Everyone at Penn State is familiar with the current scandal involving accusations of sexual abuse against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. An article on CNN's homepage a few days ago offered a new perspective, a rhetorical perspective, on the situation. The article, titled "Words Matter in Penn State Perjury Case" emphasized the importance of word choice in how McQueary conveyed what he witnessed to his superiors, and how those officials conveyed the situation to their superiors. I recommend reading at least the first third of the article before you read the rest of this post.
McQueary's reports to his superiors qualify as rhetoric because the solution to the problem could only come about through discourse. McQueary felt something was wrong about the situation he saw, and knew something had to happen. The only way for the sexual abuse (the exigence) to be properly addressed/resolved was by reporting it (the rhetoric) to the proper authorities.
The CNN article states that "Euphemism and squeamishness over certain sexually explicit words and the emotions they conjure played a role in weakening the impact of McQueary's story." I think this brings up a vitally important aspect of rhetoric: the careful use of vocabulary. The article continues, "'Sodomy, rape and anal intercourse are not easy words for men, especially jocks, to verbalize, and they may become particularly reluctant when they are speaking to authority figures... Being uncomfortable with the subject matter could have led all men involved to minimize the Sandusky mess and avoid confronting it head on.'"
Word choice in rhetoric can affect not only the clarity of one's message, but also an argument's appeal to the listener through pathos. If McQueary's message had not been watered down to "horsing around," and had been correctly conveyed as rape, perhaps his audience would have been more emotionally affected and more likely to go to the police, or insist that others do so. Who knows how the situation would have been different.
This is a good choice for the RCL Blog, and it is true; the connotation of words is just as important as the denotation, and the article brings up a good point that the use of weak diction could have been a reason for this case being under wraps for so long. It certainly goes to show that a diverse vocabulary is an important thing to have in real-world situations.
ReplyDeleteImportant information usually gets distorted in cases like this, so no one knows the true story. I wonder if the police had recorded his first testament. It's always better to record information for future reference so that authorities will know if information has been changed. McQueary was either too embarrassed or too forgetful. Either information should have being recorded and stores
ReplyDeleteI think that you made a very good point. It was difficult for me to read those words, I couldn't imagine having to be the first person to say them out loud. And also, I agree that for guys it's even harder to say something like that because it's almost as if they are giving up their masculinity and saying that things like that can happen to them too. Overall, I think this was a very good breakdown of the rhetoric in the situation and it makes you think that maybe it could have been different.
ReplyDelete