of Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania- also known as “The Bubble” by most of the residents due to the exclusive “Keeping Up With The Joneses” nature- was split like the red sea. A deep ideological divide was visibly obvious as every car was marked with political affiliation stickers, lawns decorated with divisive campaign signs,  and the community Facebook page was a constant stream of aggressive and opinionated posts. Fox Chapel was a hotspot for civic engagement and political participation, excluding- of course- any type of productive discourse, legitimate campaign work, or any general motion for change besides just loudly and publicly asserting political opinions. A strange dichotomy was sparked from the months of nonstop cause for political conversation and controversy during twenty-twenty. Most community members adhered to using political correctness, deterring any aggressive discussions or confrontations in the name of keeping relationships civil. However, the hushed whispers, lingering stares, and consistent gossip were far more noticeable and divisive. This common problem of surface level social media activism- if it can even be called activism- can be symbolized by a particularly bold political statement made in October of 2020. A group of Fox Chapel high schoolers banded together to buy Donald Trump’s campaign signs in bulk, and then proceeded to drive around the neighborhood and physically surround every Joe Biden sign with twenty Trump signs. 

While most of the victims of this outspoken act of vandalism simply became increasingly stubborn in their world view, there was so much left unsaid after all the signs had been plucked from the grass. 

 

 This new era of politics, marked by performative activism and fueled by the fire of social media, is completely turning upside down the commonplace of the American governmental system. This straying from honesty, political correctness, and factual information, all whilst moving towards treating legislation and social matters as performance, and who can be the most outrageous, is eventually going to push away any real solutions or effectiveness within American politics. 

 

The historical context of politics at the time plays a large role in analyzing this behavior. The year twenty-twenty was an explosion of significant social events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the impeachment of the president. Each of these events caused an uprising in partisan participation and general civic engagement. These crucial events were so pervasive into everyday life that high schoolers’ attention was caught, and a movement of interest and seeking of knowledge began to become noticeable in political arenas. This noticeable shift in interest, combined with modern day technology and social media- which makes it easy to share your political opinion with the world in one click- it makes sense why social media became a breeding ground for young activists to speak their minds. While involving younger audiences in politics is incredibly beneficial and positive, it is important to note that the yard sign statements were deviant from this productivity. 

 

The yard signs, as well as the way they were posted on social media with virtually no useful information or even a description to go along with the image (that was, of course, edited to perfection with a filter in order to match the rest of the vandalists social media page) reflected an ingenuine and aggressive attempt at showcasing political party superiority, void of any productivity or substance. This specific trend grew as more and more teenagers in my area became involved in the political scene, the more it seemed as if they were doing so due to social pressures and to “hop on the bandwagon” instead of truly caring about the issues at hand. 

 

This lack of knowledge diluted the content of most of the local activism in my area – which was paradoxical with the serious political issues at hand. While activism efforts historically have been those of brave feats of boldly and confidently standing up for the unheard, this commonplace had been replaced by people posting in order to showcase moral superiority, or simply because they felt guilty if they didn’t address a topic. These questions caused me to look outside of “The Bubble” and into the general political climate of the United States, which led to the realization that this picket sign harassment was a fairly accurate representation of the upheaval of norms relating to presidential candidacy, governmental customs, and civic engagement in general. Members of congress, senators, and even (especially) presidential candidates turned to social media sites in larger volumes than ever seen before in order to convey information to their constituencies. Coincidentally, at this time there was the largest partisan gap in approval for any president in the modern era of polling. Politicians, similar to the vandalists in my neighborhood, strayed away from focusing on legislative topics solely, but became focused on their popularity. Inflammatory language, vulgar rhetoric, and outspokenness was coming from members of congress, senators, and presidential candidates to a degree never seen before. Clearly this virus of sensationalizing politicians and their legislative agenda in order to wage a war between the right and the left seemed to be working, and spreading from the national government right down into the local government of Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania. 

 

In the months preceding the 2020 election the small town of Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania- also known as “The Bubble” by most of the residents due to the exclusive “Keeping Up With The Joneses” nature- was split like the Red Sea. 

A deep ideological divide was visibly obvious as every car was marked with political affiliation stickers and the community Facebook page was a constant stream of aggressive and opinionated posts. 

Fox Chapel was a hotspot for civic engagement and political participation, excluding- of course- any type of productive discourse, legitimate campaign work, or any general motion for change besides just loudly and publicly asserting political opinions. 

This common problem of surface level social media activism- if it can even be called activism- can be symbolized by a particularly bold political statement made in October of 2020. 

A group of Fox Chapel high schoolers banded together to buy Donald Trump’s campaign signs in bulk, and then proceeded to drive around the neighborhood and physically surround every Joe Biden sign with twenty Trump signs. 

While everything was quickly removed and thrown out, there was so much left unsaid after all the signs had been plucked from the grass. 

How did this ideology form so strongly within these high school kids? How did it manifest itself into this non-confrontational yet attention seeking act of protest? 

These questions caused me to look outside of “The Bubble” and into the general political climate of the United States. In my speech I plan on examining the emergence of a new era of civic engagement sparked by the 202o election- this era defined by a devolution of political correctness and upended customs of governmental behavior on national and local levels, all while including social media as an instigator of this destruction.

In the Keywords chapter “Trust” an important question was proposed. 

When speaking to an audience, how do you get them to believe what you’re saying?

In the article, the answer to this question was to use Aristotle’s tactics of rhetoric- logos, pathos, and ethos; strategic writing and speaking practices that are designed to evoke emotion, trust, and connection in an audience. When applying this assessment to my own life, I reflected on the use of pathos- the rhetorical use of emotion- in one particularly well-done speech during my high school graduation. 

My graduation ceremony experience was an overwhelming day of pent up expectations, stress, and way too many flash pictures. Looking around me at the sea of my peers dressed in their monochromatic graduation gowns, and then looking upwards to see all of their respective family members peering down from the seating above, I vividly recall the increasing pressure to take in every second of this once-in-a-lifetime moment. The loud orchestral music playing and the bead of sweat dripping from my graduation cap all caused me to feel disoriented.

The school shuffled through its initial few speakers, a few of those including the superintendent, a couple school board members, and the principal. Despite all of these speeches being well written, and filled with endearing words of congratulations- I still struggled to connect, despite my efforts to feel sentimental. As soon as Lawrence Liu, the designated class speaker, stood up to the podium- my mood instantly changed due to his impactful use of pathos techniques off the bat. 

In the Keywords article, a factor of effective pathos includes the assessment of an audience. A speaker must understand the emotional state of its audience members, and then analyze how to convey their words in a manner that appeals to this general mood. As a student, Lawrence clearly realized that his peers were getting slightly tired of the recycled and generic speeches, and he approached the microphone with a large smile, kickstarting his speech with hilarious shoutouts to notorious members of our graduating class, bringing initial humor and lightheartedness to his delivery. 

A second key takeaway from “Trust” was that audience members are much more likely to connect to a speaker’s emotion if they genuinely believe the speaker feels that emotion as well. Lawrence quickly established a deep emotional connection with the audience after his few funny opening lines. Continuing with his theme of name dropping well known people around the district, Lawrence began to tear up as he thoughtfully delivered thank-yous to teachers who had an impact on him. Seeing the genuine emotion in Lawrence’s face, paired with his slow and meaningful delivery of his appreciative words, brought me to reality. Especially after Lawrence emphatically praised the AP Government teacher who had helped so many students, including myself, during a stressful senior year- I found myself crying just as much as him. Looking around the audience, I was awestruck to see both football players and chess team champions all masking teary eyes.

In conclusion, through the use of appropriately assessing an audience’s emotions, and then artfully responding in an appealing way, Lawrence was able to captivate an audience of shifty and emotional teens, and truly connect with them. I think I can speak for every senior in the audience- Lawrence’s speech was unforgettable. His well tailored delivery impacted every student in the audience, and was the best example of pathos I had ever encountered.