Performativity & Ethos

Is “invented ethos” similar to performativity—how one performs one’s role specific to environment and ideology that encompasses principles of behavior (in the private vs. domestic sphere), which then connotes a specific (and constructed) meaning? Judith Butler describes the idea of performativity as a “social reality” that is composed "through language, gesture, and all manner of symbolic social sign" (from Performative 270). In other words, we “perform” our duties (I could say roles) as, say the husband/wife binary based upon our cultural, historical, and social values—“the moral practices in which [we are] habitually engaged” (Crowley & Hawhee 198). Our character is “invented” not only by what we say, but also by what we do. As one who is interested in investigating the idea of social performance, I am fascinated by how we are able to switch gears, to be able to “perform” in a professional work environment versus our private, domestic sphere where we may act differently. I would liken a “situated ethos,” to the pattern of the “public” performance—who we “appear” to be on a regular basis. Like Dr. Kearney mentioned at the beginning of the class, “everything is rhetoric.” The way we dress, the way we speak to each other in written form (the blog), in class (more formally), in work (formal) and to friends (less formal). A situated ethos, I think, is what we represent to others and it is an intentional process. Everything we do, then, becomes synonymous with who we are as individuals. I’ll not get into identity construction, but Butler also argues that identity is constructed upon the ideology of power—that in fact the idea of the “private” and “public” sphere is even mitigated by social conventions which uphold an oppressive system of norms—“juridicial systems of power [which] produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent” (or misrepresent) (from Gender Trouble 2). So on the subject of “ethos,” I guess what I’m saying is that I think one’s ethos has everything to do with how one performs—what one does (in words, in body language, dress, etc.).
(Side note: I’m studying Judith Butler’s theoretical arguments for gender performance for my thesis research, and let me tell you—her research is beyond difficult to comprehend!)

I wanted to quickly address Erin’s questions in her blog (I feel like I’m always commenting on her blog! )

How then do we view sarcasm or satire in today’s society? How have shows such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report gained so much momentum if the character of the speaker or rhetor is falsely presented? Essentially, their fame must come down to knowing their audience and to catering to that particular audience.
I would say that the success of shows that include sarcasm and satire probably has something to do with the way the information is presented. The pretense of satire is already available to any viewer; Jon Stewart, while he is known to be quite an intelligent political satirist, is also known for his comedic appearances. He has established an identity first as a “funny man,” and second as a man who talks politics. Thus, Stewart’s character is only partially reliable as a political analyst and more “credible” as one who plays the role of a political satirist. Secondly, both Colbert and Stewart “influence distance” between themselves and their audiences (C & H 214). They want their audiences to connect with them, therefore, they do not “remain as neutral as possible”; they express their approval and/or disapproval of certain issues or individuals so that they may close the distance between themselves and their audiences (214). I would hope that the invented ethos of these men would be able to lead an audience member to not take either of them too seriously. It can be said that either of their shows point to blatant flaws within either the Democratic or Republican parties, yet the sensationalized manner in which these “flaws” are brought to light produces the effect of humor and sarcasm. I think that their “momentum,” as Erin suggests, is carried by the audience’s desire to depart from a traditional news format. This implies the possibility of a population of viewers who like to take their coffee (politics) with a little sugar (humor). I guess the question of rhetor credibility can be woven into this analysis of their shows in that either TV host will be more/less credible based upon the audience member viewing the show. The funny thing is about both shows is that, I think, they are both liberal yet one poses as a having a Conservative platform (which, to me, makes Colbert’s show infinitely ridiculous/funny). However, if you do not understand this premise, you may take Colbert’s show more seriously than even he intends. Yes—catering to a particular audience, then, makes either of them more or less successful.