Rhetorically Speaking: The Prejean / Hilton Fiasco, Lesson 2

As a teacher of rhetoric and composition, I discuss rhetoric with my students during almost every class. I point out how we've heard the word "rhetoric" bantered about during every election and in every debate imaginable. But what is rhetoric and how do we present ourselves using it?

The problem with rhetoric is that it is a very tricky thing. It is relative, both "good" and "bad" (words which are themselves relative to a situation and a person). To better understand the wholeness of rhetoric, all that it entails, I encourage my students, friends and people in general to look at the actual rhetoric (the words and actions of a person, group or situation and what is said by the totality of such). To illustrate what we, as Americans and as a world need to more clearly understand the overarching power of rhetoric and how it can define us is to examine somethig before jumping on a bandwagon (mor on that in later lessons).

For now, let's look briefly and rhetorically, at the rhetoric of Miss California 2009-Carrie Prejean-who not so long ago answered a question posed by the insufferable Perez Hilton. That question and answer, as we all recall, was as follows:

Hilton: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

Prejean: "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."

The response (or perhaps "backlash" is the more appropriate term?) to his question was both justified and unjustified. Mr. Hilton, like too many others, failed to recognize that she was honest, and that is a rare and commendable attribute in people today. Unlike Ms. Prejean, Mr. Hilton, and so many others, tout their "honesty" and "openness" yet, when confronted with an honesty that contradicts theirs, they become incensed and accuse others of insensitivity. To her credit, Prejean didn't compromise her beliefs for the sake of a crown. And that is commendable in today's American appease me/PC society. In making the comment, Prejean presented a particular ethos-a rhetorical appeal made famous by Aristotle. Her "credibility" was established. Her ethos though was built in several different ways depending upon the audience member's personal view about gay marriage. This is the crux then of Bacon's Idols. We create meaning; we react to something, based on our personal ideologies.

But my homage to her honesty stops at the above. Her ethos (credibility) damaged as it were, the damage was already done. But, the destruction of her ethos does not cease there. As if Miss California hadn't received enough flack for her comment, it was later realized that she'd had breast augmentation. This is where her ethos takes a plunge beyond reparation. On several occasions Prejean professed to be a Christian, hence the reason for her answer regarding gay marriage. Assuming she really believes herself to be a "Christian" it would mean, by extension, that she believes we are created in His image, that we are as He intended us to be. And since we are the way we are supposed to be, it stands to reason that Prejean went against God's will, played God herself, and altered His creation. How can one justify "improving" on God's work? Her interview with a one Dr. James Dobson sums up her oddness. In the interview, she like so many "Christians" who fail to accept personal responsibility for their actions, conveniently blames Satan (the universal scapegoat never mentioned in the Bible's original texts. Satan is a manmade entity; a manifestation of our Baconian proclivity toward unseemliness). So she is pointing blame at Hypocrisy for sure. Frankly, I don't think the "fullness" of her new chest is an improvement. One can tell they don't set like natural breasts, and the point of "beauty contests" is to measure beauty-original beauty. Google her before and after pictures and you'll notice that her original, God-given pair looked perfectly acceptable. But I digress.

So, while I admire her conviction to her faith and willingness to become an example of rhetoric for this blog, there is an unfortunate disconnect between her interpretation of the Bible and her practices. One must ask Ms. Prejean to therefore explain how she can alter herself while professing gay marriage is wrong.

Rhetorically, what Miss California has shown us is that she is a hypocrite prone to logical fallacies. To sum, her rhetoric clarifies that she doesn't accept homosexuals as equals because the Bible says it is evil and she doesn't accept the way God made her. (Incidentally, this is the same argument many "Christians" past and present made to enslave Africans and Asians up until about the turn of the century and a little beyond. It is the same reason the KKK gives for hating African-Americans and the same reason many Christians were and are opposed to interracial marriages.) Yet she's a "Christian" (which is an odd word, really; a double entendre) who accepts God as the ultimate power and Creator and who obviously also fails to recognize the three or four homosexual relationships in the Bible that God blessed (more on that later). Rhetorically, this is a very unsound argument. Upon examination, Ms. Prejean's ethos (general credibility) mimics a child who can't make up their mind which story to tell their parents. In other words, for Prejean there exists a serious and profound disconnect with her interpretation of the Bible. Granted the Christian rhetorician Augustine did argue that one gets from the Bible what one wants or needs, but to bastardize the very essence of the idea of God is...as I have said...hypocritical. And Miss Prejean's use of poor rhetoric, particularly her ability to establish a respectable ethos (a requirement of any beauty queen selected to represent a nation or the world) illustrates her points very well.

Dustin Crewell, Melissa Draper and Colin Mitchell, The Art of Rhetoric, Writing to the World-Wide Web - Spring 1996.

Juergen Klein, Francis Bacon, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Miss California Carrie Prejean Versus Perez Hilton, The Hollywood Grind.

Katherine Thomson, "Carrie Prejean: 'Satan Was Trying To Tempt Me,' Plus New Pics With Michael Phelps." The Huffington Post.