Here is my article summary... so sorry... I used all my semester sheets without realizing it:
Gallagher, Victoria J. “Memory as Social Agent: Cultural Projection and Generic Form in Civil Rights Memorials.” New Approaches to Rhetoric. Eds. Patricia A. Sullivan and Steven R. Goldzwig. London: SAGE, 2004. 149-171. Print.
• Many rhetoric scholars will argue that there is no rhetorical point in studying memorials or any other visual or artistic object. However, Gallagher’s memorial study is just as rhetorical as that of a scholarly article on a speech or novel. According to rhetoric and composition professors, Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee, in their book, Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students, “An ancient teacher of rhetoric named Aristotle defined rhetoric as the power of finding the available arguments suited to a given situation” (Crowley and Hawhee 1). Therefore, if rhetoricians still believe in this stance, Gallagher’s article should be acknowledged as a rhetorical text since she is providing suitable proofs to a particular issue.
• Not only is Gallagher providing ample examples and countering other arguments in this piece, but she is creating “a rhetorical situation” (Crowley and Hawhee 22). A rhetorical situation is important to scholars because it identifies a specific position that needs to be further addressed. According to Crowley and Hawhee, “their [ancient scholars] study [of rhetoric] was preparation for a life of active citizenship” (22). This belief in knowledgeable inhabitants has not changed and it is this notion of education and civic activism that first inspires
• Ethos and Pathos play large roles in this article
• This new field of rhetorical study that Gallagher’s article is championing for is that of visual rhetoric. Crowley and Hawhee define “‘visual rhetoric,’ [as] a branch of rhetorical studies that considers all aspects of the visual-from the persuasive force of images to words and how they function as images” (Crowley and Hawhee 419). In her article, Gallagher writes that “a critic must also analyze the form, substance, and context of artifacts. In terms of museums and memorials, this means paying particular attention to the material nature of the artifacts” (qtd. in Sullivan and Goldzwig 156). In this statement, Gallagher is arguing that monuments must be fully studied since everything from its construction materials, to its lighting features and display either heighten a visitor’s awareness of the issue at hand or not. In other words, the memorials medium, lighting and location can also provide an individual with either a positive or negative feeling or outcome. Gallagher states that “unlike speeches or written texts, memorials ‘remain in our perceptual fields as long as we are nearby. They do not fall silent . . . nor are they put away’” (qtd. in Sullivan and Goldzwig 156). Thus, Gallagher argues that monuments are continuous rhetorical situations that need to be studied. She believes that the monuments’ contents will be regularly discussed and interpreted by numerous and diverse rhetors whose opinions will reflect the kairos at the time of their presentation or article. Crowley and Hawhee define kairos as an “exact or critical time, season, opportunity” and thus “kairos is not about duration but rather about a certain kind of time” (Crowley and Hawhee 45).
