
GOADED, IN THE SPIRIT OF HIERARCHY: EXIGENCE, AUDIENCE AND THE MACLEAN’S UNIVERSITY RANKINGS A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Rhetoric and Organizational Communication University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon By Janelle Hutchinson Copyright, Janelle Hutchinson, September 2011. All Rights Reserved PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. DISCLAIMER Reference in this thesis to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by the University of Saskatchewan. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not state or reflect those of the University of Saskatchewan, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Dean College of Graduate Studies and Research University of Saskatchewan 107 Administration Place Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A2 Canada ABSTRACT A rhetorical analysis, this thesis applies a neo-aristotelian framework to an examination of the speaker, audience and messages relationships encompassed within the Maclean’s University Rankings, a series of annual news reports which provide a ranking of Canadian universities based on a series of variables. As this analysis reveals, the Maclean’s University Rankings function ostensibly as a public discourse both informational and scientific in its statistical presentation, but beneath this gloss is a subtle promotion and reinforcement of a perception that universities are not properly accountable to the Canadian public and deserve to be publicly graded. The analysis dedicates a chapter to each of three rhetorical theories: Ernest Bohrmann‟s Fantasy Theme Criticism, Daniel Boorstin‟s Pseudo-event and Image construction and Lloyd Bitzer‟s Rhetorical Situation in order to analyze the artefact from the speaker-audience, audience-message, and speaker-message relationships. The analysis then concludes that Maclean’s carefully highlights the financial risk of all choices involving university education (both with pursuing it and with not doing so) to keep readers fearful about the risks involved in specifically selecting a post- secondary institution and more generally about the state of Canadian university education. This fear serves a dual purpose: it offers Canadians an exigence to resolve, while simultaneously serving to strengthen Maclean’s ethos as a source of expertise on post-secondary education. Highlighting risk enables Maclean’s to persuade Canadians to accept the magazine as an expert authority in a highly specialized field, able to provide the general population with the clarity necessary to make informed decisions. iii Ultimately, this thesis interrogates the rankings‟ reliance on audience perceptions of risk as a primary means of persuasion; the very act of soliciting trust in “expert opinion” reinforces certain divisive and value-laden hierarchies that underlie the rankings, allowing Maclean’s to extend its social and cultural authority beyond its traditional function as a source of information and opinion. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I couldn‟t have finished this work without the thoughtful guidance and support of Dr. John Moffatt. I wouldn‟t have begun without the encouragement and passion for rhetoric that Dr. Jennifer MacLennan offered. Particular thanks to my Committee members, Dr. Ernie Barber, Dr. Barbara Phillips, Dr. Charles Maule, Professor Michaela Keet and Dr. David Burgess for their patience and insight. I am very grateful for the expertise and collegiality offered by my friends at the Graham Centre for the Study of Communication – Dr. Jeanie Wills, Debora Rolfes, Burton Urquhart, Tess Laidlaw and Dr. Corey Owen – it has be a pleasure to learn with and from you. To my university colleagues – Kelly McInnes, Dr. Susan Bens and Dr. Frank Kusch – as fellow employees and aspiring scholars, you have been great sources of inspiration. A particular thanks to Julian Demkiw – our paths have crossed in so many ways – and I feel particularly grateful for your support, encouragement, inspiration and friendship. And to Robin Mowat – whose unwavering support and sacrifice was integral to this project – I couldn‟t imagine having accomplished this without you. v For Robin TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... III ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................... V THE MACLEAN’S UNIVERSITY RANKINGS AS A RHETORICAL ARTEFACT ......................... 1 SYNOPSIS OF THE RANKINGS EDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 3 SCOPE OF THIS RHETORICAL ARTEFACT .................................................................................................... 7 CENTRAL CONCERNS ................................................................................................................................. 9 RHETORIC, HIERARCHY & THE RHETORICAL SITUATION .....................................................14 THE SCOPE & METHODS OF RHETORICAL CRITICISM ...............................................................................19 Enthymemes and the Neo-Aristotelian Framework .............................................................................19 Uncovering Community Values ...........................................................................................................25 RHETORIC AND IDENTITY .........................................................................................................................34 RHETORIC & HIERARCHY .........................................................................................................................37 THE RHETORIC OF RISK ............................................................................................................................43 THE MACLEAN’S RANKING AS A RHETORICAL SITUATION ........................................................................49 THE AUDIENCE-MESSAGE RELATIONSHIP ...................................................................................51 THE EXPLICIT AUDIENCE ..........................................................................................................................52 CONTENT OF THE RANKINGS ISSUE ..........................................................................................................53 USING FANTASY-THEME CRITICISM TO ANALYZE THE RANKING .............................................................54 The Presented Worldview ...................................................................................................................63 Overarching Fantasy Themes .............................................................................................................64 Maclean’s Rhetorical Vision ...............................................................................................................68 THE MESSAGE-SPEAKER RELATIONSHIP ......................................................................................75 THE RANKINGS AS A PSEUDO-EVENT .......................................................................................................78 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSEUDO-EVENTS AND IMAGE ...................................................................87 THE UNIVERSITIES‟ IMAGE .......................................................................................................................91 THE SPEAKER-AUDIENCE RELATIONSHIP ....................................................................................98 THE RHETORICAL SITUATION ...................................................................................................................99 CONSTRAINTS .........................................................................................................................................100 Changing enrolment patterns ............................................................................................................100 Rising Educational Costs ..................................................................................................................101 Education as Investment ...................................................................................................................102 RISK AS EXIGENCE .................................................................................................................................103
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages147 Page
-
File Size-