Public argument action research and the learning curve of new social movements.

• Author: Mitchell, Gordon R.

Some rhetoricians call for a redoubled emphasis on the public argument dimensions of scholarly inquiry, recommending an "activist turn" in criticism (Andersen, 1993). The various trajectories of such a path range from pursuit of "opportunities for dialogue with alternative audiences" (Hollihan, 1994, p. 233), to "taking our models and signifiers off the blackboard" (Farrell, 1993, p. 156), to "enter[ing] the fray outside the Ivory Tower" (Andersen, 1993, p. 249).

Eschewing the "view from nowhere" (Nagel, 1986) epistemological standpoint, these scholars advocate criticism that reaches beyond specialized academic audiences to engage publics and contribute to "broader social dialogues" (Hollihan, 1994, p. 234; see also Sholle, 1994; Shotter, 1995). An illuminating example of this mode of intellectual engagement is the work of media critic Kembrew McLeod. In addition to publishing authoritative commentary on intellectual property law in scholarly outlets (McLeod, 2001, 2002, 2004b), McLeod is adept at fashioning parallel arguments for circulation in wider public spheres of deliberation. Two recent interventions by this University of Iowa professor of communication studies include his successful attempt to secure an official U.S. trademark of the phrase "freedom of expression" (McLeod, 2003a, 2003b) and his participation in "Grey Tuesday," an online "day of civil disobedience" organized to resist the "music industry's copyright cartel" (Werde, 2004). McLeod's oeuvre warrants further consideration, since this mode of scholarship sheds light on a persistent theoretical problem facing rhetorical study of social movements--the difficulty in locating essentially rhetorical features of movement activity.

David Zarefsky identifies "theoretical" work in social movement studies as scholar ship where "the scholar seeks to make generalizable claims about patterns of persuasion characteristic of social movements as a class" (1980, p. 245; see also Riches & Sillars, 1980). This theoretical approach aims to establish characteristics of a distinctive rhetorical genre of social movement rhetoric (see Griffin, 1952; Cathcart, 1972; and Simons, Mechling & Scheier, 1984). According to Zarefsky (1980), many efforts fall short of establishing a unique genre of social movement rhetoric, because they fail to isolate essential rhetorical differences that distinguish social movements from other types of collective communicative action such as top-down government propaganda or institutional public relations campaigns (Warnick, 1977; Simons, 1991). This objection presents a serious challenge to those social movement scholars who view the issue of rhetorical uniqueness as a sort of litmus test that determines rhetoric's analytical utility (Cathcart, 1972). However, behind this "where is the rhetoric in social movements" litmus test, there lurks a different, and possibly timelier question of contemporary salience: where is the social movement in rhetorical criticism?

Traditionally, "historical" criticisms of social movements in the field of communication have largely deferred this question (see e.g. Andrews, 1973; Lucas, 1976). These efforts have sought to add depth to historical accounts of social change by illuminating retrospectively the rhetorical dimensions of past movement activity. As purely academic exercises, such work has played out on a plane removed from the level of social movement mobilization. In contrast, action research seeks to connect scholarship directly to ongoing struggles, opening up extra-academic channels for intervention into live arenas of public argument (Kemmis, 1993).

While this action research process can be enriched by appropriation of select theoretical terms and concepts developed previously in rhetorical work on social movements, it also stands to gain from studies in other fields that have already jumped the walls of the Ivory Tower. This essay uses such inter-field cross-fertilization to pursue a method for study of social movements that highlights reflexivity and engagement with actors beyond academic peer audiences. Part one discusses the importance of Robert Cathcart's theory of "dialectical enjoinment" and Richard Gregg's theory of the "ego-function" of protest rhetoric. Alain Touraine's "action sociology" is considered as a theoretical exemplar for rhetorical action research in part two. Part three's focus the pedagogical mechanisms of "new social movement" mobilization sets up the final section's closing reflections on how the similar learning curves of action research and new social movement mobilization mark promising routes of intellectual and political work.

DIALECTICAL ENJOINMENT, COUNTER-RHETORIC AND THE EGO-FUNCTION OF COLLECTIVE PROTEST

Social movement activists make arguments that call for change in the established order. Frequently, activists seek to publicize such arguments in order to expand the terrain of discourse. With movements trading on the currency of public argument in this fashion, it is illuminating to view social movement protest activity through the lens of public argument scholarship. This is not a new insight--the promise of a dialogically interactive approach to the study of social movements was a major theme voiced in early calls to establish this line of research in the field of communication.

When Griffin (1952) called for heightened attention to social movements as rhetorical phenomena, he expanded fruitfully the field of rhetorical criticism beyond its single text, public address orientation and sparked a host of new critical possibilities (Henry & Jensen, 1991). Some of these possibilities were realized in the work on social movements that immediately followed in Griffin's wake. But by the mid-1980s, skeptics contended that rhetorical study of social movements was bogged down in definitional questions, with the painstaking search for a unique genre of rhetoric called "social movement protest" crowding out more useful theoretical work (see Zarefsky, 1980).

However, this skepticism should not obscure the fact that these early works contain valuable insight that does not deserve to be thrown out with the genre bathwater. For example, Cathcart's concepts of "dialectical enjoinment" and "counter rhetoric" provide useful accounts of the symbolic dimension of social movement activity, and Gregg's explanation of the identity constitutive function of movement rhetoric and establishment counter-rhetoric give illuminating perspectives on the interplay between institutional politics and identity formation in social movement protest. By considering each of these concepts in more detail, it is possible to retrieve tools from early rhetorical theory that can productively inform contemporary efforts to study social movements using an action research method.

Cathcart suggests that it is not possible to evaluate effectively social movements outside the context of their "dialectical enjoinment" with establishment interlocutors. The element that makes a social movement, according to Cathcart, is the establishment's "reciprocating act" in providing a response to the movement's symbolic challenge to the existing order. Through analysis of the abolition and women's suffrage movements, Cathcart (1972, pp. 87-88) illustrates how the dialectical interplay between movement and establishment is the rhetorical sine qua non of social movement activity. This approach highlights the fact that social movement discourse is not a unitary textual phenomenon, but is instead an inter-textual dynamic emerging out of confrontations similar to what G. Thomas Goodnight (1991) calls "public controversies." Goodnight's theory of controversy lends analytical depth to Cathcart's notion of dialectical enjoinment. According to Goodnight (1991, p. 5), controversy develops when interlocutors engage in argumentation over "the taken for granted relationships between communication and reasoning.... When unspoken rules and tacit presumptions are put up for discussion through clashes among members of institutions, interest groups, fields, communities, and publics, there are new opportunities and obligations to learn, to decide, and to argue." The moments of controversy embedded in movement-establishment dialectical enjoinments may indeed yield rich arrays of communicative phenomena for rhetorical critique.

Consider "Grey Tuesday," a day of "coordinated civil disobedience" organized in cyberspace. On 24 February 2004, over 150 Internet website hosts made available, for free downloading, copies of a music recording entitled The Grey Album. Artist DJ Danger Mouse created the The Grey Album by mixing together tracks from two original recordings--The Beatles' The White Album and Jay-Z's The Black Album. Critics landed The Grey Album as "an ingenious hip-hop record that sounds oddly ahead of its time" (Gitlin, 2004) and the "most creatively captivating album of the year" (Graham, 2004). EMI executives disagreed. They sought to squelch distribution of The Grey Album on the grounds that such circulation infringed on their copyright ownership of the Beatles' rhythm tracks.

McLeod hosts (www.kembrew.com), one of the websites that participated in the Grey Tuesday protest. During that protest, thousands of Internet surfers downloaded electronic copies of The Grey Album. Shortly thereafter, EMI's lawyers served McLeod a letter demanding that he "cease and desist from the actual of intended distribution, reproduction, public performance or other exploitation of The Grey Album" (Jensen, 2004). Here was a concrete example of "dialectical enjoinment."

McLeod joined a collective protest and used the establishment's reply to leverage his own public argument. His response to EMI's cease and desist order (McLeod, 2004a) illustrated how Cathcart's notion of dialectical enjoinment and Goodnight's theory of public controversy illuminate the role of public argumentation in social movement protest. McLeod capitalized on the...