I’m working on a political science case study and need support to help me understand better.
We have come to the end of our third section, and we now have the opportunity to reflect on our course material and connect it to contemporary examples of political rhetoric. For our third case study, we will examine how social movements, government leaders, and corporations employ rhetoric to increase their leverage in on-going political disputes.
We will be using controversy surrounding the Georgia Senate Bill 202 as our case our third case study. Specific artifacts include public statements about SB 202 from Stacey Abrams, GA Governor Brian Kemp, and representatives of the Coca-Cola Corporation. Read the documents and watch the two videos posted on Canvas in Announcements/Artifacts for Case Study # 3. Then, answer the questions below. There is no minimum length, just make sure to provide a thorough answer. When you provide an example, it has to be unique, so dont merely reuse an example from the Anderson reading.
- What is the rhetorical context for this controversy? Identify at least two examples relevant rhetorical context.
What are some things happening at the time or in the videos that help you determine the rhetorical context? Make sure you reference the context for each speaker/artifact. Your examples can be aspects of the context generally, or one of the elements of Bitzers rhetorical situation exigence, constraint, and/or audience.
- How is language being used to shape the audiences view of events? Identify at least one specific example of language from the comments of Abrams and Kemp.
How is language (specifically metaphor) being used to negotiate values, establish a view of the situation, and/or recommend a course of action?
- How did Coca-Cola Corporation negotiate the risks and rewards of issuing public statements about SB 202?
Your answer should identify at least two factors raised in the Callander (Links to an external site.) and/or Diermier (Links to an external site.) readings that corporations need to consider when deciding whether and/or how to engage in political controversies.
- Evaluate the quality:
Choose either Abrams, Kemp, or Coca-Cola, and based on your answers to questions 1-3, make an initial evaluation of the quality of their rhetoric. Was this an effective response to the rhetorical context? Why or why not? Your answer should take into account the specific motives of the actor you chose.
How to Get the Most Out of This Assignment:
- Be specific: Remember, the point of the assignment isnt just to watch the videos. Rather, you should look for what specific, unique observations you can make using course readings. What might Burke, Nichols, Weaver, Parrish, Bitzer, Black, Callander, or Diermier say about these texts (Located in PDF attached)? Provide specific examples from the case study articles and videos, and from the reading.
- Be engaged in class: Upload your answers to the case study to Canvas by 11:55 pm on May 6th.
- Consider grading criteria: You will be evaluated on whether you answer each question completely, the specificity of your examples from the videos, the specificity of your reference to course materials, and the correctness of your application to course material. You will receive 25 points for responding to each question
- Watch Stacey Abrams calls new the SB 202 Jim Crow in a suit and tie (7:24 long): (Links to an external site.)
- Watch Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) and Attorney General, Christopher Carr (R-GA) defend SB 202 after Major League Baseball announced the 2021 All-Star Game would no longer be taking place in metro Atlanta (start at 15:45; end at 24:33): https://youtu.be/sd3ivSwpM5c (Links to an external site.)Watch the CEO of Coca-Cola clarify his company’s position on SB 202: https://twitter.com/cnbcnow/status/1377325405468823560?s=21
- Read the initial public statement about SB 202 from Coca-Cola Corporation (below):
“Voting is a foundational right in America, and we will continue to work to advance voting rights and access in Georgia and across the country. We support efforts by the Metro Atlanta Chamber and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce to help facilitate a balanced approach to the elections bills that have been introduced in the Georgia Legislature this session. The ultimate goal should be fair, secure elections where access to voting is broad-based and inclusive.”