For those of you who were wanting some comment on the Simpson trial, he's a whole string of it, courtesy of our colleagues over on H-RHETOR. ========== Forwarded message: Kirt Wilson, Northwestern University <[log in to unmask]> Hello, No doubt most of us are weary of the Simpson saga; however, the verdict of yesterday raises too many rhetorical questions to be ignored. Reading the NY Times this morning, I was fascinated by the many and varied explanations for the verdict. It seems as though everyone is searching for meaning and creating, through language, explanative motives. The situation is compounded, no doubt, by the jury's initial decision to keep its reasoning private. (Now there's an interesting rhetorical choice). Several thoughts have struck me, and I would be interested in the perspectives of others. Whether created by the media or "natural" within the polis--as if it were possible to distinguish one from the other (situation from the mediated creation of situation)--most people are talking about this verdict through polarizations (why?). There are three ratios that seem to dominate public discussion. 1) By far, to my reading, the lead ratio is about race (i.e. black - white). In this ratio, employed both by African Americans and Anglo-Americans, justice or injustice is determined by concerns that transcend the evidence. For what seems like a majority of African Americans "its about racism." As John Thomas was quoted in the NYTimes, "Today, racism took a solid blow" (A12). Although less vocal--or at least less direct--a negative interpretation voiced by Anglo-Americans involves questions like: Did Cochran play the race card, and was the jury swayed by "emotion" rather than "reason" (another revealing ratio)? 2) A second ratio that is not as loud but which may grow again involves the issue of sexual abuse and violence (i.e. female-male). In this ratio, attributed by the media to women primarily, judgments about whether justice prevailed tend toward concerns that are again not particular. This ratio perceives the verdict as problematic because it sends the wrong signal to society in general and men specifically. As Ms. Shaw put it, "All the husbands can go and beat their wives now" (A13). 3) The third major ratio to emerge in the early moments of this public interaction involves economic inequity (i.e. poor - rich). Within this ratio, discussed again by many, justice or injustice is linked to the atemporal truth that power and influence are tied to monetary resources. As the cynical Mr. Smith declared, "Now O.J.'s really going to get rich." (A13). There are several dimensions of this discourse that I find interesting, but this post is long already so I'll wrap it up with one final comment. What does this drama say about rhetorical practice in America today? What I find especially striking is that in each of these ratios public discussion--or at least this mediated form of discussion--has moved well beyond the case to the arena of social norms, values, and assumptions. Perhaps this is instructive. The O.J. Simpson trial, despite or perhaps because of its sensationalism, may represent the type of rhetorical praxis that dominates contemporary society. How do you read this rhetoric? Kirt Wilson Northwestern University [log in to unmask] ------------------------------