The Use of Facebook in Secondary Education by Luz E. Zúñiga

In recent years, the search engine Google and social network Facebook have been competing for the top spot as the most popular website.[1]  According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, there are approximately 800 million active Facebook users, making it the most popular social networking site, followed by MySpace with 33 million.[2]  Among those nearly one billion users, teenagers have been the largest subgroup since Facebook became public in 2004. Originally created for college students, Facebook keeps users connected to friends and family though a variety of means, which includes status updates, newsfeeds, and photographs.  Although polls suggest that teenagers are the third smallest group of users, accounting for between 11-12% of total users, their numbers double within the next subgroup (18-25 years olds), which comprise the largest percent of users. [3]  This means that for the first generation of Facebook users, although still a small subgroup, the use of the social network during these teens years will be of great significance as they move toward their adult years.  If these students are using Facebook as much as predictions calculate, shouldn’t adults pay attention to how often, why, and for what purpose these students are using Facebook?

Read more of this post

A Critical Analysis of Yancey’s “Writing in the 21st Century” by Ian Hayden

In 2009 Kathleen Blake Yancey, past president of the National Council of Teachers of English, published a report titled Writing in the 21st Century in which she calls upon her constituency to support what she refers to as “21st century writing.” (1) Her opening claim is that “today, in the 21st century, people write as never before – in print and online.” (1) As a result, she argues, “we thus face three challenges that are also opportunities: developing new models of writing; designing a new curriculum supporting those models; and creating models for teaching that curriculum.” (1) The strong implication in Yancey’s title is that writing since the turn of the new century is different in significant ways from writing in earlier centuries, so different, in fact, as to require new models for understanding what writing is and how it should be taught.

Read more of this post

A Christian Athens: The Rhetoric Of Pope John Paul II And The Political Transformation In Poland 1979-1989 by Cezar M. Ornatowski

“… I think of an Athenian Poland, but of an Athens immensely perfected by the greatness of Christianity” (19-year old Karol Wojtyla, in a letter to a friend in 1939, on the eve of World War II. Quoted in Shulz 108).

NOTE:  This is a draft manuscript; please do not quote.  Work for this project was supported through a Fulbright Senior Scholar Research Grant, a grant from the Polish Institute for Scientific Research, and through residency at the Culture Study Unit of the Institute for Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of  Sciences, as well as through a sabbatical grant from San Diego State University.  The author thanks the foregoing institutions for their support.

INTRODUCTION

John Paul II played a critical role in the political transformation in Poland. His visits to Poland between 1979 and 1999 marked the last decade of communism and the first decade of democracy in Poland. The visits not only punctuated one of the most dramatic periods in modern Polish history but also constituted critical events in that history.

In his study of the rhetoric of political transition in South Africa, Philippe-Joseph Salazar points out that the political transition in South Africa was characterized by a “rhetorical conjunction of sacred and secular” which “will long remain a fundamental feature of the South African democratic deliberative modes” (41). This is in contrast, he points out, to “traditional European democracies, rooted in eighteenth-century free thinking,” where “the exercise of the public mind, and the achievement of reasonable participation in the exercise of power, is carefully separated from religion, which is often perceived as a fossilized remnant of a pre-democratic system of deliberation” (41).  He suggests that South Africa stands alone “as an example of a Western-style democracy taking shape in the aftermath of the Cold War under the auspices of religious oratory,” with the possible exception of Poland.

Salazar is absolutely correct about Poland. John Paul II’s rhetoric played a major role in the manner of communism’s demise, as well as in the emergence of democracy in Poland.  His election to the throne of St.Peter in 1978, and his first visit to Poland in 1979, served as catalysts for the popular mobilization that resulted in the “Solidarity” movement. His portrait hung on the gate of Gdansk shipyard during the groundbreaking strikes of the “Polish August” of 1980. The words he spoke, such as the famous “Let Thy Spirit descend and renew the face of the land, this land!” spoken in his very first homily as Pope on Polish soil, became a source of inspiration and symbols of struggle, hope, and, ultimately, victory to millions. His subsequent visits in 1983 and 1987 helped Poles endure the hardships of martial law and helped pave the way for, as well as shaped the character of, subsequent political changes. And, all through the 1990s, his visits helped shape the new political scene, provided a mirror for the emerging democracy, and exercised profound influence on the perceptions and feelings of the Polish people.  According to General Jaruzelski, the last leader of communist Poland and first president [for a brief, largely symbolic, term] of post-communist Poland, “the role of the Pope was enormous in the transformations that occurred in Poland and, following in Poland’s footsteps, in the whole [communist] block” (quoted in Szulc 388).

An adequate analysis of the scope of that influence, and of the rhetorical resources John Paul II employed to exercise it, would be beyond the scope of an article. Altogether, John Paul II visited Poland seven times as Pope: first visit between June 2-10, 1979; second visit between June 16-22, 1983; third visit between June 8-14, 1987; fourth visit between June 1-9 and 13-16, 1991; fifth (unofficial) visit on May 22, 1995; sixth visit between June 4-10, 1997; and seventh visit between June 5-17, 1999. The following discussion will focus only on John Paul II’s communist-era visits to Poland. While analyzing the rhetoric of the papal visits, I will focus especially closely on the “conjunction of the sacred and secular” — on the complex relationship between religion and socio-political reality as that relationship was mediated in John Paul’s oratory, performance, and other less apparent aspects of his visits. It is John Paul II’s astonishingly adroit manipulation of this conjunction that accounted for his rhetorical appeal and his enormous influence on the unfolding of events in Poland through the critical decade of the 1980s.

 

CONTEXT FOR THE ANALYSIS OF PAPAL RHETORIC IN POLAND

An analysis of John Paul II’s rhetoric must take under consideration at least four complementary, and often overlapping, contexts.

First, John Paul II’s messages in Poland may be seen as an aspect of his more general message as head of the Catholic Church. As a Polish observer noted, “his teaching in Poland is part of the cathehesis he has spread in all parts of the world, on all continents. This general catholic cathehesis is the context to which we must refer in our efforts to understand and explore [his] thought communicated to the Poles” (Czekanski 8). From this perspective, John Paul II’s performances in Poland may also be regarded in an aspect of what Margaret Melady referred to as the “rhetorical papacy,” that is, the increasing reliance of the modern papacy on persuasive discourse to lead the church and make the church relevant to the affairs of the contemporary world and to people’s lives (Melady 17).

The second context is the internal socio-political situation in Poland to which the Pope responded, which he addressed, and in which he intervened.  Papal visits anywhere always represent an adjustment of the more general message of the Church to the demands of a specific locale, audience, situation, and problematic. As Melady has observed, the overseas visits of John Paul II “represent movement toward the local churches” and are “specifically designed to communicate the universality or all-embracing nature of the church from the point of view of geography and cultures” (Melady 32). This adjustment includes a specific theme for each visit, a theme that represents a deliberate engagement with the specificity and problematic of the locale, often an adjustment of the dominant scriptural message; the use of symbols comprehensible to the audience and appropriate to conveying the papal message; and moments of spontaneity that represent both a response to and an orientation toward, the specificity of particular settings, audiences, and times.

In the case of the Pope’s visits to Poland, however, this adjustment takes on a uniquely particular and deliberate character. The efficacy of the Pope’s rhetorical intervention in the Polish context was due not only to the fact that he was head of the Roman Catholic Church, but also to the fact that he was a Pole, a very patriotic one, who, in view of his age and functions, shared and participated in most of the significant events that had shaped Poland since World War II. From this perspective, the Pope’s visits to Poland and his messages to the Polish people must be considered not only in light of the changing social, political, historical, and cultural situation, but also of John Paul II’s own biography and his unique relationship to Poland. To put it bluntly, while his performances in, for example, the United States or Mexico may be regarded more readily in terms of adjustment of the general message of the Church to local contexts, his appearances in Poland cannot but be regarded as, at least in part, a calculated intervention in the concrete socio-political and cultural situation by a figure who stature left no doubt, to him or to anyone else, that whatever he does will have an enormous, potentially history-changing impact on that situation. The transcripts of government-Polish Episcopate negotiations concerning the papal visits (of which more will be said below) leave no doubt that such was the case.

The third context critical to the analysis of the papal visits, at least during the communist period, were the complex and delicate negotiations that preceded his visits. These negotiations, concerned, and to an extent determined, what places he visited, where and to whom he spoke, and how his messages were interpreted. The preparatory negotiations — the deals and arrangements worked out there as well, as the assumptions, premises, anxieties, expectations, and hopes they revealed — help us better understand and interpret what John Paul II said and did.

Finally, the fourth context was the international situation. As the transcripts of the preparatory negotiations make clear, what was said and done during the papal visits, and how it was interpreted, especially by those at the highest levels of the regime and the Church, was shaped not only by the specific internal socio-political situation (which changed with each visit), but also by the changing international situation. For each visit, the Polish government had an agenda that depended both on the internal and external political situation, and so did the Church.

PREPARATORY NEGOTIATIONS

Each of the Papal visits to Poland during the communist period (1979, 1983, 1987) was meticulously prepared through protracted, delicate, and secret negotiations between the regime, the Polish Episcopate, and the Vatican. These negotiations begun before the official invitation to visit Poland was even issued.

This is how the process worked. The Polish Episcopate, through internal discussions and in communication with the Vatican, would arrive at a general plan for a Papal visit to Poland for an ostensibly religious occasion. The Episcopate would then begin to “feel out” the government’s position and attempt, in so far as possible, to force the government’s hand by presenting it with a fait accompli, that is, by hinting of the Pope’s intended visit in such a way that the government’s prestige, both internally and in the international arena, became connected to the expectation of the visit.  The Episcopate’s strategy is summarized briefly but explicitly in an internal memorandum preceding the 1987 visit, under the significant heading “Molding opinion”:

“1. Molding opinion.
“a. The Primate Cardinal Jozef Glemp, in occasional public speeches, informed the Polish people and the world that the Holy Father will come to Poland in 1987 on the occasion of the 2nd Eucharistic Congress
“b. The Secretary of the Episcopate, basing on these statements, informed the state authorities about the intentions of the Episcopate and about the invitations sent to the Holy Father by specific bishops.” (quoted in Raina 260).

It is important to bear in mind that the invitations by the bishops were non-binding (the Pope always had invitations from more dioceses than he could visit), and that they were largely instigated by the Episcopate. Neither, technically, could the Episcopate on its own invite the Pope to come without the government’s concurrence. Announcing that the Pope was “invited” was a ploy to stir up public expectation and put the government in a position where seeming to have “refused” to receive the at the last minute would be more embarrassing than taking all the political risks attendant on receiving him.  After the government finally agreed to the visit, the authorities would be asked to issue an official invitation (together with the Polish Episcopate; the invitations were typically issued in the name of both) and to officially “announce” the Papal visit to the expectant nation and the world, in tandem with a simultaneous announcement by the Vatican). The simultaneous announcement was calculated to put further subtle pressure on the communist authorities; the bishops hinted several times during the negotiations that the Vatican might just slip up and announce the visit on its own, which would put the Polish authorities in the extremely uncomfortable position of having to act play diplomatic “catch up” and thus appear  incompetent, or worse, out of control.  Thus, the negotiations began as soon as the Episcopate requested that the Pope be invited, and continued to cover every aspect of the visit, ending with a final debriefing only after the Pope had gone.  Of course, the Vatican was consulted at every step. The vehicle for the negotiations was the Joint Government-Episcopate Commission, created during the preparations for the first visit in 1979.

The negotiations consisted of a painstaking working out of every aspect of the visit, from the general “conception” (that is, occasion, timing, and the related message) of the visit and its possible ideological ramifications and implications, to the itinerary and its potential symbolism, and “technical” matters such as media coverage and financial arrangements. In reading preparatory documents and transcripts of preparatory talks for the Papal visits, one appreciates at once the extreme delicacy of the negotiations, their unprecedented character (as well as the unprecedented character of the events which they helped prepare), and the unrelenting pressure the Polish Church, and the Pope indirectly, applied in their dealings with the communist regime.

It is important to note that during the preparatory negotiations the Church never asked the authorities for “permission” for the Pope to visit, or for permission for anything else; that word was never used, since one of the major assumptions appears to have been that the Pope is an autonomous agent and does not need anyone’s “permission” for anything. In fact, many times during the negotiations the government side would propose conditions or make suggestions that sounded as if they were not going to “permit” something or other connected with the visit (for instance, they refused to “permit” John Paul II to visit Gdansk in 1983 or to meet with Lech Walesa), and the Church side would invariably counter that any implication that the Pope’s moves or words are subject to anyone’s “permission” or control is out of the question. The matter would subsequently be negotiated in a manner that suggested other kinds of considerations at play than “permission.” Yet, reading the transcripts of the Joint Commission negotiations in tandem with the Pope’s pronouncements and with the scripts for his visits leaves little doubt as to the extent of the influence of these negotiations on what the Pope said and did. In fact, it becomes a measure of John Paul’s rhetorical prowess to observe how skillfully he would go around, bend, reinterpret, incorporate, or even occasionally openly defy (sometimes with devastating yet always containable and “deniable” effect), the various conditions negotiated in regard to his visits. In this respect, the preparatory negotiations — the expectations, interpretations, assumptions, and arrangements they articulate — help us appreciate even more the complexities of the rhetorical situation to which John Paul II responded during each visit.

An example will illustrate this. During the mid-1980, the authorities imposed a ban on Church construction in Gdansk as a way of trying to force the Church to dismiss the Prelate of St. Brigida’s Church in Gdansk, the notorious Father Henryk Jankowski. St. Brigida’s church was located next door to the Gdansk shipyard and Father Jankowski was Walesa’s priest and confidante, known for his fiery anti-communism, pro-”Solidarity” sympathies, and his general support of political opposition.  During the negotiations preceding the Pope’s 3rd visit in 1987, the government demanded the removal of Father Jankowski as a precondition for letting the Pope visit Gdansk. The Episcopate rejected any possibility of “removing” anyone and of such blanket conditions in general, but had to give in on other fronts (for example, the Bishops had to agree to additional Papal visits–not planned by the Episcopate–to the World War 2 monument at Westerplatte near Gdansk and to the Majdanek concentration camp in Lublin) as the price of including Gdansk on the Pope’s itinerary, and of keeping Father Jankowski.

From a rhetorical point of view, including Gdansk on the itinerary provided the Pope the setting and occasion to say things that he would either not be able to say elsewhere or that he would have to say otherwise, without the symbolic props and interpretive aura (including the pre-interpretive aura of expectation and speculation), provided by Gdansk as the forum. On the other hand, having to visit and speak at Westerplatte or in Majdanek or Auschwitz, sites imposed upon him as a result of negotiations (“The Pope cannot come to Krakow and not notice Auschwitz,” a government negotiator irresistibly suggested), disrupted his original design for the visit, forced adjustments in the theme or at least its execution, introduced new symbolic material that had to be worked with, and provided opportunities to say other things, otherwise.

Each papal visit to Poland during the communist period took place in a different socio-political situation; in fact, the visits mark out a certain pattern of development and evolution of that situation, an evolution that the visits not merely punctuated but increasingly, as time passed, helped along and shaped. The transcripts of the Joint Commission negotiations show that each visit took place not only in a different context of actual events, but in a different context of changing interpretations of events; the transcripts show the changes in the assumptions, issues, expectations, and concerns that constituted these interpretations over time. The Papal visits, and especially the preparatory negotiations for them, became, by 1983 and even more so by 1987, rhetorical occasions for working out interpretations of current events. In this fashion, the Papal visits became (not just in themselves as rhetorical events, but through and along with the mediating deliberations of the Joint Commission) a major factor in shaping their own socio-political context and influencing unfolding events. Beyond the inevitable bombast, posturing, and gamesmanship, both parties to the negotiations were increasingly aware of the literally “history-making” nature of their deliberations and decisions.

As events began to unfold, especially in the mid and late 1980s, at a speed that surpassed not only anybody’s ability to control them but also to force them into preexisting interpretive frameworks, the Joint Government-Church Commission, hammering out the agendas and arrangements for the papal visits, became in a very real sense the de facto — although strictly behind-the-scenes — governing body of Poland, the forum at which decisions were made on issues (such as where the Pope would visit, who he would meet with, what he would say, and how it would be reported) that had the potential to influence events and their interpretations, and thus the future of the country.

After the political transition of 1989, the Joint Commission ceased to exist, and preparations for the papal visits were made primarily by the Polish Episcopate and the Vatican, with mainly instrumental assistance from the government and local authorities. There were no ideological negotiations; the Episcopate and the Vatican decided what would be done and worked to organize the necessary resources. A comparison illustrates the difference well. In the published transcripts of the preparatory negotiations and official documents connected with the papal visits in Poland, the preparations for the 1979 visit take up 116 pages, for the 1983 visit 98 pages, and for the 1987 visit 72 pages, while the preparatory documents for the 1991 visit take up 4.

PAPAL VISITS AS RHETORICAL EVENTS

John Paul II’s visits to Poland derived their “rhetorical power” partly from the Pope’s masterful oratory, but partly also from the complex nature of the visits as religious ceremonies, historical and political events, and public performances. Their unique (and history-making) suasive power and emotional impact thus came from the combined power of oratory and the complex intersections of the contexts, associations, and experiences this multiple nature brought together and awakened.

In spite of their almost frenetic pace and varying itinerary, John Paul II’s visits to Poland had a formulaic and predictable character.

Each papal visit to Poland, officially referred to as a “pilgrimage” by the “pilgrim Pope,” was attached to a specific (always ostensibly religious) occasion. The occasions, however, were so selected, or, if need be, stretched, that, besides the official religious messages, they contained also significant historic and political messages (examples will be given below, in discussions of each visit). Each visit also had a theme (again, always ostensibly a religious one and, like the theme of the individual homilies, taken from Scripture). But the themes were also double-edged (religious-political) and suited to the tenor and needs of the historical moment. They complemented the “message” of the occasion in such a way that the entire package added a strong implicature — a potential for ambiguity in a specific direction — to all that was said and done. Each visit also had a major message, a general sentiment or leading thought, for instance, “renewal” for the 1979 visit, “hope” for 1983 and 1987. Finally, each visit had a slogan, which was a short sentence or aphorism from the Scripture (sometimes the slogan was contained in the text of the theme).

Each visit consisted of a peregrination to selected cities, towns, or sites (again always ostensibly religious ones and/or with strong religious associations with the occasion for the visit, although most happened also to be loaded with other symbolism, incidentally also fitting the historical moment).  At most places he visited, the Pope celebrated (typically public) mass and delivered a homily as part of it. On some occasions (such as meetings with government officials, university professors, members of religious orders, or members of the Episcopate) he delivered a short speech. The subjects were again always ostensibly religious, and in keeping with the conventions of the genre (for instance, homilies were based on a theme supported by two readings, from the Old and New Testaments, fittingly amplified; speeches were topical to the audience and occasion). Yet, the themes, although presumably selected according to the liturgical calendar, also happened to have profound implications for the historical moment and socio-political situation, while the amplification masterfully exploited all the available resources of place, occasion, situation, and spectacle to deliver a ringing and poignant political statement.

The papal visits to Poland thus constituted a specific kind of ritual spectacle; their “unofficial” character (that is, not communist) automatically made then into “counter-rituals” in relation to the usual communist-era rituals of party rallies, official celebrations, or first secretary of the communist party peregrinations around the country. The mass, celebrated publicly, openly, and typically out of doors, in the middle of a communist country, constituted the heart of this (counter)political counter-ritual.

The full rhetorical impact of the papal visits was a function of their ritual character, the cultural and historical symbolism of the visited sites (which any Pole would be sensitive to and which was especially significant in a situation where certain things could not be said in so many words), the symbolism of the occasions for the visits (including the specific occasions for visiting particular places), the elements of spectacle “framing” each papal appearance (altars, setups, costumes, pageantry), and, in the center of it all (and masterfully drawing on all of these elements), the masterful oratory of John Paul II.

The fiction (enthusiastically promulgated both by the authorities and by the Polish Episcopate, but for radically different reasons) that the Pope’s pilgrimages to Poland were purely religious events, amplified, rather then concealed, their political impact. One must remember that this was happening in a political context where a major source of satisfaction was to publicly engage in, or see someone else engage in, and get away with, ambiguous or downright forbidden activities or discourse under a transparent, but effective, cover (the more transparent but effective the cover, the greater the thrill).  That is exactly what John Paul II did, with deadly accuracy, unflinching dignity, and devastating effectiveness, always walking the very edge of the possible, to the glee and delirious applause of most of his compatriots.
JOHN PAUL II’s COMMUNIST ERA VISITS TO POLAND

The First Visit: June 2-10, 1979

John Paul II was elected Pope at a critical time in Polish post-war history. In the mid 1970s, opposition to the prevailing political-economic system and ideological dogma began to gain energy and take new forms. It was broader and cut across a wider social spectrum than previous social protests of 1956 (local workers in Poznan), 1968 (students), or 1970 (workers on the coast). In 1976, a protest by workers at the Ursus tractor plant in Radom ignited the entire city and forced the government of the heretofore all-powerful Edward Gierek to rescind the announced price hikes. The protest was crushed with a brutality and on a scale that shook Poland and provided the direct impetus for the creation of the Workers’ Defense Committee (KOR), the first country-wide, grass-roots civic self-help organization that united intellectuals, students, and workers. Through 1977 and 1978, the worsening economic situation led to first widespread shortages of basic foodstuffs and progressive rationing. By 1979, it was clear that the country — and the system — were in a deepening and permanent crisis. The activity of KOR and other groups began to provide seeds for the emergence of large-scale organized opposition. That emergence needed a direction, a focus, a source of energy, a unifying symbol, and the language to articulate the people’s disaffections and aspirations. John Paul II’s first visit to Poland as Pope in 1979 provided all of these elements.

The occasion for the visit was the 900-year anniversary of the martyrdom of St.Stanislaw: patron saint of Poland, who died at the hands of his king after he opposed the king’s immoral and corrupt rule. The implicit message of the occasion was the relationship between morality and authority, and resistance to secular authority in the name of higher values. This message was so clear, that the communist authorities balked at the “timing” and what they called “the slogan” of the visit, and it was only after prolonged negotiations through the Joint Government-Episcopate Commission that the visit came to pass at all — although at a time different than originally proposed and with other conditions attached, one of which was to deemphasize St.Stanislaw’s figure and symbolism.

At this point, it is instructive to observe the summation of the government’s position, offered during the final round of the preparatory negotiations for the visit, by the leader of the government’s negotiating team, member of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party, Stanislaw Kania (later, in the early 1980s, elected first secretary of the party). Kania’s remarks give a sense and flavor of the negotiations as well as of the close relationship between religion and politics, liturgy and policy, in the pressure cooker of a communist state under siege. They also illustrate the careful attention paid to the international situation and broadest implications of everything the Pope could say and do. In his statement, Kania said:

Concerning our attitude toward St. Stanislaw, it is not a matter of our attitude toward one of the important Polish saints, but of social meaning. Nobody today gets very excited about the essence of the quarrel between the king and the bishop. We will not raise the issue of interpretation of Anonym’s text [the anonymous medieval author of the chronicle that contains the story of St.Stanislaw] concerning what today cannot be proven, whether he was a rebel or a traitor. Even if the majority of scholars had agreed that he [St.Stanislaw] was a traitor, today that has a different meaning, in any case such matters cannot be decided through a vote. The material point is that it was the most significant quarrel between the State and the Church in our history. It has a different meaning on the scale of a diocese, and quite a different one if it were connected to the first in history visit of a Pope to Poland. In essence, the date, May 8, 13, or June 2 [for the papal visit] is not important; what’s at stake is the impulse for further coexistence between the state and the Church. We have difficulties, exacerbated by the [severe] winter. The international situation is heavy with threats, China has invaded Vietnam, and against this background evil forces have awakened in West Germany. (quoted in Raina 28-9)

During the visit, the Pope did not let the authorities off the hook; he poignantly mentioned St.Stanislaw and the occasion for the visit at every step, emphasizing the fact that this was the patron saint of the nation.

The scriptural theme for the 1979 visit were the words of Christ: “Do not be afraid.” The leitmotif was renewal, expressed most emphatically in John Paul’s dramatic call: “Let Thy Spirit descend and renew the land, this land!” The words, spoken on Warsaw’s Victory Square at the conclusion of John Paul’s first homily on Polish soil, galvanized the demoralized nation and became the most famous quote of this visit, and, arguably, of all his words ever spoken on Polish soil (a quote he himself returned to again and again subsequently).

In his homilies and speeches, John Paul II employed a range of rhetorical strategies.

One of the main ones was to recontextualize Poland and the Polish situation politically, geographically, historically, and temporally.  Everywhere he went, the Pope emphasized the thousand-year history of the Polish Church, of the country, of the  surrounding churches, castles, and towns, and of the institutions and traditions they represented. He never tired of repeating the number of 35 years, the duration of post-war Poland, while, for instance, standing next to the 1000-year old Gniezno Cathedral, even while appearing to be saying positive things about the regime, such as thanking the government for building the new but already patently dilapidated housing projects for workers standing nearby). He spoke in terms of the sweep of centuries and of the broad panorama of European history, as well as the geographical panorama of the continent. He spoke of that which changed and that which did not. He transformed the very time in which he spoke into “sacred” or “mythic” time, the time that partook of Christ and the apostles, of saints and kings and bishops, and mythical conflicts between good and evil, God and Satan.  The ancient cathedrals, castles, and oaks amid which he spoke bore witness to that other time and to the sweep of centuries, in the context of which the present moment became puny and fleeting, a bare mosquito bite on the canvas of history. In these terms, the 35 years of communism, the Iron Curtain, the Soviet block, food lines, and the drabness of daily existence shrunk to insignificant proportions, mere shadows on the vast stage of history, mere incidents in the proud history of the nation and of Christianity (the Pope always placed the two side by side) that he invoked.

In this way, John Paul pulled Poles out of their isolation, made them feel part of the larger international community and of European culture and heritage, made them feel like important players on the arena of history (even in their present plight), restored a sense of dignity and pride, bridged artificial divisions and borders (East-West), and revealed the working of a Providence (or at least of historical processes, for the less religious) vaster by far than the puny and futile machinations of the 35-year-old regime of former grocery clerks and party hacks. This was a complete contrast to the usual propaganda of the regime, which stressed the historical inevitability of communism, the permanence of the East-West division, the cultural and geostrategic distance from the alien West, and the history- changing importance of the system. The overall effect of the papal strategy, combined with the symbolism of the places visited and the rituals enacted (the gorgeously appointed papal train, the ancient symbolism of the Mass, attendants dressed in knightly armor and historical costumes — ostensibly passed off as patriotic manifestations) made the communist regime seem marginal (historically and substantively), and alien to Poland, its traditions, its culture, and its people.

In his vast historical recollections of Polish history (under the guise of talking ostensibly only about the history of the Church), the Pope also made explicit and public many aspects of the “collective countermemory” silenced by the regime, as well as de-falsified history.  He said things such as, “We cannot forget the sacrifices of so many Polish men and women,” ostensibly speaking about World War II but skillfully including the post-war period in the context. In this way, he spoke in the same breath also about the victims of communism, thus paying them public homage and including them in the litany of martyrs for the country. Nobody could object to that, at the cost of seeming to denigrate the official heroes of the great patriotic war, so cherished by the communist regime, which vested a large part of its legitimacy in the cult of World War II and the memory of “victims of fascism.” This rhetorical strategy also incidentally and implicitly put communism and fascism on one plane.

Another strategy for undermining the legitimacy of the communist regime was through enthymemes, such as the one he used in the very face of the regime, in his welcoming speech to the authorities:  ”That the raison d’etre of a state is the sovereignty of the people, the nation, the Fatherland, we, Poles, have always felt deeply. We have learnt that through our entire history, and especially through the hard experiences of the last few centuries” (16). Since all Poles, even committed communists, knew that communist Poland had at best very limited sovereignty, the words implied that this Poland in fact has no reason to exist (but nobody would dare say it, because the entire edifice of falsifications and mystifications on which the system was built would collapse).

The Pope also de-falsified language. One of his strategies for that was “turning” the meanings of words, recuperating, rescuing the meanings that had been encrusted through official ritual discourse and rendered no better than slogans. For example, in his speech to the authorities, the Pope said: “Peace and rapprochement between nations can only be built on the principle of respect for the objective rights of every people, such as the right to existence, to freedom, to social and political agency, to the creation of their own culture and civilization” (17). Again, since there was obviously no such respect for “agency” in communist Poland, and especially not at that historical moment, all talk of “peace” (a word the President of the Council of State used repeatedly, in his welcoming speech to the Pope, in the official communist sense of something presumably endangered by the designs of American and capitalist “imperialism” and desired and defended by communist countries) was shown to be merely an artifact of propaganda.  Another strategy used for rescuing language was always appending such modifiers as “authentic,” “real,” “actual,” “true” to words that have been appropriated by official ideology and made into little more than slogans (“peace” “freedom,” “democracy,” “progress,” “work,” “sovereignty,” “human relations,” “society,” “the people,” and so on).  The adjectives made one look twice at words that had been rendered virtually useless and meaningless by years of official use in purely ritual and propagandistic contexts.

While skillfully avoiding openly antagonizing the Communist authorities and calling for civil disobedience (which would have provided ammunition for official propaganda and strengthened repression against the budding opposition), John Paul II systematically de-falsified major aspects of national, social, and political life and exposed the fabric of mystifications, lies or half-truths, unspoken assumptions, empty slogans, and false language on which the entire edifice stood. He also provided the discontented with a language they could use to talk about their experiences and to challenge official dogma without immediately overstepping the boundaries of the “sayable”: a language of human dignity, of authenticity, of individualism drawn from the Scriptures or rescued from official propaganda.

The Pope’s first visit to Poland was a national awakening, a festival of reality, “nine days of freedom” (Czekanski 16) that prepared the ground for everything that happened over the next twenty years.  The crowds that attended the papal masses went beyond anyone’s expectations; the first public mass in Warsaw’s Victory Square was attended by 300,000 faithful (Czekanski 15). The Church spilled out of the buildings to which it had been confined for forty years and spread out over the country wherever there were people singing, carrying pictures of the Pope, papal flags, crosses, and other symbols that normally would have been unthinkable in the streets of Polish cities. The Polish people began to see their strength in numbers and spirit. In spite of the communist facade, Poles discovered that most of them thought and felt alike; it was an awakening of national pride and a renewal of a sense of collective identity, an identity quite different from that fostered by four decades of communism, centered around different values, different history, and a different time. At his departure, John Paul II asked the Poles “to accept this entire spiritual heritage that is called Poland with faith, hope, and love. . .” (205).

The Second Visit: June 16-22, 1983

By 1983, in the wake of the brutal imposition of martial law in 1981, there was a political standoff. Although many of the most drastic provisions of martial law had been relaxed, many of the interned were still in captivity. The ruled and the rulers were tired and wary; underground political activity was building steam, but there was no visible solution or end to the economic and political crisis. Neither the opposition nor the government side had any clear sense of the future nor significant ability to control events. In the trigger-happy, tense atmosphere, Poland seemed to be ruled by accidents. In May 1983, Grzegorz Przemek, a high school student and son of an opposition activist, was beaten to death at a Warsaw police station. In July, martial law was formally repealed, but the reality of most people’s lives changed little. In August, there was a confrontational meeting of Lech Walesa and shipyard workers with vice-premier Mieczyslaw Rakowski in Gdansk shipyard.  In October, Lech Walesa got the Nobel Peace Prize, but was not allowed to leave the country to received it.

This is how General Jaruzelski, at the time the virtual dictator of Poland, saw John Paul’s rhetorical position as he arrived in Poland:

[He was] in a very difficult position, under pressure from the crowds that almost expected him to lead them to the barricades. I appreciated that. On the other hand, as our guest, he did not wish to do anything that might have disturbed peace and stability. He did not want to awaken any premature hopes. On the other hand, he was convinced inside that he must support this movement ["Solidarity"] and all these national and social aspirations, that he must keep them alive, and reinforce this hope in some fashion, but without crossing certain frontiers. (quoted in Szulc 395)

The occasion for the visit was the 600-year anniversary of the Black Madonna of Czestochowa. The image of the Black Madonna is an icon of religious patriotism, housed in the Jasna Gora monastery. The monastery, and the image of the Madonna, are connected with perhaps the most famous siege in Polish history, when overwhelming Swedish forces, which had overrun the entire country, were defeated in 1655 by a small crew of defenders after a prolonged siege of the monastery — an event popularly considered to have been a miracle attributed to the Madonna, patroness of Poland. The message of the visit was unity (implicit: solidarity, but the very word was illegal). The scriptural theme was, “I was sick, and you visited me; I was imprisoned, and you came to me.” The leitmotif was hope; the 1983 visit was frequently referred to as “the pilgrimage of hope” (Czekanski 29).

On his arrival, John Paul II said: “Peace be with you, Poland! My Homeland! Peace be with you!” (214). To General Jaruzelski and other members of the government, he announced: “I come to be with my countrymen in this especially difficult period of Polish post-World War II history. At the same time, I continue to hope that this difficult moment can pave the way to social renewal, the beginning of which is constituted by the agreements made between the authorities and the representatives of labor” (223) (The reference is to the Gdansk accords of August 1980, signed between “Solidarity” and the government, the accords the government broke when it delegalized “Solidarity” and declared martial law.)  In the rest of his speech, John Paul declared that the only way out of the political and economic crisis was to respect the demands of the people as represented by “Solidarity.” Through masterful use historical enthymemes, whose final implications remained unspoken but obvious, John Paul also chided the present government — as well as the entire communist period — for ineptness, incompetence, and ruining the country economically, politically, and morally.

In his homily in Warsaw, the “major” homily of every visit, John Paul II built on his 1979 call for renewal to emphasize individual and national spiritual “inner” renewal. By building a series of analogies and enthymemes beginning with Christ’s suffering and eventual victory over death, he suggested that just as individual inner renewal leads to victory, so collective spiritual renewal leads to national victory, a victory of spirit over the forces of darkness. “A Christian is called on in Jesus Christ to victory,” the Pope declared. “This kind of victory is inseparable from toil, even suffering, just as Christ’s resurrection is inseparable from the cross” (237).  He recalled chapters in the nation’s history that showed how through faith in God and persistence in the face of suffering the nation was resurrected and conquered its enemies.  As an example, the Pope cited the wars with the Turks — the “infidels” and their defeat at Vienna by Poland and her Western allies, before they could complete their conquest of Europe. By implication, this placed the communist martial law authorities in the role of “eastern” infidels in the act of conquering the civilized world, alien to the collective Christian body of Poland and of Europe. Furthermore, the implication refigured Poland as part of the Christian West, as its bulwark, in fact, suffering another incursion by barbarians from the east, as was the case so many times in Poland’s history.

As in his homilies in 1979, the Pope also used the strategy of speaking in broad historical panoramas, in the context of which the present moment appeared as but speck amid the eternal sands of time and the complex and unknowable designs of Almighty Providence. This change in perspective diminished present suffering, renewed hope, and motivated to action — spurred by historical examples of national calamities longer and greater than the 40 years of communism, followed by collective resurrection and national greatness. The precondition for such resurrection and greatness was faith, unity, and moral renewal; external victory over adversities can only be achieved through internal moral victory, to which Christ paved the way.  ”The desire for victory, noble victory,” John Paul declared, “a victory achieved even through defeat — belongs to the Christian design for human life. National life as well. (…) The nation must “alone achieve this victory which Divine Providence assigns it at a given stage of its history.  We all know that we are not talking of military victory — as three hundred years ago [reference to the battle of Vienna against the Turks] — but of moral victory. Such victory is the essence of the frequently called-for renewal” (239). It is characteristic of the sometimes almost incredibly fine-grained rhetorical fabric of John Paul’s oratory and performance that all this talk of “victory” through Christ even through defeat could not but remind Poles that four years before he celebrated mass on Warsaw’s Victory Square and declared, in a great voice,  ”the holiest Sacrifice of Christ on Victory Square” — words through which he forever joined the name of the square with the idea of resurrection, hope, and eventual victory over communism.  In this way, John Paul touched, “renamed,” and changed, figuratively and in fact, the places — and eventually the entire country — he visited. The 1983 pilgrimage continued this work of changing and  ”renaming.”

In the 1990s, General Jaruzelski remembered the rhetorical power of John Paul’s touch:

We, the authorities, began to discern certain disturbing things, which might destabilize the situation [in the country] . . . . The Pope, of course, never said anything that might have actually created a controversy with us. But he knows how to speak so splendidly, to modulate the mood, and to create perceptions in such a way that a word spoken at random could open the way to a situation that might be hard to control. (quoted in Szulc 394)

The 1983 visit came at an even more difficult time in Poland than the 1979 visit. Yet, even more people attended the papal masses and the authorities seemed almost resigned. The massive propaganda of discouragement, random cancellations of busses and trains so people could not attend papal masses, and other difficulties, so characteristic of 1979, were rare. It is as if the communist government began to realize, although warily, that this massive movement, and the charismatic figure that was its focus, may yet bring some new hope to the politically deadlocked and economically bankrupt country. (By 1987, that had clearly become the case; by that time, the negotiations of the Joint Government-Episcopate Commission had become to a large extent the medium of de facto shaping the country’s course.)  Already in 1983, opinion about how to approach the Pope’s visits was increasingly deeply divided within the Central Committee of the Communist Party, where reformers and hard-liners increasingly vied for power (Paczkowski). What the Pope said and did was not completely unrelated to these shuffles in the inner corridors of power, nor was John Paul unaware of these shuffles. Thus, by that time, what the Pope said and did during his public performances was not solely calculated for the people, but also played out at higher levels. How it played out at both levels went a long way toward nudging Poland on a specific historical course.

Third Visit: June 8-14, 1987

The third papal visit to Poland came at a time of deepening economic crisis, with Solidarity operating almost openly (in spite of its continuing illegality) and with many Poles beginning to realize that the regime was on its last legs. However, how long it could still last and how much damage it could still do was anybody’s guess. It was a time of standoff. The regime could no longer effectively govern the country, nor did they have ideas for meaningful change; the opposition was not yet strong enough, or ready, to assume power, but was strong enough to paralyze the country and to forestall any effort directed against its interests.  Many historians (Skorzynski, Paczkowski), as well as the transcripts of the Joint Commission, suggest that by that time many at the top levels of the regime began to realize that something, anything, must be done and that the unthinkable (negotiations with the opposition, a fundamental reform of the system) was becoming thinkable. It was time to prepare for various, perhaps unexpected, eventualities.  In this situation, the Pope was no longer an alien force to be feared and contained, as in 1979 and to a lesser extent in 1983, but increasingly a potential powerful partner in addressing the country’s problems with whom it was necessary, even desirable, to talk to try to influence the course of events.

The occasion for the 1987 visit was the 2nd Eucharistic Congress. The message was the Eucharist and its implications (the message was suggested by the Polish Episcopate following a discussion within the Main Council of the Episcopate). The theme was “He loved them to the end” from the Gospel of St. John, combined with Christ’s words “I am with you.” The leitmotif, just as in 1983, was hope.

The relationship between the message (the Eucharist), the theme, and the leitmotif (hope), was articulated in John Paul’s welcome address at Warsaw airport: “I salute you, my compatriots, who know the joy and bitterness of living in this land. I invite you to join a community — that community which Christ has been shaping for generations. He ceaselessly returns Meaning to man exhausted, lost, who suffers, who loses the sense [of existence]. The Eucharist is the sacrament of this great Meaning. It helps in rebuilding faith in true ideals, the will to live, in rebuilding hope” (372).

During the 1987 visit, the Pope openly supported the still-illegal “Solidarity.” In his welcoming speech to the authorities, he explicitly articulated the cornerstone of “Solidarity’s” political program: the concept of “agency” of the citizen. “In the name of … dignity, everyone and all rightly attempt to become not only the object of the workings of authority, of the institutions of the state — but to be an agent. And to be an agent means to participate in the decision-making concerning the ‘public matter’ [res publica] of all Poles.” (384)  The expression “public matter of all Poles” contains a complex and very sly reference to the name of the communist Polish state: Polish People’s Republic. The Polish word for “republic” is a literal translation from Latin “res publica” and means “public matter,” as well as “popular matter,” “popular” and “public” being the same word in Polish, with its old meaning also connoting “common.” Through ambiguities, extensions, and plays on words so characteristic of his rhetoric, John Paul thus pointed out that the “People’s” in the name of the communist state is a sham, the pretensions to being a “commune”-ist state are a sham, as are pretenses of being “popular” (with the people, and for the people). Thus, the entire state is a sham, and dishonest to itself, ergo immoral to boot.  He also quoted the statement from Vatican II: “Praiseworthy is the behavior of these nations in which the largest number of citizens participate in public life under conditions of real freedom” (385). Finally, he also paraphrased the provisions of Vatican II to the effect that: “Correctly we may surmise that the future fate of mankind lies in the hands of those who can give the coming generations motivation for life and hope” (385). It is, he emphasized many times during the 1987 visit, this provision of “motivation for life and hope” that constituted the central underlying premise for all his visits to Poland.

The highlight of the 1987 visit was John Paul’s homily during his “Mass for the working people” in Gdansk-Zaspa (the district of Gdansk where Lech Walesa lived). In this homily, delivered on “Solidarity’s” and Walesa’s home turf, John Paul II spoke openly to delirious applause: “There cannot be a struggle more powerful than solidarity. There cannot be an agenda for struggle above the agenda of solidarity” (494). (Note the characteristic ambiguity: solidarity or “Solidarity”? Is he speaking religion or politics? Is he talking about moral or political struggle?)  After an interval of deafening applause, he added the most famous words of this visit, which also rank among the most famous of all his words: “That’s exactly what I want to talk about, so let the Pope speak, since he wants to speak about you, and in some sense for you” (494). In his visits to post-communist Poland in the 1990s, John Paul referred to these words several times as expressing one of his main missions during his earlier visits: to give voice to the silenced nation, to speak what they could not and to speak in their name to those who would not talk with them, as well as to the world at large. Later in the same homily, referring to the theme of the visit (“He loved them to the end”), John Paul said: “There is no justice without love.” (496).

Following this homily, in a follow-up ad lib talk, the Pope gave an unusually candid, for a public address in what was still a repressive communist country emerging from martial law, commentary on his own political and rhetorical agenda.  He said, among other things: ” I have tried in my words to speak about you and to speak for you. That is because I am deeply convinced that what has begun here, in Gdansk and on the [Polish] coast, as well as in other workplaces in Poland, is extremely significant for the future of human labor. And not only in our land, but everywhere.” (497)  And further:

Let this day remain the day of our common prayer for human labor in Poland, for solidarity ["Solidarity"?], for all the issues that are so important for you, working people, for your families, for the entire society, for our Homeland, that constitute the motives for hope about which I spoke already on the first day after my arrival in Poland. (. . .)

(. . .)  I pray for you every day, there in Rome and wherever I am, every day I pray for my Homeland and I pray for the working people, and I pray for this specific, great heritage of Polish “Solidarity.” I pray for the people who are connected with this heritage, and in a special way for those who had to or have to be victimized for this cause. And I will not stop praying, because I know that it is a great cause. Thus, my dear brothers and sisters, I end, I end with this promise of prayer, of an inner link with my Homeland and with you, with working people, with all those righteous and noble aspirations, which aim to make human life, through labor, more human, more worthy of a human being, in order to “renew the face of the land,” our Polish land [in Polish, the word for "land," "earth," and "soil" is the same, which gives the Pope's call an ambiguity difficult to render in idiomatic English], as I prayed already during my first pilgrimage on Victory Square in Warsaw, asking the Holy Ghost to come down and renew the face of the land, this land. I am asking you that you also remain in solidarity with the Pope in this prayer and in this “thinking-ahead” [the Polish word used here by John Paul II is also a neologism, apparently made up for the occasion]. One must  look into the future and preserve the strength of spirit and body for the future. (497-98)

At the end of the visit, in his farewell remarks at Warsaw Airport, the Pope called again for dialogue between the government and the governed: “What is still needed is dialogue, patient perseverance, long-range thinking, courage in taking up and solving new problems . (. . .)  Difficult issues demand the cooperation of everyone, the authorities and the people” (552).

During the 1987 visit, the Pope spoke more openly about “Solidarity” and more openly about politics in general, than during his previous visits.  While the core of his mission remained firmly religious, and he never stopped emphasizing that, the follow-up remarks in Gdansk, the farewell remarks, and many other things he said, indicate that he regarded the time as ripe for more concrete and direct political action, for concrete talks, concrete plans for reform or political compromise. In this sense, the Pope was clearly slowly entering into another role, that of a statesman and not just a religious leader, a major partner [along with the government, or at least its reform faction, and the opposition] in shaping of the political future of Poland.

Even more interestingly, there is evidence that he may have already been preparing the ground for another role for himself altogether (the role he fully assumed in his first visit in 1991 to post-communist Poland): that of the stern shepherd and guide through the challenges, temptations, and labyrinths of freedom and liberal democracy. In his homily at the Royal Castle in Krakow, for example, the Pope spoke about the shared responsibility of every Pole for the “problem of freedom — what it means, that we are free, how we are to be free, how do we want to and in what manner we want to be free” (449). This is a new element in his rhetoric, and one that clearly anticipates his major agenda for his post-communist visits to Poland: dealing with the moral challenges and dilemmas of freedom, and his preoccupation with the moral dangers of liberal democracy. Similarly, in his  welcome address at Warsaw airport, he greeted children, “including also those still living under their mother’s hearts” (372), i.e. the unborn — a reference that, like so many others, got lost in the general focus on the political, anti-communist meaning of the Pope’s visits, but one that also prefigures one of his major preoccupations in his post-1989 visits to Poland.  It is as if, anticipating the coming changes, John Paul was already preparing the Poles for the challenges and dilemmas of a new epoch.

On the other hand, it is possible that these elements were always there, but they were overlooked or interpreted in light of the pressing needs of the moment. Certainly, reading all of John Paul’s output from the perspective of two decades, one gets the impression of amazing continuity and consistency in his agenda, but also of extension in complexity and reach, as if all of his visits and speeches were part of a grand rhetorical plan for the overthrow of communism leading to an eventual reevangelization of Poland and Central Europe, and through them, of Europe.

POST-1989 VISITS

Because of the radically changed political conditions after 1989, the character of the Papal visits changed as well. Marek Czekanski has captured the general spirit of the post-1989 visits well in suggesting that John Paul II was in general answering the implicit question how to live in the new, and for most people incomprehensible, confusing, and difficult, reality, how to adjust to changed circumstances, how to find oneself in the new world that was gradually opening up.  Hence, the Pope came with the message of a return to the foundations of faith and the moral life, the Decalogue (1991); a call for increased moral consciousness in public life (1995); with the message that real freedom can only be based on truth and the Eucharist (1997); and with the more general and global call for a “new re-evangelization” of Poland and Europe and the creation of a “civilization of love” (1999).

The Fourth Visit, June 1-9 and 13-16, 1991

The fourth Papal trip to Poland was undertaken in diametrically different circumstances and in a significantly transformed socio-political and global context than his previous visits. Communism fell in Poland and across Central/Eastern Europe, the Iron Curtain had fallen, and the Cold War appeared to be over. The first post-communist, democratically elected government was in power in Poland. As John Paul II put it in his welcoming address, he came this time to a “sovereign nation and people” (559).

Ironically, however, the newly won sovereignty made the Church less relevant politically than it had been in a time of turmoil and strife. Many Poles were less enthusiastic for the Church than they had been when the Church served as a bulwark of tradition, a symbol of integrity and patriotism, and a de-facto leader of the struggle against the unpopular regime. The attempts in the early 1990s by the Church — or by factions in parliament ostensibly representing its interests — to aggressively promote religion and catholic values in public life, from mandatory religious education to anti-abortion legislation “Christian values” in textbooks, in the media, in legislation, and even in the constitution, and even proposals for abolishing all contraception, appeared to many Poles to go too far and to lead toward  a “clerical state.”  The Pope thus came to not only politically but also culturally very different country.

The occasion for the visit was the opening of the Second Plenary Congress of the Polish Church — a several-years-long effort at soul searching and deliberation whose object was to rethink the mission of the Polish Church in view of the challenges presented by the political and cultural transformation of the country. Another occasion was the 200th anniversary of the landmark May 3rd Constitution of 1791, a constitution that was one of the most progressive for its time and that constituted the historic high-water mark of Polish republican parliamentarism.

In his welcoming address, John Paul II reiterated the most famous words of his first 1979 pilgrimage to Poland: “Let Your Spirit descend and renew the face of the land. This land!” But, he added, “Today, I repeat this call at the beginning of a new period in Polish history: ‘Let Your Spirit descend! And renew the land.’ Let Him renew it! This land very much needs renewing: renewing in the power of the spirit of Truth, because ‘The Spirit comes for succor to our weakness’” (561). This time, however, the call for renewal had a different meaning than in 1979.

Its dual thrust of the visit was, on the one hand, to root out any “liberal” residues of communism in Polish culture (such as sexual permissiveness, freedom of abortion, the rights of women, or the absence of religion from the official framework of the state and from public education) and, on the other hand, to resist the impending temptations of freedom and of consumerist culture.

Freedom, John Paul II insisted, must be learned and earned; it is not automatic or easy. Freedom does not mean one can do what one wants; freedom implies moral responsibility. “[t]here must be education for freedom, there must be mature freedom. Only on such freedom can a society, a nation, all domains of its life rest, but one cannot create an illusion of freedom, which supposedly liberates man but actually enthralls and degrades him. On that score one must an examination of conscience on the threshold of the Third Republic” (Homily in Kielce 617).

In fact, the 1991 pilgrimage turned out to be a great collective catechism, a public examination of conscience at the “threshold of the Third Republic,” as John Paul II announced in his opening homily at the airport in Maslowo near Kielce.  Appropriately, the theme of the visit was the Decalogue. Its slogan was “Beware of losing your heritage/inheritance” (in Polish, the word for “inheritance” and “heritage” is the same and thus the Pope’s call contained, characteristically, a subtle potential ambiguity). The words, equally characteristically of the subtle rhetorical design of the Pope’s visits, echoed those spoken in his homily in Krakow during his first visit to Poland in 1979, where he asked Poles: “. . . before I leave, I ask you to accept this entire spiritual heritage that is called Poland with faith, hope, and love. . .” (205).

The thread of “inheritance” connects the political, historical, and moral lessons of the Pope’s homilies. In his homily in Bialystok, John Paul II declared: “If in the wake of the so-called past period [Polish] society inherited a deep economic crisis, then together with that goes an equally deep ethical crisis.  What’s more: the later to a significant extent is the condition of the former” (645).

And further,

 Do not let us, in our efforts to shape a new economy, a new economic order, take shortcuts and omit moral signposts. “What benefit does man obtain, if he gain the whole world but lose his soul’ (Matthew 16, 26).” (646)

With the Decalogue as the overall theme, each homily was based on a particular Commandment. Especially interesting is the way John Paul II reinterpreted the Commandments in view of the intersecting contexts of his perception of the needs of the specific historical and socio/cultural moment, his changing agenda in relation to the emerging Polish state, and his overall messages as head of the Catholic Church.

In his homily in Koszalin, John Paul II suggested that real humanism can only exist under the condition of faith in God. Therefore, he argued that the First Commandment (“Though shalt not worship any gods before me”) articulates the fundamental precondition for humanism and human morality.

The relation to the Third Commandment (“Remember to celebrate the holy day”), he suggested that human life must have some dimension of the sacred, so that one can “be” more (as opposed to merely “having” more), and thus realize one’s humanity more. The distinction between being and having then became the foundation for a warning again consumerism and the moral dangers it brings, and, finally, for a call to build a Christian community of the spirit, rather than just building democracy and capitalism: “The economic reform in our country should be accompanied by a growth in the collective spirit, increased care for the common good, noticing of those who are poorest and most needful, as well as sympathy and understanding for foreigners who come here for bread” (597).  At the same time, the Pope warned against the advent of the modern secular state, the “religiously neutral state.” He also called for preserving the (catholic) cultural and religious heritage which constituted the essence of Poland’s national character and thus should, according to John Paul II, be central to a fully sovereign Poland that is again finding its historic roots. This became the general sense of the call “Give thanks to God [for victory over communism], do not extinguish the Spirit” (Bogu dziekujcie, Ducha nie gascie”), that became the refrain of the 1991 visit (600). The “spirit” may be the spirit of renewal for which John Paul called in his dramatic 1979 appeal. Not incidentally, the call not to extinguish the spirit coincided with the beginning of the controversy concerning the rewriting of Poland’s constitution, and thus defining the character of the emerging country.

The 5th commandment (“Thou shalt not kill”), the Pope connected to the sacredness of the family, its importance as the foundation of civic and national life, and, be extension, to the necessity to protect the lives of the unborn and thus to abortion.  He also connected abortion to the history of genocide in the 20th century. “To this great cemetery of victims of human cruelty in our century,” he said in his homily in Radom, “is joined another cemetery: the cemetery of the unborn, the cemetery of the defenseless, whose face even their own mother never got to know …” (622). Finally,  by calling for “the movement of social solidarity with the conceived child and its parents” (623), he connected abortion, or rather his opposition to abortion, to the idea of solidarity and thus to the Polish struggle against communism.

His interpretation of the 6th Commandment (“Thou shalt not commit adultery”), the Pope connected to the proliferation of sex and pornography in commercial culture and its reduction of the human person to an object of desire, as well as to the resulting weakening of the family and of the sacrament of marriage

The 7th commandment (“Thou shalt not steal”), the Pope interpreted in a broader economic sense and in the context of nascent capitalism by suggesting that capital formation, private ownership of the means of production, and personal wealth are morally justified only if they contribute to the greater good. Personal property and wealth should provide, the Pope emphasized, fair employment, just wages, dignified working conditions, protection of the environment, and the accumulation of capital necessary to ensure continual economic expansion and general welfare. Property and wealth are immoral and against the Christian faith if they result from and feed private greed and consumerist one-upmanship that leads to the impoverishment of many at the cost of gain for the few.

The 8th commandment (“Thou shalt not bear false witness”) John Paul connected with the need for truth, decency, and humanity in public life and in the media. “Freedom of speech is not worth much if the word that is spoken is not free,” he said in his homily in Olsztyn. “If it is bound up with egocentrism, falsehood, trickery, even perhaps hate or contempt for others — for those, for example, who are different nationally, religiously, or ideologically” (667).  Here, the Pope was actually referring mostly — although indirectly — to the perceived sidelining of Catholics and Catholicism in the newly Westernized, secular, democratic Poland. Later, in a speech directed to the Catholic laypersons of the Olsztyn diocese, the Pope called for the abolishment of the “Catholic ghetto” –the situation in which Catholics feel excluded from the mainstream of political and cultural life.  In a country where 99 percent of the population is officially Catholic, such a call can be interpreted as de facto calling for complete religious control of public life; such interpretations made many Poles wary of the ambitions of the Church in the early 1990s.

In general perception, John Paul II’s first visit to post-communist Poland did not repeat the resounding success of his prior visits.  The crowds that turned out were smaller and many criticized his visit as out of touch with the times and the mood of the country. Many Poles expected the Pope to provide “operating instructions” for the young Polish democracy (Filas 24). But his warnings about the sinful nature of man and the dangers of freedom and consumerism — in a country where most people aspired to a Western lifestyle and were tired of moral lessons coupled with empty stores — were in disharmony with the prevailing social consciousness.

But that first pilgrimage to the new Poland turned out to set the stage for a larger vision, continued in subsequent visits: of a “reevangelization of Christian Europe,” as John Paul II suggested during his talk to diocesial synod in Bialystok (652). The seeds of this vision lay already in the Pope’s most famous words on Polish soil: his 1979 call “Let the Holy Spirit come and renew the land, this land.” The Pope repeated these words often in 1991, as he did during most of his other pilgrimages to Poland, but now he began to give them a new, evangelical sense; this gradual extension was most apparent the “love” homily in Warsaw, in which John Paul said: “I remind you once more: Victory Square, 1979, this call of a then still young Pope, which I want to repeat today … ‘Let the Your Spirit come down and renew the face of the land. This land!’ This Polish land, this European land, this entire land!” (756). (Remember that in Polish the word for “land” and “earth” is the same.)

In a speech to the diplomatic corps, John Paul suggested that in the radically changed political circumstances after 1989, there is a need to “work out, in the East and in the West, a vision of Europe as a spiritual-material unity” (732). And in his homily in Wloclawek, he suggested that “The world needs a redeemed Europe” (692). That, of course, implies also a redeemed Poland.

Thus, John Paul II’s larger agenda for the 1990s, as it began to emerge during his 1991 visit, was no less than a millenarian and evangelical crusade to redeem Poland, and, through Poland, Europe and the world. This agenda was elaborated through his subsequent visits in 1995 and 1997.

Fifth visit (unofficial): May 22, 1995

The slogan of the Pope’s one-day trip to Poland on May 25, 1995 was “Poland calls today for people of conscience.” He warned that “the trial of Polish consciences continues,” and called on Poles to preserve their consciences from “demoralization” and resist the “currents of moral permissiveness” coming from the West. He also noted that “Under the calls for tolerance in public life and in the media there is great, perhaps even increasing, intolerance” for Catholics (XXX).  At a time of growing polarization of the political scene and of the country, and political turmoil (the post-communists returned to power in 1993, their mortal enemy, Lech Walesa, was president, and that Fall a post-communist president would assume office), he said: “Wisely and persistently continue solving today the social and political problems the country is facing. Let concord and authentic care for the good of the Republic ["public weal" in Polish] reign.” (XXX)

Sixth visit: June 4-10, 1997

The occasion for John Paul II’s sixth visit was the 46th International Eucharistic Congress, held in Wroclaw. The slogan for the visit were words from the letter to the Hebrews: “Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the same for ever” (Hebrews 13, 8).  ”I come in the name of Jesus Christ — He who is ‘yesterday, today, and for ever’” John Paul announced in his very first words on Polish soil (welcome address at Wroclaw airport, 862). The theme for the visit was “The Eucharist and Freedom.” “What is freedom worth without love,” the Pope asked?

During that visit, the Pope was less of a stern teacher and moralist than during his 1991 visit. He praised Poland’s progress in the “difficult process of ‘learning democracy,’ the gradual consolidation of democratic structures and the law-abiding state” (welcome address at Wroclaw airport 862). At the same time, he noted, continuing “problems and tensions, often very painful ones, which, through a common and solidary effort of everyone must be solved with respect for the rights of everyone, especially of those who are defenseless and weak” (862).  He also continued to emphasize the need to strengthen Poland’s Christian and spiritual roots in the face of rapid westernization: “Take care not of the nourishment that passes but of that which lasts forever” (John 6, 26-27, 865).

On the other hand, during this visit John Paul II became even more of a millennial prophet and world statesman, issuing a powerful call for christian unity (“ut unum sint”) as a fundamental element of his wide-ranging program of the “new reevangelization” of Poland and Europe at the threshold of the approaching new millennium. “A great hour is striking,” John Paul II announced in his speech.

“Our answer should be on a par with the greatness of this moment of God’s particular kairos. Here, in this place, I want to say: tolerance is not enough! Mutual acceptance is not enough. Jesus Christ, He who is and who is coming, expects from us a visible sign of unity, expects a joint  testimony.” (…)  In the name of Christ, I ask for a joint Christian testimony. The West very much needs our living and deep faith at this historic stage of building a new system of multiple points of reference. The East, spiritually devastated by years of compulsory atheization, needs a strong sign of faith in Christ.” (870).

John Paul’s speech to the Eucharistic Congress was, in effect, his “state of the earth” (statio orbis) address, built around four fundamental scriptural elements: the centrality of the Eucharist, the symbolism of bread (which John Paul II used to discuss the problem of world hunger), the nature of freedom, and the dignity of man.

The Seventh Visit, June 4-14, 1999

John Paul’s spectacular visit to Poland in 1999 (widely expected to be his last) was one the most, if not the most, significant political and spiritual events of the post-communist decade. It was also John Paul II’s most extensive visit to Poland, encompassing twenty one cities in twelve days. John Paul II himself described this visit in his speech to the Conference of the Polish Episcopate in Warsaw as “the crowning of all my pilgrimages to Poland” (1094).

The occasion for the visit was characteristically manifold. One occasion was the conclusion of the Second Plenary Synod of the Polish Church (begun in 1991) — a Synod whose task was to rethink the mission of the Polish Church in view of the challenges presented by the political and cultural transformation of the country.  Another occasion was the 1000th anniversary of the creation of the Gniezno diocese — the first diocese and bishopric in Poland and, symbolically, the cradle of Polish Christianity.

The visit was, as John Paul remarked in his welcome address at the Gdansk airport, a “continuation” of his 1997 pilgrimage, a continuation that carried the fundamental message of the Gospel and of the symbolism of St. Wojciech’s martyrdom to other parts of Poland, an especially to Gdansk — the cradle of “Solidarity” (1013).  The theme for the visit was the Gospel of Eight Blessings from the Sermon on the Mount. The slogan for the visit were the words of St. John the Evangelist: “God is love.” In John Paul’s words: “Love is a ‘perfect fulfillment of the Law” (Romans 13, 10). ‘Love in its double dimension of love for God and for brothers is the synthesis of the moral life of a believer” (Tertio Millenium Adveniente, 50, 1094). “The future cannot be built,” John Paul emphasized, “without reference to the source of all love, to this source which is God … (1019). At the end of the mass in Gdansk, the Pope said: “Build your future on truth, freedom, and solidarity, which has its source in love” (1021). The rest of his pilgrimage was in large part devoted to laying and explaining the foundations for a “civilization of love,” basing on the qualities contained in the Gospel of the Eight Blessings.

The most concise articulation of the message of the 1999 visit, and perhaps of all his visits in the 1990s, was given in the homily delivered in Krakow. “We need to ask ourselves: What has our generation done with this great heritage [of the Krakow Church but also of the Polish Church and Polish Christianity]? Do the people of this Church still live by the tradition of the apostles, the mission of the prophets and the blood of the martyrs? (…) Let it not turn out that the treasure of faith, hope, and love, which our fathers protected through struggle and passed on to us, this generation will lose while asleep, not, as in Wyspianski’s The Wedding, through a dream of freedom, but through freedom itself” (1161). [In the well-known 19th century patriotic play The Wedding by Stanislaw Wyspianski, guests at a wedding await the arrival of a messenger with a magical golden horn, whose sound will be the signal for a national uprising against a tyrannical enemy who occupies the country. However, the revellers, stupefied by alcohol and dazed by the mirage of imminent freedom, which they had already been celebrating, fall asleep, the messenger loses his horn, and the brief moment of hope vanishes.]

The highlight of the visit was the Pope’s unprecedented appearance in the Polish parliament on June 11 — the first appearance by a Roman Pontiff in any parliament. The occasion for the speech to parliament was the tenth anniversary of the historic June 1989 parliamentary elections. His speech to parliament provided a dramatic climax not only to the 1999 visit but to all of his visits to Poland since 1979, as well as a symbolic climax of the post-1989 decade. It was also a moment that came perhaps closer than any other to providing symbolic closure to the political transformation of the country. Along with his historic homily on Warsaw’s Victory Square two decades earlier, John Paul II’s speech to parliament constituted, arguably, two most important rhetorical moments in his papacy in terms of the Polish transformation. The two speeches provide a rhetorical frame for the historic events that changed the face of Poland and of East/Central Europe.

In his speech in parliament, John Paul offered an interpretation of the events of the past two decades, an interpretation that avoided either excessive triumphalism or the moral critique that dominated his 1990s visits. Instead, his speech attempted to reconcile conflicting versions of collective and personal histories and the spiritual and practical dimensions of life in a democracy through a fully mature version of Christian practical humanism.

The opening of the speech provided the framing reference to the 1979 homily and its historic call that continued echoing through all of John Paul’s oratory since then:

“Twenty years ago, during my first pilgrimage to the Fatherland, together with the masses gathered in the community of prayer on victory Square, I called on the Holy Ghost: ‘Let Thy Spirit descend! And renew the face of the land. This land.’ Asking with trust for this renewal, we did not know yet what shape the Polish transformation would take. Today we know.” (1080)

The speech followed a pattern characteristic of many of John Paul II’s major addresses in Poland: it placed the current challenges of building a democratic order in the larger historic context of both the struggle against communism and the two centuries of struggle for national independence preceding the First World War. In this historical larger context, John Paul placed the Polish Church as leading the fight for justice, freedom, and human dignity; then, he emphasized that the Church remains in the vanguard of the struggle over the shape of the emerging new nation and over the shape of the emerging Polish democracy.  This struggle, he made clear, is not over. On the contrary, the struggle for an “ethical” social order now faces new challenges, and it is against these challenges that the Church now rallies its followers.

Echoing throughout John Paul II’s speech was the call to parliamentarians, politicians, and ordinary people to assume “responsibility for freedom” (this call had been the refrain of all of John Paul’s post-1989 visits to Poland). “The place where we find ourselves,” he pointed out (implying perhaps both the physical place, Parliament, and the place in history: at the threshold of a new era in Polish history), “compels a deep reflection on the responsible utilization in public life of the gift of freedom regained, as well as on the need to work together for the sake of the common good” (1082).  This “common good,” as the Pope defined it through a selection of quotations from Guadium et spes, the constitution of Vatican II, “includes the sum of these conditions of social life thanks to which individuals, families, and associations can more fully and more easily attain their own perfection. (…) The social order … should thus be ceaselessly oriented toward the good of the human persons, since on their arrangements should depend the arrangement of things, and not the other way around. (…) This order … must be supported by truth, built on justice, and animated by love …” (1083).

The work for this “common good” ought to be founded on the three qualities that comprised the famous (and by that time in Polish politics largely mythical) “ethos” of “Solidarity”: unity, solidarity, and faith — values that, as John Paul emphasized, should not disappear from the Polish political scene. It is for that reason that Poles should not forget the struggle against communist totalitarianism and the moral lessons of this struggle (this is another of John Paul II’s characteristic rhetorical moves: the transformation of history into a moral lesson for the present). And in words that brought the longest and most thunderous ovation of the day, John Paul II concluded: “History teaches that democracy without values easily metamorphoses into open or concealed totalitarianism” (1085).

Next, John Paul II reiterated his vision for a spiritually united Europe, reinvigorated by the new evangelical spirit emanating from its eastern flank. “The events in Poland ten years ago created a historic opportunity for the European continent, finally overcoming ideological barriers, to find its way to unity,” John Paul suggested. Referring to his frequently repeated metaphor of the “two lungs,” the western and the eastern, with which Europe should breathe, he drew a grand vision of a “great European Community of the Spirit,” which must be built “on the spiritual values that had once shaped it, taking into account the wealth and diversity of cultures and traditions of individual nations” (1086).  At the end of the speech, the Pope called once again for the building of a “civilization of love,” based on the “universal values of peace, solidarity, justice, and freedom” (1086). To this enterprise, he suggested, Poland can contribute its “historic experience” of struggle against totalitarianism and its “spiritual and cultural wealth”: its religious tradition and its historic bond with the Catholic Church.

John Paul II’s visit to parliament was hailed as one of the most important political events in modern Polish history. According to Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek, the Pope’s visit to parliament will have a critical influence on how Poland will develop and in what directions in will develop.

The general effect (one hesitates to say intent, but that is quite likely) of the 1999 papal visit was to offer a moral and spiritual summation of the first ten years of Polish freedom and to put this somewhat chaotic and uncertain time in the broader contexts of the struggle against communism and of the larger sweep of national history — and, through John Paul’s vision of the “new evangelization” of Europe and his sense of the role Poland was to play in it, European history.  Throughout the visit, the Pope offered repeated retellings of Polish history (adjusted to each particular location in which he spoke) that demonstrated the continued integral presence of the church, as well as the centrality of a moral element, in that history. Such retellings then served as points of departure for reflections on the general need for a moral element in history, including reflections on the presence (and centrality) of such a moral element (and of the church as its embodiment), in the history of the decade and on the need for such continued presence in the political and social life of the country in the future.

This overall rhetorical purpose was supported by symbolic aspects of the visit, especially the frequent consecration by the Pope of the various monuments to the version of Polish history (a non-communist version) that was slowly being written by the new order.  Rituals such as the blessing of a new monument to the Home Army struggle again nazism (and communism) just before the Pope’s speech in parliament, or the blessing of the monument to the victims of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, legitimated the emerging non-communist version of national history. They also legitimated, and in a sense consecrated, “made real” and “moralized” the history that had been written daily over the past decade, and thus also gave sense, and moral justification, to the struggle of not just political leaders but of millions of ordinary Poles whose lives had been thrown into turmoil by events and changes they neither completely willed nor fully understood. In a sense, it may perhaps be said that papal consecrations of monuments to the forgotten, erased, and new events and figures of history “wrote into stone” the moral element of which John Paul II spoke so frequently, that it rendered history, including the most recent and emerging history, moral — for the past as well as for the future.  It is perhaps this writing of the moral (and thus spiritual and religious) element into the nation’s history (or perhaps writing it back in, after the interval of “immoral,” “godless” communism) that was the foundation of the overall rhetorical design of John Paul II’s last visit to Poland — truly a crowning moment of his papacy as far as Poland is concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

The legacy of the manner in which Poland regained its sovereignty and democracy, the unique blend of religion, politics, and patriotism, of tradition and modernity enacted in the spectacles of John Paul’s visits, will long remain an important feature of Polish political life. To what extent it is the legacy of John Paul II’s oratory and presence, as opposed to having always been a part of the country’s political tradition, is debatable.  Certainly, however, there is no doubt that John Paul II remains the spiritual father-figure of the country, while his political legacy is increasingly becoming a matter of democratic bickering. In was instructive that while the 1999 papal appearances garnered record crowds and featured pageantry and media attention on a scale unknown ever before, the subsequent presidential elections in 2000 showed a country more divided, the political spectrum more fragmented, and electioneering rhetoric more cynical and populist than ever. It could be that, under conditions of democracy, and in spite of John Paul’s ferverent pleas, spectacle has begun to separate from substance, nostalgia from relevance, faith from self-interest, and practical politics from ostensibly professed principles. In view of this, John Paul II’s visits to Poland in the 1980s, in the unique context of a failing totalitarian regime in a ferverently catholic country (the Pope’s own country at that), and in the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, mark perhaps a brief return to the heroic era of rhetoric in Greece and Rome, where masterful oratory, combined with undeniable moral authority and mass appeal, and under conditions of extreme existential urgency,  had the power to change the fate of nations and the world.

By comparison, the post-1989 visits were less rhetorically dramatic and less history making, although they inevitably continued the play an important role in the country’s internal politics.  The exception may be the spectacular 1999 visit, but its profound emotional impact and the tremendous crowds and enthusiasm it generated may have had less to do with its real impact on the country’s course than in a nostalgic outpouring of collective spirit and support for the man who dominated the spiritual, moral, and political life of the country and who was a beacon of hope in the most difficult and significant decade in its recent history and certainly in the life of most members of the present generation of adult Poles — regardless of their religious beliefs.


REFERENCES

Czekanski, Marek. Pielgrzymka Ojca Swietego do Ojczyzny, Czesc Pierwsza. [The Holy Father's Pilgrimage to the Fatherland] Krakow: Wydawnictwo M, 1999.

Filas, Agnieszka. “Swieta Dyplomacja.”  Wprost, June 13, 1999, pp. 20-25.

John Paul II. Pielgrzymki do Ojczyzny, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1997, 1999: Przemowienia i Homilie. [Pilgrimages to the Homeland, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1997, 1999: Speeches and homilies]  Krakow: Znak, 1999.

Melady, Margaret B. The Rhetoric of Pope John Paul II: The Pastoral Visit as a New Vocabulary of the Sacred. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999.

Paczkowski, Andrzej. Od Sfalszowanego Zwyciestwa do Prawdziwej Kleski. [From Rigged Victory to Real Defeat] Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literacki, 1999.

Raina, Peter. Wizyty Apostolskie Jana Pawla II w Polsce: Rozmowy Przygotowawcze Watykan–PRL–Episkopat. [Apostolic visits of John Paul II in Poland: Preparatory Talks Vatican--People's Poland--Episcopate]  Warszawa: Ksiazka Polska, 1997.

Salazar, Philippe-Joseph. An African Athens: Rhetoric and the Shaping of Democracy in South Africa. Unpublished munuscript.

Skorzynski, Jan. Ugoda i Rewolucja: Wladza i Opozycja, 1985-1989 [Agreement and Revolution: Authorities and Opposition, 1985-1989] Warszawa: Presspublica, 1995.

Szulc, Tad. Pope John Paul II: The Biography. New York: Scribner, 1995.

Wnuk-Lipinski, Edmund.  Demokratyczna Rekonstrukcja: Z Socjologii Radykalnej Zmiany Spolecznej. [Democratic Reconstruction: On the Sociology of Radical Social Change] Warszawa: PWN, 1996.

Evangelical Christianity Online: Eliciting Material World Responses in the Cyberworld by Erin Flewelling, San Diego State University

On Good Friday, one of the most significant days in the Christian calendar, when Christians commemorate Jesus’ death on the cross, LifeChurch.tv’s Church Online gathered for an online global prayer outreach for upcoming Easter Services.  Essentially, individuals from around the world—who understand each other through the magic of translation software—logged onto http://babelwith.me and prayed together for friends and family who had not yet begun a relationship with Jesus.  This community of people is serious about the role they play in fulfilling the mission of God on earth, that is, connecting men and women to God and to each other in spite of the fact that most of them have never met in person.

Church Online is associated with LifeChurch.tv, a multisite evangelical Christian congregation that relies heavily on technology to expand its reach from headquarters in Oklahoma City, across all of Oklahoma, Texas, New York, Tennessee, and Florida.  Although most elements of services at their physical campuses are live, the teaching portion is a live feed or a prerecorded segment, depending on service time.  Their large staff also produces high quality supplementary videos, artwork, and curriculum which they offer free of charge to other churches along with sermon outlines and use of sermon videos.  They were also one of the first churches to venture into the internet campus world with the launch of services on Easter 2006.  Basically this allowed them to extend their message anywhere on the planet with an internet connection.  In a 2009 article published in Leadership Journal, Bobby Gruenewald, Pastor of Innovational Leadership at Lifechurch.tv, estimated that approximately 50,000 unique IP addresses log onto services every week, with about one in ten staying for the entire service.

I get a lot of questions when I tell people I’m researching online Christian churches.  They want to know if an online church can actually function as a church.  Certainly, the Internet is a great informational tool, and nobody is surprised about the proliferation of religious websites, but the idea that people can form spiritual connections over the internet seems counterintuitive.   However, the Internet presents enormous opportunity for evangelicals, and we shouldn’t be surprised that churches would want to levy that technology.  Stephen O’Leary reminds us that as people spend more and more time online, it “would indeed be an anomaly if a cultural force of this magnitude were not to find expression in the newly developing world of computer networks” (282).

The adoption of any technology, however, should raise questions about the effect of that technology on the people who use it.  Heidi Campbell writes that fears have “emerged that online religion [will] cause people to abandon their pews in exchange for worship via the keyboard and computer screen, further effecting the steady decline of “real world” church attendance” (xvi), and Brenda Brasher suggests that the “chief worry is that engagement with the Internet could reconfigure the traditions that technologically adept, spiritually committed people have gone online to maintain” (xii).  Others are more optimistic, but essentially, as Dawson and Cowan remind us, the “consequences for religion are yet largely unknown,” and we need to ask how this “new way of being religious” will make a difference in the way “religion is conceived and practiced in the future.”

Morten Høsgaard states the obvious when he says that religion cannot have an essence or existence independent of human existence, and that “allegedly pure cyber-religious sites are . . . produced and used by persons who do not live their entire lives ‘on the screen.’”  In other words, people who participate in online religious websites are real people living in a real world.  This way of thinking is compatible with evangelical Christianity, which argues against a purely propositional or virtual belief system, stating that faith without works is dead.   Evangelical Christian churches have very specific goals–life transformation, becoming like Christ, and sharing the story of Jesus with others.  The Christian faith is more than propositional; it is transformational.  Craig Van Gelder, professor of congregational mission at Luther Seminary in St. Paul argues it is “important . . . to keep returning to the foundations of what it means to be the church of Jesus Christ in the world” (1).  Indeed, he claims that the “the primary issue confronting the church in our context today “is the need to re-examine and re-envision what it means to be the church” (vii).  That includes the innovative use of technology.

Gruenewald, LifeChurch.tv’s Pastor of Innovation, says, “Our desire is to leverage technology to connect people to Christ, to each other, and to their community” (Hall 48).  These are the same goals as they have for their physical campuses.  But can an online church really do that?  Can an online church achieve the same things as a church with a physical presence?  And can decisions made in the cyberworld actually change the way individuals live in the material world?  LifeChurch.tv’s Church believes that they can.

In an attempt to fulfill its goals, Church Online has incorporated layers of rhetorical strategies, designed to take any cyberworld response into the material world.  In examining some of those strategies, we’ll look at three major elements of Church Online: embedded features on the website; the chat feature that is ongoing throughout services, enabling guests to interact with each other; and the actual recorded worship experiences.  Next, we’ll examine appeals made to extend the message of life transformation from the cyberworld into the world in which we all live.  We will also discuss the development of ethos and the use of repetition to effect life transformation.

First, the embedded features on the website allow visitors to the website to explore Church Online 24 hours per day, whether a service is going on or not.  Guests to the website can link to Facebook, they can “tell their stories” on a form, request additional information or “Live Prayer” in a private chat setting.  They can also access a blog written by Church Online staff and volunteers, who write about issues relevant to the online community including service opportunities through Church Online as well as opportunities to serve in the real world, and the importance of belonging to a Life Group.  One blog discussed how online communities deal with a death.  There was even a humorous video depicting Church Online chat conversations, which actually seem pretty odd at times.

The chat component of the Church Online worship experience opens approximately 30 minutes prior to the service starting and extends for approximately 15 minutes after the service ends.  The forum can be distracting for individuals who want to focus on the sermon without interacting with others.  As I said, the chats can seem odd as multiple conversations go on simultaneously – individuals will log on with their own agendas, their own theologies, or looking for dates.  However, after observing these chats for the last month, I understood that this chat component is a major way that relationships form at Church Online, and increases the likelihood that participants will respond to the messages found on the site.  I began to see many of the same people on the chat.  A few were present every time I logged in; others logged on to the same services week after week.  Listening in to their conversations, it was clear that these people had “history” together.  The forum is moderated by volunteers: a captain, an admin, hosts, and prayer volunteers.  They all receive video training on a password-protected portion of the website.  Volunteers greet every guest who signs into the chat, and from time to time they suggest ways for guests to make the Church Online worship experience more comfortable, such as turning off the chat or accessing sermon notes.  Volunteers respond to questions and engage guests in thinking about messages communicated through the recorded segments.  Frequently, one of the volunteers will send out Tweets with essential questions asked within the sermon or they’ll reference major points made in the sermon.  These Tweets become part of the chat.  For example, during week two of Red Letter Day, volunteers regularly sent out the statement, “Withholding forgiveness can hold you captive.  How can you truly forgive and be free?”  As guests chat, they engage these questions, and as a result the appeals made in the prerecorded segment are repeated throughout the Church Online experience.

The prerecorded portion includes a variety of segments.  Every service begins with a greeting from a campus pastor in the United States or from one of their global partners.  In the last few weeks we have been greeted by a couple from Northern Ireland, a pastor from Australia, a pastor from South Africa, a Czechoslovakian woman as well as a lay pastor from Atlanta.  These greetings connect viewers around the world and emphasize that although Life Church headquarters are in Oklahoma, the church itself has a global presence.  A second greeting comes from Brandon Donaldson, the Church Online Campus Pastor.  The worship band sings three songs.  This is a highly energetic band, and the music has broad appeal, featuring acoustic and electric guitars, bass, and drums.  Song lyrics flash across the screen, and guests can link to the band’s Facebook site if they want, choose to follow the lead vocal on Twitter, or purchase songs through i-Tunes.

Topical sermons emphasize practical real world application.  In the three sermons I transcribed, we were urged to trust God during difficult times, we were challenged to forgive, and we were asked to serve others out of love.  Past sermon series have focused on marriage, raising children, and financial issues.  Scripture appears on the screen, below the speaker, and guests can access the sermon outline by clicking on an icon.  They can take notes on the outline and if they write in their email address, Church Online staff will send a copy of the notes. The pastor wears jeans, a T-shirt, maybe a blazer, but never a tie.  In fact, you won’t find a suit and tie anywhere on this website or during these services.  These are real people, living in a real world, and guests to the website can identify with them.  Sermons often includes video testimony from church members who tell portions of their life story to illustrate the sermon points.  For example, in Red Letter Day #1, a supplemental video featured three individuals from different ethnic backgrounds and different ages.  Each sat alone on a red bench in front of a white background, looking directly into the camera, essentially into the eyes of the Church Online participants:

  • The first, a young white female, was nearly in tears as she spoke: “Hi, my name is Lisa, and in July 2008, my husband and I went in for a routine ultrasound at 20 weeks, and we found out then that our baby didn’t have a heartbeat.”
  • Next, a middle-aged white male spoke: “Hi, my name is Scott.  About, it was early morning, I got a phone call, and it was about my grandson being taken to the hospital.  And he was my little buddy.  He was the world to me.  I have other grandkids, but he was special.”
  • Finally, a twenty-something black female told her story:  “Hi, my name is Deidre, and, um— my father sexually abused me until I was eight years old. And he also beat the living daylights out of my mother.”

They continued to alternate, telling portions of their stories, describing a variety of situations where individuals might ask God what was going on.  After the pastor completed his sermon, a follow-up video ensued, and these individuals returned to tell their stories about how God breathed light into darkness.  Videos like this one function in a variety of ways.  Obviously, there is a pathos appeal as these individuals tell their stories, as we focus on their faces and hear the pain in their voices.  We are likely to have experienced something similar, or at least we know someone who has, and so we identify with these individuals.  In addition, these videos allow us to see points of the message applied to real life situations, like the ones we experience on a daily basis.

One of the most powerful elements to establishing Church Online as a legitimate spiritual community is the construction of ethos.  In On Rhetoric, Aristotle writes that if a speaker seems to be a “certain kind of person and . . . his hearers suppose him to be disposed toward them in a certain way . . .” (112), then the rhetoric will be more effective in persuading hearers to respond in a particular way.  In the case of Church Online, not only do the various speakers need to develop credibility, but the website itself and the various uses of technology must be constructed in such a way as to build trustworthiness.  Aristotle cites “three reasons why speakers . . . are persuasive” and listed “practical wisdom . . virtue . . and good will” (112) and certainly these are evidenced in the presentation as teaching pastors and lead musicians share personal challenges in living out their marriages, raising children, or dealing with economic issues.  They demonstrate a strong desire to live good lives, positively impacting and influencing their communities.  In the chat, captains, hosts, and admin open the chat by welcoming anyone attending the service.  They greet each guest who logs on, and they respond with caring tones.

In her rhetorical analysis of the websites of congregational churches, Lynne Raab notes that “high quality photos and graphics” which “demonstrated . . . a tight and coherent design . . . conveyed to some audiences a sense of authority and credibility based on quality, increasing their persuasive appeal” (153).  Indeed, this is a professional, quality site.  Videos feature multiple camera angles, lights, effects.  This is as good as anything seen on television.  If participants arrive before service begins, a time clock, counting down the hours before the next service starts.  Remarkably, participants can converse with people in multiple countries through translation software. All of these professional qualities convey a sense of trustworthiness and credibility that increases the persuasive appeal of the messages LifeChurch communicates.

A map of the world identifies all the countries logged onto any service, further legitimizing the experience, as does the presence of people from various cultures in the chat.  Furthermore, the existence of thirteen physical campuses across five states lends credibility, constructing an identity that extends from the cyber world into the physical world.  During the music segment, the cameras primarily focus on the worship band, but from time to time, it pans back, showing the congregation standing, engaged in worship.  The effect of these shots is to connect Church Online participants to real people, engaged in a live service.  When participants worship with Church Online, they are part of something that extends beyond the Internet.  Lives are being changed, decisions are being made, and communities are being formed as Church Online partners with churches across the United States and even around the world in building the Kingdom of God.  Indeed, last fall Church Online tangibly partnered with LifeChurch.tv’s physical campuses to put together Life Packs containing items to help people meet basic needs.  Campuses across the United States chose where to deliver Life Packs, and individuals involved with Church Online could choose to deliver them to their own community or to be part of sending Life Packs to a school in Pakistan.

All of these elements lead to a sense that Life Church can be trusted, that LifeChurch.tv has the authority to speak for God.  This lays a foundation for other messages, communicated repeatedly through various means in the sermons, ads, on the chat, and on the website.  The more times participants hear the same thing, the more likely they are to respond, and Church Online stays on message throughout the one-hour experience.

During Red Letter Day #3, Church Online Campus Pastor Brandon Donaldson pulled up his iPhone to read the story of a woman whose life changed because of being involved with Church Online.  During the same service, a video ad reminded participants that not only can they access several versions of the Bible through YouVersion, a free “app” for web-enabled phones, but they can also participate in surveys and type sermon notes on the outline provided through YouVersion.  Guest speaker Pastor Joel A’Bell commented to the live congregation that he no longer hears the shuffle of page turning as people open their Bibles.  Instead, he hears the click-click-click of people accessing their iPhones.

I don’t have a web enabled phone—I’m not sure I need one, and I’m not sure my eyesight would even allow me to read a YouVersion Bible—but after spending the last month with Church Online, I really want one.

Over and over I watched a video exhorting me, “You are called,” “You were meant for something greater.”  Faces of men and women of all ethnicities directly facing the camera, eyes apparently looking directly at me.  In her rhetorical analysis of church websites, Lynne Baab identifies these kinds of images as a “demand” because the participant’s gaze demands that I enter into some kind of imaginary relationship with him or her (154).  The call is vague and ambiguous—it applies to anything and everything that has been said during the service, whether on the chat, in various videos, or during the sermon.  The voice continues:

You will restore good back into the broken everywhere

All you need is Christ at the center of everything

Be who he called you to be because who you are is far greater than what you do

You are called.

This video exhorts me to do something, and allows me to interpret its message.  Perhaps it’s to forgive, to work on my marriage, to invite people to Church Online, to make a decision for Christ, to do something significant for my community.

At the end of each service, participants are asked to acknowledge their response to the sermon message.  During the first sermon in the series Red Letter Day, Pastor Craig Groeschel addressed his listeners, stating:

If you’re in a difficult place right now, and you say, Craig, I really do need prayer.  I would love to pray for you.  If you would like, if you really need prayer right now . . . would you just lift up your hands right now, at all of our locations, just go ahead . . . and just lift your hands up right and say, I need prayer.

At Church Online, response to this appeal is signified by clicking on a raised hand, shown on the screen.  A box below the screen acknowledges that the participant has raised a hand and counts the number of hands lifted.  A few minutes later, the Church Online Campus Pastor returns to the screen and urges respondents to request a “What’s Next Kit” containing a Bible, to join a small online Life Group community, or to click on the prayer link to speak to someone more privately.

Repetition is a powerful rhetorical strategy, and the service is filled with invitations to get involved in life groups, to volunteer with Church Online, to choose to follow Christ, to log on to the Prayer link.  As I watch again and again, I lower my natural defenses and I become more open to the messages of Church Online.

The first time I logged on to Church Online, I was distracted by the chat.  There were too many things going on for me to concentrate on the actual sermon message, and for whatever reason, the prerecorded segments seemed distant. Despite the fact that I was warmly welcomed by people on the chat, I wondered whether or not true spiritual community was possible and questioned whether or not Church Online could function as a “real church.”  After spending the last month transcribing services, though, watching people interact on the chat, hearing the message of life transformation over and over, I am changing my mind.  Perhaps it is the development of ethos, or perhaps it is sheer repetition, but I am beginning to believe that Church Online is a real church. However, I am already amenable to ideas of faith, and perhaps my bias toward faith influences my response.  As a Christian, already involved with a faith community, I am not Church Online’s intended audience.

I am curious as to their actual audience, a difficult determination due to the anonymity of the internet.  And yet, these are questions that have to be asked in order to determine whether or not the rhetoric of Church Online actually achieves its goals.  I want to know:  Is Church Online the primary religious experience for participants, or is it supplemental?  How do participants find Church Online, and what prompts them to stay?  What is their religious background, and how does that background affect their response to the rhetoric?  I also want to know: How many participants begin attending one of LifeChurch’s actual campuses, and how many begin attending another church?

Church Online Campus Pastor Brandon Donaldson closes every service, saying:“Remember, whoever finds God finds life.” And so these next questions are probably the most important in determining the persuasiveness of rhetoric:  What effect do decisions to begin a relationship with Christ made in the cyberworld make on lives lived in the world outside the internet?  Is there long-term transformation?  These and other topics concerning the nature of online religious community and the effect of technology, particularly religious technology, depending on the way individuals think and respond to the world offer endless opportunities for research.       Charles

REFERENCES

 

Aristotle.  On Rhetoric.  George A. Kennedy, Ed.  New York: Oxford Unver

sity Press.  2007.  Print.

Baab, Lynne M.  “Portraits of the Future Church: A Rhetorical Analysis of

Congregational Websites.” Journal of Communication and Religion 31,

November 2008: 143-181.  Web. 20 Feb. 2010.

Brasher, Brenda E.  Give Me That Online Religion.  San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.  2001.  Print.

Campbell, Heidi.  Exploring Religious Community Online: We are One in the

Network.  New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 2005.  Print.

Cooper, Joshua.  “Finding God on the Web.” Time.  Time.com.  16 Dec.

1996.  Web. 29 Nov. 2009.

Dawson, Lorne.  “The Mediation of Religious Experience in Cyberspace.”

Religion and Cyberspace.  Morten T. Højsgaard and Margit Warburg,

Eds. 15-37.  Print. 

Dawson, Lorne and Douglas E. Cowan, eds.  Religion Online: Finding Faith

on the Internet. New York: Routledge.  2004.  Print. 

Hall, Chad.  “Church Virtually.”  Leadership Journal Fall 2009: 46-52.  Print.

Højsgaard, Morten T. and Margit Warburg, eds.  Religion and Cyberspace. 

New York: Routledge.  2005.

O’Leary, Stephen J.  “Cyberspace as Sacred Space.”  Journal of the American

Academy of Religion 64:4 (1996): 781-808.  JSTOR.  Web. 24 Nov. 2009. 

Van Gelder, Craig, Ed.  The Missional Church in Context.  Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans Wm. B. Publishing Company.  2007.  Print.

 

Freaking the Mind: Exploring the Rhetoric of Magic in Criss Angel’s Mindfreak by Joseph Zompetti, Illinois State University

Abstract:

The art of magic has enjoyed increasing visibility and a resurgence of interest, as demonstrated by the rising popularity of magicians, such as David Blaine, Hans Klok, Franz Harary, David Copperfield, and the production of two major motion pictures within a single year – The Prestige and The Illusionist.  With his number one-rated cable television show and his recent ten-year contract for a major Vegas show with Cirque de Soleil at the Luxor, Criss Angel Chris Angelpersonifies the modern-day magician who is at the forefront of the magic renaissance.  This paper attempts to examine the rhetorical potency of magic by analyzing the first season of Criss Angel’s award-winning television show, Mindfreak.  By using Kenneth Burke’s concepts of symbolic action and identification, this paper explores the symbolic, albeit persuasive, dimension to magic as exemplified by Criss Angel.

Introduction

 Conjurers try to convey the impossible. They attempt to convince the audience that their performance is “real” magic.  In the end, the magician is performing, just as an actor or musician would do, in order to convince the audience that what they are doing is not only entertainment, but also substantive – the illusionist wants us to believe and feel their act is occurring and is realistic.  Although we know the “magic” on stage doesn’t actually happen – the assistant can’t disappear and the levitation is not within the realm of possibility – we still see, feel, and believe that what occurs on stage is real.  That is the magician’s trade; it is the cornerstone of persuasion.  We may think that sales persons, lawyers, and clerics are the masters of persuasion, but in “reality,” magicians are the foremost experts of persuasion.  They not only entertain us, but they also reveal to us what is not real.  They perform what we know is impossible.  In effect, they sell us a bill of goods that we know we shouldn’t buy; thus, magic’s persuasive charm.  According to Devant, a famous magician from the early 1900s, magic is “the feeling that we have seen some natural law disturbed” (p. 8). And as Aristotle remarked over 2,000 years ago, the “available means of persuasion” is what we know as “rhetoric” (Aristotle, p. 36). As a result, magicians are the modern rhetoricians, keen on persuading the rest of us that what is going on is really happening, when in actuality, the occurrence is nothing more than, literally, smoke and mirrors.

What may not seem so clear, however, is exactly how magic functions rhetorically.  The magic “act” may be nothing more than a simple sleight-of-hand or misdirection.  Yet, many magic acts, or what Criss Angel calls “demonstrations,” are much more involved.  They may be combined with other acts to produce illusions or altered perceptions of reality.  These acts, then, are an art form that require years of practice and study.  Whether it is a basic card trick or a Vegas-style illusion, the demonstration bends how one views the world.

The art of magic has enjoyed increasing visibility and a resurgence of interest, as demonstrated by the rising popularity of magicians, such as David Blaine, Hans Klok, Franz Harary, David Copperfield, and the production of two major motion pictures within a single year – The Prestige (Nolan, 2006) and The Illusionist (Burger, 2006).  With his number one-rated cable television show and his recent ten-year contract for a major Vegas show with Cirque de Soleil at the Luxor, Criss Angel personifies the modern-day magician who is at the forefront of the magic renaissance.  He even argues in the first episode of Mindfreak that “magic today is not popular culture; I’m hoping to change that.  Magic hasn’t garnered the respect as music or film, so that is what I’m trying to do increase its visibility with pop culture” (Angel, 2005a).

This paper attempts to examine the rhetorical potency of magic by analyzing the first season of Criss Angel’s award-winning television show, Mindfreak.  In order to understand more clearly how the art of magic does this, I will use the Burkean concepts of symbolic action and identification to investigate how the meanings behind the symbols in magic function rhetorically.  Since Burke remarks that “Words are the signs of things,” we shall investigate the signs behind the magic (Burke, 1966, p. 363).  By looking at Mindfreak, I will focus on this connection between magic and rhetoric.

Review of Literature

The rhetorical dimension of magic has been relatively unexplored.  In fact, most scholars have distanced themselves from studying magic because they deem it unsophisticated or non-academic.  This distancing has its origins in antiquity.  For example, the Hippocratic treatise, On the Sacred Disease, views magic as deceptive and contrasts it with the sacred principles of religion and piety (de Romilly, 1975, p. 27).  The proclivity of associating magic more with religion and the occult than with the art of rhetoric is commonplace (Aune, 2003; Dunn, 2005; Kennedy, 1998; O’Keefe, 1982).  In addition, Earle J. Coleman describes the lack of attention magic has received in most of the major disciplines, including psychology, sociology, history, and theatre (Coleman, 1987).  Unfortunately, due to the inattention magic has received from the liberal arts, magic has been relatively unexplored as a serious art form.

Despite the sparse attention magic has received by scholars, some have discussed how magic and theatre have a strong relationship, especially since magic may be considered a performative art (Angel, 2007; Barnouw, 1981; Blaine, 2002; Fitzkee, 1944; Kennedy, 1998; Steinkraus, 1979).  Furthermore, many have written about how magic is an art form, although its status as an “art form” is not associated, necessarily, with any particular academic area of study (Coleman, 1987; Dawes, 1979; de Romilly, 1975; Steinmeyer, 2003; Taylor, 1979).  Even Burke, in A Rhetoric of Motives, refers to magic as an “art” (1969, p. 42).  Although some consider magic to be an “art” form, most scholars overlook magic as an important component worthy of study, much less as a valued communicative act.

William Covino (1992) discusses the relationship between symbols and magic since antiquity, especially their simultaneous marginalization by so-called scientific reasoning.  Elsewhere, Covino argues that magic is rhetorical in the sense that it is mysterious and that language has magical qualities (1994; 2002).  However, he provides little support, other than his own perspectives, on the meaning-formation of magical acts.  Nor does he explore how magic utilizes persuasive symbols.  In an earlier work, Covino suggests that magic and rhetoric are synonymous, especially since the “congeniality of magic and technical rhetoric results from the real power of rhetoric to design and alter reality” (Covino, 1991, p. 25).  In other words, Covino argues that language use in society borrows from principles of magic, especially regarding the generative capacity of language to portray collective or social ideas.  In the end, while Covino makes the argument that magic and rhetoric are related, he emphasizes the magic in language, rather than the other way around.

In extending the assumption that there is some connection between rhetoric and magic, John O. Ward (1988) does a worthwhile job of chronicling the meanings given to rhetoric and magic.  Tracing the historicity of both magic and rhetoric from ancient Greece and Rome to the Middle Ages, Ward argues that at different times, rhetoric is associated with magic, and at other times, rhetoric is seen as technȇ.  In other words, at particular moments, the influence of magic can be seen in the conception of rhetoric, while at other times, rhetoric appears divorced from magical inspiration as it is viewed as purely instrumental in nature.

Perhaps the most important examination of both rhetoric and magic for our purposes occurs in de Romilly’s study, Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (1975).  When examining The Gorgias and The Republic, de Romilly argues that rhetoric and magic are co-productive.  In fact, she describes the relationship to the Greek concept of apatȇ:

Apatȇ, or illusion, is the aim of rhetoric. It is also the aim of magic, when the magician calls up phantoms and makes people believe in things that do not exist.  That this is the very principle of rhetoric is obvious. An antilogy, where one speech opposes another, shows that it is possible to see in the same reality now one aspect and now another. Protagoras himself was proud of making the weak thesis strong, and the strong thesis weak. (p. 26-27)

While de Romilly sets up this relationship between magic and rhetoric, she does not expound on this argument (in fact, it only occurs in the span of two pages in the entire book), nor does she describe in any detail how magic has rhetorical implications or persuasive qualities.  But, her reference of this relationship does help us by providing the foundation for analyzing the persuasive elements of magic.  If magic and rhetoric share the concept of illusion in common, then we may begin our examination of Criss Angel’s demonstrations as rhetorical acts.

Burke, Symbolic Action and Identification

Before examining Criss Angel’s demonstrations to see what, if any, rhetorical connection exists with the art of magic, it will be helpful to briefly recall Kenneth Burke’s perspectives on symbolic action and identification.  Burke’s important work on human symbol use centers on the foundation of how the meaning of language is not only shared among its users, but it also shapes the way those users think, feel, and express.  Meaning, therefore, is central to the investigation of symbolic action (or the use of language) and identification (the manner and form taken to reach other symbol users).

For Burke, symbolic action deals with the way language reflects reality and shapes our perceptions of the world around us (Gusfield, 1989, p. 8).  This happens, of course, because humans use language – or the meaning ascribed to the symbols used in language – to communicate their reality or perceptions of their world.  The meaning of symbols is the focal point of all investigations into rhetorical acts (Gusfield, 1989, p. 6).   In fact, according to Gusfield, who edited the important work entitled Kenneth Burke: On Symbols and Society, “Language cannot be separated from action because what the action means and what it is addressed to is symbolic in its content.  Action cannot be separated from language because the situation within which the actor acts is defined and understood by the actor through the concepts available to him [sic]” (1989, p. 11).  Thus, Burke provides important insight into how the use of symbols shapes our perceptions – a key component to the art of magic.  In terms of rhetoric, the meaning behind symbols is vital, since, as Burke describes, “Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric.  And wherever there is ‘meaning,’ there is ‘persuasion’” (1969, p. 172).

Additionally, Burke describes the process by which a symbol user attempts to reach, or persuade, other symbol users, or, for our purposes, an audience.    When discussing identification, Burke writes “A is not identical with his [sic] colleague, B.  But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B.  Or he may identify himself with B, even when their interests are not joined, if he assumes that they are, or is persuaded to believe so.  Here are ambiguities of substance.  In being identified with B, A is ‘substantially one’ with a person other than himself.  Yet at the same time he remains unique, an individual locus of motives”  (Emphasis in original, pp. 20-21).  In other words, identification is a process that transcends persuasion, while it still uses persuasion to achieve its aim.  Instead, identification is the moment when one person believes they fully share the perspective held by another.  If I can convince my students to trust me as their instructor because I, too, was a student who sat in similar chairs they now sit in not too long ago, then I can identify with them and, perhaps more importantly for this example, they can identify with me.

To understand how magic functions rhetorically, we can use the concepts of symbolic action and identification to view how Criss Angel’s demonstrations resonate, as texts, with his audience.  Burke actually speaks to this relationship, although he does not mention symbolic action specifically:

…one comes closer to the true state of affairs if one treats the socializing aspects of magic as a ‘primitive rhetoric’ than if one sees modern rhetoric simply as a ‘survival of primitive magic.’  For rhetoric is not rooted in any past condition of human society.  It is rooted in an essential function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic, and is continually born anew; the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols (Emphasis in original, 1969, p. 43).

Furthermore, Burke briefly discusses the role of magic in a functional process of persuasion.  Given magic’s persuasive aspects, the process by which this persuasion occurs might be considered identification:

The term ‘rhetoric’ is no substitute for ‘magic,’ ‘witchcraft,’ ‘socialization,’ ‘communication,’ and so on.  But the term rhetoric designates a function which is present in the areas variously covered by those other terms.  And we are asking only that this function be recognized for what it is: a linguistic function by nature as realistic as a proverb…For it is essentially a realism of the act: moral, persuasive – and acts are not ‘true’ and ‘false’ in the sense that the propositions of ‘scientific realism’ are.  And however ‘false’ the ‘propositions’ of primitive magic may be, …it is different with the peculiarly rhetorical ingredient in magic, involving ways of identification that contribute variously to social cohesion (Burke, 1969, p. 44).

Thus, both symbolic action and identification serve to frame magic as a uniquely rhetorical, albeit persuasive, communicative art.  Burke argues that magic, as a time-tested art practiced by primitive humans, is premised on the basic structures of language for it to operate.  By examining a textual case study, such as Criss Angel’s Mindfreak, we should be able to see more clearly the rhetorical connection with magic.

Freakin’ The Mind: Examining Mindfreak

Criss Angel is fond of saying “what you see is what you get” (Angel, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005h).  This, of course, is a double entendre, meaning it can be understood in two different ways.  On one hand, he could be saying that what we visibly see is what is real (i.e., what you see is what you get). But, on the other hand, he could also be saying that whatever occurs visibly is what should be believed, meaning that whatever tricks occur within our vision should resonate with cognition (i.e., what you see is what you get).  In fact, as one of Criss Angel’s consultants, Banachek, exclaims, “I think that people at home would be very surprised to find out that what they think might be illusion is actually reality, and what they think is reality, might actually be illusion.  Criss is happy to blur that area, he wants people to wonder about what he’s doing.  Because that makes good magic.  If you’re asking questions, he’s doing his job” (Angel, 2005h).  In the end, Criss Angel’s proclamation of “what you see is what you get” is nothing more than a disclaimer for added trickery for the audience.

Of course, this essay is not about how Criss Angel performs his demonstrations.  It is not a manual on revealing the secrets behind the tricks.  Instead, this essay concerns itself with how Criss Angel uses his demonstrations to persuade his audience.  In other words, it concerns itself with the rhetorical strategies used by Criss Angel Chris Angel Symbolto do the following: a) secure his audience’s attention, b) amaze his audience, and c) persuade his audience that his demonstrations are “magic.”  In so doing, this essay intends to suggest that magic is rhetorical, albeit persuasive.  Magic, as exemplified by Criss Angel, is rhetorical since it engages in symbolic action and identification.

Symbolic Action

According to Kenneth Burke, humans are “symbol-using, symbol-making, and symbol-misusing animal[s]” (Burke, 1966, p. 6; 1969, p. 33, 109, 237).  As humans, magicians are no different.  In fact, because magicians need to both entertain and amaze audiences, they are, perhaps, the most profound examples of human symbol-users.  With each trick, or demonstration, magicians use symbols to convey their intention and purpose – namely, to mystify their audience.  As such, Criss Angel does not disappoint.  In numerous ways, he uses symbols – both verbal and nonverbal – to mystify his audiences.  In this way, he uses symbolicity to enhance his magical prowess (Crable, 2003, p. 126).

In the different season one episodes of Mindfreak, Criss Angel displays numerous examples of symbolocity, or symbolic action.  Whether through his explanations of his demonstrations or the demonstrations themselves, Criss Angel exemplifies the symbolicity of a rhetorical act.  In essence, Criss Angel is trying to persuade his audiences that the demonstrations he engages in are real.  As he is fond of saying, “What you see is what you get” (Angel, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005h).  However, in many demonstrations, Angel fails to remind the audience that what they “see is what they get,” nor does he accentuate the importance of such a philosophy in each instance.  Nevertheless, whether stated explicitly or not, Criss Angel’s demonstrations are typically viewed the way he presents them – i.e., as what he does is what we get.  This means, of course, that some of the demonstrations seen on television may not be a part of Angel’s “what you see is what you get” mantra.

Consequently, Criss Angel uses symbolic action to highlight his demonstrations.  Symbolic action “is the creation (or recreation) of an identity that fits into a culture … symbolic action involves the creation of an integrated world view (or recreation of a culture) and finding a place in that system. Such an accomplishment allows one to ‘feel at home,’ to size up situations, and to avoid epistemological crisis … symbolic action is any strategy for encompassing a situation” (McKercher, 1993).  As such, Criss Angel uses particular symbols in certain situations to provide a certain perspective.  Usually, the perspective involves ordinary situations that perplex the mind.  As Criss is fond of saying, I like “to blur the lines of reality and illusion, I wanted to do a demonstration that would prove that the laws of this physical world can be bent or even broken” (Angel, 2005h).

If symbolic action is how language shapes our realities and perceptions, then many of Criss’s demonstrations do just that.  For example, he uses symbolic action in episode two, “Levitation.”  It utilizes symbolicity, in part, because the idea of levitating connects with the audience.  “The notion of being lighter than air is something that has intrigued every human being for hundreds and hundreds of years” (Kaufman, 2005a).  As Criss says, “I’m going to try to bug some people here in the park” and then he levitates himself in the park (2005b). One person in the audience says, “oh my God, how did he do that?”  The image of his levitation in a public setting creates the perception that he has mystical powers.  There are no visible wires, no noticeable props, no apparent gimmicks.  The demonstration appears real, although we know that there must be something to the trick.  In fact, “It’s something that the street audience, the people who are right there and if you were there you’d see it too, take place in front of your very eyes” (Cohn, 2005).

In another episode, “Super Human,” Criss Angel engages in symbolic action by using symbolic images to create the perception that he has super-human strength. The finale demonstration has Criss lifting a taxi cab in Las Vegas.  Before that, however, he asks several spectators on the street to line-up and consecutively push each other on the shoulders in an effort to push him over.  Even with ten people (mostly burly men), they cannot push Criss over.  One participant says, “It’s like pushing a wall” (Angel, 2005g).  As he ambiguously explains the process, Criss says, “your mind controls your body, and what doesn’t make sense to some people makes sense to others” (Angel, 2005g).  The image of him lifting a taxi also creates the perception that his super-human strength is a reality, hence symbolic action.  Criss explains, “I wanted to accomplish something that looked  to be completely impossible for someone with my weight to be able to do and hopefully that demonstration will inspire others to be able to fulfill their dreams that might seem impossible at that very moment” (Angel, 2005g).  This is important, as Criss indicates, since “If you dream it, you can achieve it,” and later he says, “I’m committed to do things that people don’t think are possible” (Angel, 2005g).

Symbolic action, as has already been described, is a process by which we look at language to inform us of meanings laden within the linguistic code.  In other words, it is the process we use to ascertain meaning in the complex symbol-using process.  What we understand may or may not be a simple perceptual process of the conglomeration of signs.

As such, the symbolic action expressed in Criss Angel’s demonstrations reveals that magic utilizes symbols.  Whether it is words or nonverbal gestures, the magician incorporates symbols for his/her ultimate effect. Of course, the magician also needs to manipulate the audience’s perception of the symbolic context around them.  As Criss Angel suggests, “An illusion exploits the way you visually process something” (Angel, 2007, p. 158). This is particularly true since magic is the “audacious individual use of existing powerful symbols” (O’Keefe, 1982, p. 73). In other words, the symbols used in an illusion are merely a distraction so that the ultimate symbol(s) – the climax of the illusion – demonstrate the importance of a perception of reality.  As Burke posits, “Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function as a deflection of reality” (Burke, 1966, p. 45).  Hence, magic, if done properly, is merely a deflection of reality, and, as such, is only a symbolic perception of one’s (i.e., audience member’s) conception of reality.

Identification

Criss Angel uses identification in the first episode in season one of Mindfreak. Criss, who seemingly is being burned on Freemont Street (one of the busiest streets in Las Vegas), lies down on the pavement after being burned for over 30 seconds, and then the body disappears and we see Criss as one of the aids who is using a fire extinguisher to put out the fire.  He replaces the victim with the rescuer. As Criss states, “I like to play with what people’s fears are; I like to confront those for people, and people have a fear of being burned alive” (2005a).

This is a sentiment that we hear as well in a later episode, called “Building Walk,” where Criss walks down 50 stories of the Aladdin hotel to confront the fear of heights (Angel, 2005h).

A second example of identification occurs in the fourth episode, entitled “SUV Nail Bed.”  The show, among other things, focuses on Criss lying on a bed of eight-inch nails while an SUV is slowly driven over him.  During the commentary leading up to the stunt, Criss says, “I don’t think of pain as most people would probably perceive it … Pain is beautiful thing, when you feel pain, you know you’re alive” (Angel, 2005d).  A little later he says, “Pain is just something that you can overcome” (Angel, 2005d).  The idea that he endures pain as a form of identifying with his audience seems apparent enough.  Before the SUV demonstration, Criss approaches some folks on the street.  He then swallows needles and thread and then pulls them out of his belly button.  The crowd makes comments such as “oh my god,” “oh God that’s crazy,” “that was nuts,” and “I’m freaked out” (Angel, 2005d).  The perceived physical act of pulling needles through one’s flesh clearly illustrates the endurance of pain.  Taking it to another level, the SUV nail demonstration heightens the perception of conquering pain.  As Criss states toward the end of the show, “Failing equals death, so I have no margin for error” (Angel, 2005d).

In another episode, the “Wine Barrel Escape,” Criss Angel is essentially paying an homage to Harry Houdini since he will be padlocked in a wine barrel several stories in the air. As he prepares for the demonstration, Criss Angel tells the audience that the water is too cold and his muscles couldn’t function, so he asks for warmer water.  Lance Burton, who is narrating this episode, says this “isn’t the stunt to try when you don’t have full control of your body” (Burton, 2005).  This all adds to the suspense of the demonstration.  And, to add to the suspense even more, after they initially raise the wine barrel, they bring it down after Criss gave the “abort” signal because, as he says, “a line got caught” which made his wrists get “crushed” (Angel, 2005c).  Lance Burton says this is incredible because Criss Angel had the “presence of mind” to make the call (Burton, 2005). This helps the identification with the audience, as it did in Houdini’s day, because it resonates with the audience’s perception of fear.  As Criss Angel states, “Houdini had this profound effect on people because he connected to them on an emotional level” (Angel, 2005c).  As such, Criss Angel, too, impacts the audience on an emotional, albeit fearful, level.

In another episode, “Buried Alive,” Criss Angel is literally placed into a coffin and buried six-feet under.  Criss remarks, “We’re going to actually have a POV camera in there so that people at home can actually experience  what it feels like to be buried alive” (Angel, 2005e).  Like his other shows, Criss portrays the conquering of basic fears.  Scholars have documented that being buried alive is one of the most basic and dreaded of all fears (Bondeson, 2001).  In this way, Criss Angel is identifying with his audience on a very primal level.  As Banachek, a Mindfreak consultant and accomplished mentalist, remarks, “If something goes wrong, he’s definitely dead” (Banachek, 2005a).  Thus, the fear of dying, especially by being buried alive, triggers an emotional response from the audience.

In two different episodes – “Hellstromism” and “Blind” – Criss Angel demonstrates that muscle and mind reading are crucial to everyday activities of a magician.  In “Hellstromism,” Criss needs to locate certain objects through the touch of a participant who knows where the objects exist.  In “Blind,” Criss relies on Mandi Moore to help him drive a car blind-folded. Of course, he also asks her to think of a place in Los Angeles, without his knowledge, and he drives the car to that location.  In “Hellstromism,” Criss argues that “Muscle reading is basically the ability to actually determine what’s somebody’s thinking by the way their muscles are reacting” (Angel, 2005f).  Later in the episode, noted Mindfreak consultant and Criss Angel friend, Banachk suggests, “A mentalist is somebody who performs magic of the mind, we appear to be psychic, we appear to move objects, read people’s minds, who really get into people’s minds” (Banachek, 2005b, “Prediction”). As a result, as Banachek suggests in a different episode, “the skill of getting into people’s heads is tricky.  It’s so hard, and he has a natural ability.  Creating that vulnerable moment for people so that they really think you’re getting into their head, allows you to truly get into their heads” (Banachek, 2005c).  Thus, Criss Angel uses his powers of mental manipulation to identify with his audience.  By claiming to be able to read people’s minds, Criss provides the perception that he has unique powers that enable him to understand the condition of other people.  This is, perhaps, the quintessence of identification.

As in some of his other shows, Criss Angel uses his illusion of walking down 50 stories of the Aladdin hotel/casino as a demonstration of his ability to conquer another fear – the fear of heights.  In “Building Walk,” Criss literally is shown as walking down the building of the Aladdin.  In one way, this is a form of identification because many people dream to walk up or down a building – much like Spiderman.  As Dale Hindman, the president of the Magic Castle, suggests, “Criss is doing what Harry Houdini did.  Know that that’s what your audiences want, and then go after them with a vengeance and make it public, and do it better than the next guy.  Harry Houdini did that all the time” (Hindman, 2005).  On the other hand, Criss is identifying with his audience, yet again, by confronting a fear – in this case, the fear of heights.  According to Criss, “With ‘Building Walk’ specifically, I try to address people’s fears.  What I’m trying to do is overcome other people’s fears, and hopefully they’ll get the ‘how the hell did he do that’ factor in there” (Angel, 2005h).  In a related way, Richard Kaufman, the publisher of Genii magazine, argues, “most people don’t like to dangerous things themselves, but they like to watch other people do dangerous things.  There’s that aspect of voyeurism that people find intriguing” (Kaufman, 2005b). Yet again, Criss is identifying with the audience because his demonstration deals with a common human fear.  As he claims in the episode, “I think when you confront your fears, you grow as a person.  People everyday don’t live life to its fullest because they’re concerned about getting on planes, they can’t get out of their house, they can’t go on an elevator – they’re so many things that people fear.  So, for me if I can help one person to live their life to the fullest, that means a lot to me” (Angel, 2005h).

Once again, in “Blind,” Criss Angel confronts people’s fears of sensory deprivation.  With taped coins around his eyes in addition to a solid black blindfold, Criss drives Mandi Moore’s care through Los Angeles to a destination of her choosing, but without his knowledge (Angel, 2005i).  Luke Jermay, a Mindfreak consultant, argues, “I don’t believe Criss is psychic; I believe he’s a very skilled performer with a toolbox of techniques that he uses to produce the illusions that he does” (Jermay, 2005).  Nevertheless, even if Criss Angel does not possess mystical powers, his ability to navigate through crisis situations, while appearing to be blind, yet again resonates with the audience who fears losing their own sight.  In this way, Criss identifies with his audience, by means of his own magical demonstrations, in a way that signals his unique abilities that transcend the common person’s basic fears.

As we have seen, Criss Angel attempts to draw his audience into his demonstrations.  Whether it is in the street or on a more massive demonstration of an illusion, Criss Angel tries to bring his audience into his artistic creation.  As Criss stipulates in his book, “When I perform, I use my power, my gifts, my art to help people escape from the ordinary into the world of the extraordinary.  I have the power to help them forget their problems, if only for a few moments” (Angel, 2007, p. 149). The point, of course, is not only to identify with one’s audience, but also to connect with them on a basic, emotional level.  Criss agues that he is able “to take people to places they would never otherwise experience.  The emotional connection is like a passageway to a private world – my private world.  Fantasy and the great unknown have always fascinated people … The wonderment, the unexpected, the moment of ‘wow’ is something I live for” (Angel, 2007, p. 126).  Of course, the “amazement” factor is only part of the equation.  Criss Angel, undoubtedly, wants to “wow” his audience.  However, like most magicians, Criss Angel is also concerned with identifying with the audience in a special, unique way.  For Angel, this connection entails a purpose that signifies that a single person can overcome a particular hardship.  Much like Houdini, Criss Angel tries to overcome the constraints that many people feel that oppress them.  In fact, as Criss argues, “I loved Houdini’s primary message. If I can get out of this situation, you can get out of yours” (Angel, 2007, p. 89). In this way, Criss Angel identifies with his audience in a very important way – he exemplifies the ability to overcome hardship and tribulation.  The capacity to conquer fears and fortitudes is a magician’s sign that he/she is able to transcend the average conundrum.  As a result, they signify that anyone, including the common person, can overcome such difficulties themselves.

Conclusions

Criss Angel provides us a unique opportunity to see how magic and rhetoric intersect.  While not revealing any of his magic secrets, this essay acknowledges Angel’s hard work and unique magical abilities – both on-screen and off.  Furthermore, this paper identifies several different ways that magic is rhetorical.  In some ways, the magical performance is magical in the way it is performed (Steinmeyer, 2003). In other ways, the words the magician uses while performing the act are important (Angel, 2007; Covino, 1992; Steinmeyer, 2003).  In any case, the “trick” or “act” itself in magic is persuasive since it captivates the audience’s attention and convinces them that the trick or act is part of reality.

What is illusion and what is “real” is open to debate.  That is the magician’s trade – to blur reality with illusion. According to Paul Draper, a former consultant to Criss Angel’s Mindfreak, “Magicians provide physical and tangible representations of the miraculous that fools all of our senses. Audiences can take many meanings from this to fit their personal needs and beliefs” (Draper, 2007).  Thus, conjurer’s use the skills of the trade to convince the audience that what is impossible is possible, what is unrealistic is real.

Given the paucity of studies that examine the intersection between rhetoric and magic, this paper treads new territory.  It also provides an opportunity for those interested in the art of magic and the art of rhetoric to see how both can mutually reinforce the other.  And this is really the beauty of a study like this – both objects of analysis can reinforce the other.  In essence, the rhetorical possibilities as well as the rhetorical prowess of magic can illuminate not only the essence of persuasion, but also the practical effects of symbolic influence.

Of course, much more investigation can occur regarding the relationship between magic and Burke.  While Burke argues that that magic is, at least in some ways, rhetorical, he never goes so far as to suggest the manner or methods in which magic is rhetorical.  However, for our purposes, Burke could prove to be instrumental in additional rhetorical studies.  As he says, “By the ‘symbolic’ or ‘sympotmatic’ nature of terms (in the strictly psychoanalytic sense) we mean their significance, not as defined in a sheerly lexical context (as in a dictionary) but as secretly infused with some ‘repressed’ or ‘forgotten’ context of situation that was in some way ‘traumatic’” (Burke, 1966, p. 359).  We could argue that magic is one of those situations.  At the very least, the performative art of magic could be the “nature” or “situation” of rhetorical action.  In this way, Burke offers us the possibility of future research in the area of magic and rhetoric.

Based on Criss Angel, I believe we can make the argument that magic is rhetorical – it uses symbols and images to frame our sense of reality based on illusion, it embraces symbols to identify with us as the audience, and it persuades us that what is occurring is real.  What is central to this discussion is the intersection of image and meaning.  While we haven’t described in much detail the importance of message or meaning in this discussion, we cannot, nevertheless, overlook it.  As Burke describes, “meaning and symbol are not dependent as things on context; they are relations, not objects. Ignoring this point, seeing meaning and symbols as things ,has allowed cultural analysts to erect a distinction between symbolic structures and concrete structures; to differentiate religion, myth, art – held to be “essentially” symbolic forms – from economics, politics, kinship, or everyday living” (Gusfield & Michalowicz, 1984, p. 418).  This is even more pronounced when we see what David Devant – the notable magician of the turn of the century of the 1900s – argues that, “I regard a conjurer as a man who can hold the attention of his audience by telling them the most impossible fairy tales, and by persuading them into believing that those stories are true by illustrating them with his hands, or with any object that may be suitable for the purpose” (Emphasis added, David Devant, quoted by Steinmeyer, 2003, p. 93).  Therefore, the magician uses their talents to connect with the audience.  In fact, it is crucial that the magician does so in order to relate to the audience in a manner that resonates with the audience in a key way to connect them with the acts on the stage or on television. In essence, then, “Magic is a social act whose medium is persuasive discourse, and so it must entail the complexities of social interaction, invention, communication, and composition” (Covino, 1992, p. 363).

While magic is rearing its ugly head in movies like The Prestige and The Illusionist, we also see its attraction in performing artists like David Blaine, Hans Klok, and Franz Harary.  Of course, there is also Criss Angel.  As Lance Burton suggests, “Criss [Angel] is going to be written in the history books as one of the great magicians in the 21st century” (Lance Burton, 2005). This may be true, but any good magician or illusionist must understand their audience.  Jim Steinmeyer, one of the most notable and respectable magic historians and trick architects, claims, “When magicians are good at their jobs, it is because they anticipate the way an audience thinks. They are able to suggest a series of clues that guide the audience to the deception. Great magicians don’t leave the audience’s though patterns to chance; they depend on the audience’s bringing something to the table – preconceptions or assumptions that can be naturally exploited” (Steinmeyer, 2003, p. 117). Therefore, the audience is key.  And persuading the audience is central to a magician’s purpose.

References

Angel, C. (2005a). Burned alive. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2005b). Levitation. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2005c). Wine barrel escape. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2005d). SUV nail bed. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2005e). Buried alive. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2005f). Hellstromism. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2005g). Super human. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2005h). Building walk. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2005i). Blind. Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Angel, C. (2007). Mindfreak: Secret revelations.  New York: Harper Collins.

Aristotle (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (edited and translated by G. A.

Kennedy). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Aune, J. A. (2003). Witchcraft as symbolic action in early Modern Europe and America.

Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 6, 765-777.

Banachek  (2005a).  In Criss Angel’s “Buried Alive.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Banachek  (2005b).  In Criss Angel’s “Prediction.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Banachek  (2005c).  In Criss Angel’s “Blind.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Banachek  (2005d).  In Criss Angel’s “Building Walk.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Barnouw, E. (1981). The magician and the cinema. New York: Oxford University Press.

Black, E. (1992). Rhetorical questions: Studies of public discourse. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Blaine, D. (2002).  Mysterious stranger: A book of magic.  New York: Villard.

Bondeson, J. (2001). Buried alive: The terrifying history of our most primal fear. New York: Norton & Company.

Burger, Neil (director) (2006). The illusionist. Yari Film Group.

Burke, K.  (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burke, K.  (1969). A rhetoric of motives.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burton, L. (2005). In Criss Angel’s “Wine Barrel Escape.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Cohn, R. (2005). In Criss Angel’s “Levitation.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Coleman, E. J. (1987). Magic: A Reference Guide. New York: Greenwood Press.

Covino, W. A. (1991). Magic, Literacy, and the National Enquirer.  In Patricia Harkin and John

Schilb (Eds.), Contending with words: Composition and rhetoric in a postmodern age.  New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Covino, W. A. (1992). Magic and/as rhetoric: Outlines of a history of phantasy. JAC, 12.2,

available via Ebsco Academic Search Premier.

Covino, W. A. (1994). Magic, rhetoric, and literacy: An eccentric history of the composing imagination. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Covino, W. A. (2002). The eternal return of magic-rhetoric: Carnak counts ballots.  Rhetoric and composition as intellectual work (ed. by Gary A. Olson). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Crable, B.  (2006). Symbolizing motion: Burke’s dialectic and rhetoric of the body. Rhetoric Review, 22, 121-137.

Dawes, E. A (1979). The great illusionists. Secaucus, NJ: Chartwell Books.

de Romilly, J. (1975). Magic and rhetoric in ancient Greece. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Devant, D. (1909). Magic made easy. London: Cassell.

Draper, P. (2007, September 17). Personal Interview.

Dunn, P. (2005). Postmodern magic: The art of magic in the information age. St. Paul:

Llewellyn Publications.

Fitzkee, D. (1944). The trick brain. San Rafael, CA: St. Raphael House.

Giobbi, R. (2007, April). Artistic magic. Genii: The conjurors’ magazine, 70, 20-23.

Gusfield, J. R., & Michalowica, J. (1984). Secular symbolism: Studies of ritual, ceremony, and the symbolic order in modern life. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 417-435.

Hindman, D.  (2005). In Criss Angel’s “Building Walk.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Jermay, L.  (2005).  In Criss Angel’s “Blind.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Kaufman, R. (2005a). In Criss Angel’s “Levitation.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Kaufman, R. (2005b).  In Criss Angel’s “Building Walk.” Mindfreak: Season One.  A&E.

Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative rhetoric: An historical and cross-cultural introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

McKercher, P.   (1993) Toward a systematic theory of symbolic action.  Ph.D. dissertation.

University of British Columbia. Available online: http://people.ucsc.edu/~pmmckerc/D11.HTM.

Nolan, Christopher (director) (2006). The prestige.  Newmarket Productions.

O’Keefe, D. L. (1982). Stolen lightning: The social theory of magic. New York: Continuum.

Ortiz, D. (2007, April). Designing miracles. Genii: The conjurors’ magazine, 70, 93-94.

Raven, M. (2007, November). Max Raven and the evolution of a mind reader. Genii: The

conjurors’ magazine, 70, 50-68.

Steinkraus, Warren E. (1979, October). The art of conjuring. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 13, 17-27.

Steinmeyer, J. (2003). Hiding the elephant: How magicians invented the impossible and learned to disappear. New York: Carroll & Graf.

Steinmeyer, J. (2007, November). Max Raven and the evolution of a mind reader. Genii: The conjurors’ magazine, 70, 50-68.

Taylor, A. (1979). Magic and English romanticism. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Ward, J. O. (1988). Magic and rhetoric from antiquity to the renaissance: Some ruminations. Rhetorica, 6, 57-118.

Assessment of ESL Students in the Mixed Classroom Environment by Rose Burt, San Diego State University

Early in the 1970s, as increasingly diverse students were granted access to higher education through measures like the G.I. Bill, the discussion surrounding ESL students in the composition classroom began to note a distinction between how instruction should be designed for English language learners as opposed to instruction for native speakers.  Authors argued that ESL students could not be assessed in the same manner as other students.  Following this assertion, authors such as Ann Raimes posed questions about the relationship of composition instruction to ESL students.  In her 1976 essay, Raimes asked questions like “What do teachers do?” “What is composition?” “What is composition for the ESL student?” and “What is the teacher’s task?”  In the subsequent decades, many authors attempted to answer these questions in books and articles presenting comprehensive arguments about how to instruct students for whom English is a second language, mostly focused on how to structure composition classes designed either specifically for ESL students or for basic writers, with whom ESL students are often grouped.

However, the implication of these questions and the research that followed has changed dramatically in light of recent educational trends.  The ability of college campuses to provide special services for speakers of other languages has been supported as the best means of ensuring success at the post-secondary level.  Yet, according to the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates in California, nearly 40% of California K-12 students are from a language minority (ICAS 3).  At the college level, this distinction is perhaps even more predominant: “on some campuses, especially in the CCC system, ESL learners represent a growing majority of students” (ICAS 9).  These numbers don’t include students termed “generation 1.5,” who may have received most formal education in English but still speak another language predominantly outside of school and thus encounter much of the same cultural dissonance as other ESL students.  California’s post-secondary schools are increasingly inclusive of students with mixed language backgrounds, to the extent that it is no longer feasible or advisable to create separate ESL classes for all non-native speakers.[1]

Perhaps now more than ever, it is important to reconsider the questions Raimes asked of all composition teachers.  Given that many of our students will be in traditional composition classrooms without previous or simultaneous separate ESL instruction, we must attempt to address the needs of ESL students without simply forming a dividing line of instruction and assessment between ESL students and native speakers in a mixed classroom.  With an increasingly diverse student body, a definite line would be nearly impossible to fairly draw.  To date, educators and composition theorists have focused mostly on how to prepare the classroom for effectively instructing ESL students, including what prompts to write, how to measure student proficiencies, how to conduct discussions, and what behaviors to avoid.  Despite its educational impact, most of these studies place only tertiary significance on responding to ESL texts, behind fostering an environment sensitive to cultural diversity and communicating clearly.  Achievement of the latter two will directly affect the student performance being assessed, but too little emphasis has yet been placed on how to effectively respond to essays by English language learners.  Even if we create clear, concise prompts that do not presuppose a single cultural-linguistic perspective, how we respond to the essays our students turn in will have a dramatic effect on their perspectives of their own abilities and the writing process.  Rather than assessing ESL students in isolation, we must now question how we will respond to students from many socio-linguistic backgrounds in a traditional (mixed) composition classroom.  In light of this new environment, suggested methods of effective response to and assessment of ESL student texts include discussion of the relationship of culture to language, giving priority to comments on content over surface revisions, ensuring that responses are delivered clearly and require active student engagement, and remaining flexible in assessment techniques.

The Relationship of Culture to Language

With the explosion of cultural studies in the 1990s, composition theorists began to discuss language as both culturally constructed and socially significant.  In composition theory focused on English language learners, the idea that culture and language are interwoven suggests that instructors must read student work with greater attention to potential rhetorical subjectivity.  In 1989, William Grabe and Robert Kaplan published “Writing in a Second Language: Contrastive Rhetoric,” which would later become one of the most often-cited essays by other educators and theorists concerned with composition for ESL students.  In their essay, Grabe and Kaplan claim that writing in English (L2) can only be fairly assessed when compared with the student’s primary language of composition (L1).  They describe the relationship of culture to language in these terms as a confluence of constructed rhetorics: “Contrastive rhetoric predicts that writers composing in different languages will produce rhetorically distinct texts, independent of other causal factors…literacy skills (both reading and writing) are learned…they are culturally (and perhaps linguistically) shaped” (Grabe and Kaplan 264).  If we accept the view that language is socially and culturally constructed, instructors should begin their assessment of ESL student writing by identifying student goals in the target language of communication, discussing conventions of the language of origin and English, and learning about the student’s background culture and language as appropriate.

Each of these methods refrains from any indication that English is superior, as a language or rhetorical strategy.  Couching the approach in these terms, composition instructors are free to discuss with the student why, as a culture, we value expressing ourselves in certain ways without suggesting that the student should give up their first language or culture.  In order to best begin this conversation, Guanjun Cai, Ken Hyland, and Sundem et. al. advocate for instructors to learn about students’ home culture and language and to help the student identify a target language and form of composition.  As Hyland argues, this is a rhetorical method: “Writing is a practice based on expectations: the reader’s chances of interpreting the writer’s purpose are increased if the writer takes the trouble to anticipate what the reader might be expecting based on previous texts they have read of the same kind” (Hyland 149).  As readers, it is important for us to figure out the target audience and to learn as much as we can to become symbolic members of that target audience.  In doing so, we also model for students the rhetorical conventions of English, as we value effective communication as a function of the text’s context.  Discussing the targeted goals of communication will also encourage students to consider the forms and conventions of English without asking them to give up other linguistic ideals.  As Cai asserts, “only such explicit teaching of English discourse ideologies can produce changes in the discourse strategies of ESL students’ writing, because change in language use comes from change in guiding ideologies and expectations” (Cai 183).

As instructors increasingly conscious of the challenges of teaching a diverse student body, we often question the extent to which we should consider unconventional linguistic techniques (otherwise called “errors”) as a function of cultural influences rather than misunderstandings of the reading or conventions of English.  These theorists assert that we can come closest to negotiating and understanding this difference when we learn as much as we can about the students’ own languages and L1 conventions.  There are now many books published to assist instructors in quickly learning key elements of other languages. Sundem, Krieger, and Pikiewicz’s book 10 Languages You’ll Need Most in the Classroom is a tool for just such a study. By and large, these texts are geared towards TESOL or TEFL instructors and K-12 teachers rather than college-level students who already have some level of English proficiency, but they are still useful for a cultural introduction.  Essays focused on college-level instruction often guide instructors through the discourse of students from a single language background.[2]

Even if instructors lack the time to research conventions of literatures in other languages, the first step in responding to student texts begins in considering the target language and form of communication.  In doing so, we model the rhetorical process we want students to engage in, and avoid the blunder of Anglo-American nepotism.  As Land and Whitley remark, we should not promote English as a perfected, singularly-ideal language: “To do so would be to ignore what is happening to our culture and our language: they are becoming more pluralistic, not coincidentally with the rise of English as the world language.  If we are indeed a part of a culture which admits change, this change will obviously appear at the linguistic level because one’s epistemology underlies one’s language” (Land and Whitley 292). Approaching even a first-reading of a student essay with this in mind, we are more likely to perceive the writer’s intentions and to place revision power in the hands of the student rather than the reader.

Tension in Instructor Comments: Global vs. Local Responses

Just as perceptions of the confluence of culture and language have changed with the rise of cultural studies, so have perceptions of the content and methods of appropriate responses to ESL student essays.  The largest shift in composition theory began with educators and social scientists who challenged the current-traditional model of assessment by conducting studies into error correction.  In Raimes’ 1976 essay, she posited: “What does the research tell us?  Not much.  There are some research studies in the teaching of composition to native speakers, but there are hardly any in composition for English as a second language” (Raimes 185).  In contrast, Leki’s Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide for Teachers, published in 1992, cites many studies that could be interpreted as proving that there is little benefit from the standard method of error correction as a means to acquire language.  Interestingly, the scientifically supported method of studying language acquisition, a cognitivist approach to composition theory, evolved to support theories that place more importance on the individual student’s argument and less on the structure of “correct” language determined by the academy, an expressivist approach.  The contest between global and local foci has divided many educators seeking a definitive way to approach student texts, but in the context of ESL writing, critics have (at least theoretically) favored comments on the strength and development of the argument over sentence-level constructions.

There is an outpouring of criticism against sentence-level error correction for ESL student essays, which can be generally grouped into three categories: error correction as counterproductive, error correction as ineffective, and error correction as useful only as an editing technique.  Land and Whitley’s criticism falls into the first two categories.  The concluding section on evaluating student essays begins, “Research suggests that evaluative focus on sentence-level mechanics may be a waste of the teacher’s time…and confusing and even harmful to students” (Land and Whitley 291).  Leki echoes this criticism of error correction as ineffective for language acquisition, though sees some use for grammar at the proofreading level.  She admits, “learning the rules of grammar, punctuation, and so forth is useful only to monitor, or edit, writing, not to create it” (Leki 135).  Furthermore, she asserts that encouraging students to think about sentence construction while they write will significantly extend the amount of time it takes for them to produce a completed text and will reduce the total amount of words they are willing and able to construct (Leki 147).  For Leki, error correction is most effective when it can be done selectively in consideration only of the most prominent and consistent errors that impede understanding, and even then should not precede responses to the content.

Whole books have been written on how to address (or ignore) sentence-level errors in essays by English language learners.[3]  As much as theorists continue to discourage a local focus on language construction, educators continue to seek advice for formulas they can apply to “fix” student writing.  This division between theory and practice is not exclusive to instructors – many students seek surface corrections on their text over rhetorical comments which might strengthen their argument.  To some extent, research suggests that this may be merely a factor of cultural habits interfering with composition pedagogy.  In other words, instructors believe that they should comment more on global issues than local issues, but in practice fall back on marking sentence-level errors.  An alternative interpretation is provided in Montgomery and Baker’s “Teacher-Written Feedback: Student Perceptions, Teacher Self-Assessment, and Actual Teacher Performance:”

The final important insight of this study was that in general teachers gave a substantial amount of local feedback and relatively little global feedback throughout the drafts of the compositions.  Giving feedback in this manner in part conflicts with what the teachers were asked to do at the ELC and what the teachers believed they did. These findings can be interpreted [to mean] that teachers are aware of the needs of the students and recognize that students need a great deal more of local feedback than the teachers have been asked to give. (Montgomery and Baker 94)

In this interpretation, composition theorists and school administrators who rely on composition theory are determined as out of touch with actual student needs.  This interpretation is not well supported even within the essay, and Montgomery and Baker conclude fairly quickly without addressing the issue further.  As such, it is most likely that pedagogy is sound while practice fails, as instructors tire of the time-consuming task of commenting on rhetorical strategy.

In her initial response to what teachers do in the classroom, Raimes emphasized a kind of tension between global content and local structure which she called the “controlled/free dichotomy.”  Controlled assignments ask students to practice structure, while free assignments practice content.  The instructor has a choice between the two, and as she says, “he will emphasize control or freedom, or he will vacillate” (Raimes 165).  The next few decades of composition theory regarding ESL student texts focused highly on developing prompts that would allow for some measure of freedom of content with a specified audience or purpose, thus aiming to negotiate this difference for students somewhat.  When it came to evaluating and commenting on student essays, however, theorists concluded decidedly in favor of addressing content primarily, with sentence-level constructions addressed in a limited format only as a technique for revision.  A content-based, global focus on student essays will provide a better format for encouraging students to write freely to create high quality arguments rather than merely composing correct sentences.  In a classroom with mixed students, this emphasis on the content of the essay over the language construction will also provide a measure of equality.

Methods of Response Delivery

In addition to addressing theories of how to approach evaluation of student writing, many different methods of marking student texts have been offered in ESL composition studies.  These elements vary widely, but are focused directly on fostering clear communication between the instructor and student.  The emphasis is three-fold – clarity, active student engagement, and instructor flexibility are all required for the feedback given to be most effective.

Clarity must be offered in the grading standards as well as comments made on the essay itself.  In a mixed classroom, providing written criteria for evaluations will be most effective in communicating with a linguistically diverse audience.  In her book, Assessing English Language Learners, Lorraine Valdez-Pierce argues that “clearly specified scoring criteria in the form of checklists or scoring rubrics can help ensure that teachers are evaluating each student’s work along the same standards” (Valdez-Pierce 46).  Communicating expectations in writing allows language learners to review the criteria multiple times, and ensures to other students that all work will be assessed fairly.  Other texts, such as New Ways of Classroom Assessment, suggest that alternative assignments might be used to better meet the needs of language learners in a mixed classroom, but still advocates for distributing information about the scoring criteria in advance.  In creating clear rubrics for assessing student work, ESL students are also more likely to be able to do a self- or peer-assessment prior to handing in the draft and in future revisions.  Rubrics that identify what makes an essay strong, effective, or ineffective also allow ESL students to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement without feeling like they are completely missing the mark.  Clear, concise, well-written rubrics aid all students in knowing the standards they will be held to, but are most useful for ESL students who will likely seek to track progress in various categories more than just to receive letter grades.

Clarity is also necessary in the comments marked on the essay.  Many of the suggestions Sundem, Krieger, and Pikiewicz make for speaking to English language learners are appropriate for essay evaluations.  To avoid confusion, they encourage teachers to “converse by pointing to the phrases you wish to communicate” (Sundem et. al. xxii).  This can be done easily on essays as well.  Rather than referring to many sentences, paragraphs, or ideas in end comments, instructors should try to literally draw connections between their comments and the actual student text they are commenting on.  Similarly, the authors suggest that instructors “avoid slang, incorrect usage, and difficult sentence constructions in your own speech.  Whenever possible, strive for clear, concise phrases” (Sundem et. al. xxi).  While this seems intuitive, it is not often done in practice, and is a useful reminder of our need to be culturally sensitive and to act as models of our own instruction.

Equally important is the need for students to be actively engaged in the feedback process.  In an essay on the psychological reactions of students to instructor feedback, Icy Lee argues that “students tend to be viewed as mere recipients—when in fact they can be and should be active and proactive agents in the feedback process” (Lee 144-145).  Providing students with opportunities to work with and against instructor and peer feedback is essential to maintaining student authority over the text as well as absorption of the writing process.  For ESL students who are already encountering numerous challenges to their traditional mode of communication, the need for students to remain in a multi-sided dialogue about their writing is even more important.  In this regard, comments on ESL texts will be most effective when they are a part of a revision process requiring multiple drafts and that form questions or respond rhetorically rather than altering what students have written (Paulus 265; Leki 143).

As much as possible, comments should also pertain to the target goals established by the instructor and student early in the term.  This can be done in a number of ways, and will necessarily be determined on a case-by-case basis between instructors and students.  However, these goals are most likely to fit general categories such as discipline-specific research or expository essays, personal/creative writing, or business correspondence.  While most students are likely to identify a targeted genre within these categories in English, some students may also seek to further their knowledge of the written conventions of another language’s literature.  In either case, it may well be that students are expected to complete assignments that are outside of their targeted genre or language.  Whether or not this is the context of responding to the student essay, instructors should encourage students to identify methods that will be most effective to address the prompt, if no flexibility in the assignment is otherwise provided.  These methods need not be considered solely in English.  As Leki says, “thinking in L1 should not necessarily be avoided while composing in L2” (Leki 148).  Effective responses to ESL student texts will encourage students to consider the rhetorical situation they are writing in as a comparison to their target goals and to those of the instructor.

Perhaps most importantly, instructors responding to ESL student essays will need to stay flexible in their assessment techniques.  Instructors should expect misunderstandings and cultural dissonance even in the situations they feel best prepared for.  As an example, Hafernik, Messerschmitt, and Vandrick discuss perceptions of cheating and plagiarism by ESL students.  As they argue, cheating is a culturally-constructed concept which is not universally defined.  In this respect, they recommend that “misunderstandings can be ameliorated by classroom discussion of the cultural differences and the ethical and practical considerations of switching to or adopting the American mode of writing” (Hafernik et. al. 49).  These authors do not suggest that misunderstandings will be avoided completely through such discussion, merely that they might be mitigated through this attempt.  Comments on the use of sources and appropriate citations should be considered in this light.  In general, instructors must be aware that identifications of error, dishonesty, or even stylistic changes may be ill-received or misconceived.

Lastly, instructors will need to continue to mix encouragement with constructive criticism.  As Coombe, Folse, and Huldey quote in A Practical Guide to Assessing English Language Learners, “Research indicates that teacher written feedback is highly valued by second language writers… Although positive remarks are motivating and highly valued by students, Hyland points out that too much praise or positive commentary early on in a writer’s development can make students complacent and discourage revision” (Coombe et. al. 85).  Negotiating the difference between levels of encouragement and problem-posing, rhetorically-driven criticism requires a great degree of flexibility and awareness on the part of the instructor.  It is unlikely that instructors with high numbers of students will be able to gauge the kind of response all their students need, so it will be most helpful in a mixed classroom setting if instructors offer both comments of encouragement and constructive criticism to all of their students, ESL and native speakers alike.

Conclusion

Not surprisingly, “nearly one-third of a classroom teacher’s time is spent assessing and evaluating student performance” (Valdez-Pierce vii).  In increasingly diverse classroom settings, particularly for post-secondary schools in California, this time will be spent not considering how to divide instruction methods between ESL students and native speakers but rather how to motivate English language learners and encourage them to succeed along with their peers.  Through careful approaches to understanding and teaching the English language as something culturally constructed and pluralistic, instructors can create an open, comfortable environment for ESL students to learn.  By taking a global approach to evaluating student writing and by adhering to standards of clarity, student engagement, and instructor flexibility, instructors may also lessen the confusion, cultural dissonance, and irrelevance that ESL students often feel in the composition classroom.

With the advent of hybrid courses and distance education, the ability of instructors to use these approaches becomes especially significant.  Without verbal cues, instructors may have an even more difficult time ascertaining the cultural and language background of their students.  By maintaining these approaches to commenting on student texts, instructors will have a much better chance of meeting the needs of ESL and generation 1.5 students, even if the students remain unidentified.  By promoting instruction that grants students greater control over their writing goals and incorporation of feedback, ESL students will be able to learn not only the conventions of English language and rhetoric, but will also gain metacognitive awareness of how to negotiate differences between languages and cultures, a skill which cannot be underestimated in a rapidly globalizing society.  In an echo of Raimes, Leki asks “As teachers deal with ESL writing, then, the question arises…what exactly do we want our students to be able to do in English?” (Leki 154).  With the aid of their peers, instructors, and the institution, we want all students to gain the skills necessary to learn as much as they can.  By maintaining pluralistic cultural and linguistic environments in the composition classroom, students have the opportunity to contribute to a collective body of knowledge and shared experience rather than acting as receptors of somewhat dissonant information.  We want our students to be able to become active members of the discourse community in English.  By broadening our cultural understandings and responding to ESL student essays in a way that facilitates dialogue rather than passive reception, we are encouraging our students to engage in learning how to learn, and opening the door for their contribution to the academic community.

REFERENCES

  1. Brown, J.D., ed. New Ways of Classroom Assessment. Bloomington, IL: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc., 1998.
  2. Cai, Guanjun. “Texts in Contexts: Understanding Chinese Students’ English Compositions.” Evaluating Writing: The Role of the Teachers’ Knowledge about Text, Learning, and Culture. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell, eds. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1999. 279-297.
  3. Carroll, Pamela Sissi, Frances Blake, Rose Ann Camalo, and Smadar Messer. “When Acceptance Isn’t Enough: Helping ESL Students Become Successful Writers.” The English Journal 85.8 (Dec 1996): 25-33.
  4. Coombe, Christine, Keith Folse, and Nancy Huldey. “Assessing Writing.” A Practical Guide to Assessing English Language Learners. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2007. 69-88.
  5. ESL Students in California Public Higher Education. Government publication by the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates. Sacramento, CA: Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, 2006.
  6. Ferris, Dana. “Preparing Teachers to Respond to Student Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16.3 (Sept 2007): 165-193.
  7. Grabe, William and Robert B. Kaplan. “Writing in a Second Language: Contrastive Rhetoric.” Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students. Donna M. Johnson and Duane H. Roen, eds. New York: Longman, 1989. 263-283.
  8. Hafernik, Johnnie Johnson, Dorothy S. Messerschmitt, and Stephanie Vandrick. Ethical Issues for ESL Faculty: Social Justice in Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2002.
  9. Hinkel, Eli. Second Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
  10. Hyland, Ken. “Genre Pedagogy: Language, Literacy, and L2 Writing Instruction.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16.3 (Sept 2007): 148-164.
  11. Ibrahim, Nizar and Susan Penfield. “Dynamic Diversity: New Dimensions in Mixed Composition Classes.” ELT Journal 59.3 (July 2005): 217-225.
  12. Land, Jr., Robert E. and Catherine Whitley. “Evaluating Second Language Essays in Regular Composition Classes: Towards a Pluralistic U.S. Rhetoric. Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students. Donna M. Johnson and Duane H. Roen, eds. New York: Longman, 1989.  284-293.
  13. Lee, Icy. “Student Reactions to Teacher Feedback in Two Hong Kong Secondary Classrooms.” Journal of Second Language Writing 17.3 (Sept 2008): 144-164.
  14. Leki, Ilona. Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide for Teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1992.
  15. Montgomery, Julie L. and Wendy Baker. “Teacher-Written Feedback: Student Perceptions, Teacher Self-Assessment, and Actual Teacher Performance.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16.2 (June 2007): 82-99.
  16. Paulus, Trena M. “The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 8.3 (Sept 1999): 265-289.
  17. Raimes, Ann. “Composition: Controlled by the Teacher, Free for the Student.” On TESOL ’76. John F. Fanselow and Ruth H. Crymes, eds. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1976. 183-194.
  18. Sundem, Garth, Jan Krieger, and Kristi Pikiewicz. 10 Languages You’ll Need Most in the Classroom: A Guide to Communicating with English Language Learners and Their Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.
  19. Valdés, Guadalupe and Patricia Anloff Sanders. “Latino ESL Students and the Development of Writing Abilities.” Evaluating Writing: The Role of the Teachers’ Knowledge about Text, Learning, and Culture. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell, eds.  Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1999. 249-278.

Valdez-Pierce, Lorraine. Assessing English Language Learners. Washington, DC: National Educa



[1] This is a growing reality, though not necessarily an unfortunate one.  Mixed classrooms will not inevitably detract from effective education, as Ibrahim and Penfield argue in “Dynamic Diversity: New Dimensions in Mixed Composition Classes.”

[2] In addition to Cai’s essay, Valdés and Sanders’ “Latino ESL Students and the Development of Writing Abilities” is a useful example.

[3] For more information on specific semantics and sentence-level errors common to ESL students, see Second Language Writers’ Texts by Eli Hinkel, with a foreword from Robert Kaplan.

Evangelical Christianity Online: Eliciting Material World Responses in the Cyberworld by Erin Flewelling, San Diego State University

On Good Friday, one of the most significant days in the Christian calendar, when Christians commemorate Jesus’ death on the cross, LifeChurch.tv’s Church Online gathered for an online global prayer outreach for upcoming Easter Services.  Essentially, individuals from around the world—who understand each other through the magic of translation software—logged onto http://babelwith.me and prayed together for friends and family who had not yet begun a relationship with Jesus.  This community of people is serious about the role they play in fulfilling the mission of God on earth, that is, connecting men and women to God and to each other in spite of the fact that most of them have never met in person.

Church Online is associated with LifeChurch.tv, a multisite evangelical Christian congregation that relies heavily on technology to expand its reach from headquarters in Oklahoma City, across all of Oklahoma, Texas, New York, Tennessee, and Florida.  Although most elements of services at their physical campuses are live, the teaching portion is a live feed or a prerecorded segment, depending on service time.  Their large staff also produces high quality supplementary videos, artwork, and curriculum which they offer free of charge to other churches along with sermon outlines and use of sermon videos.  They were also one of the first churches to venture into the internet campus world with the launch of services on Easter 2006.  Basically this allowed them to extend their message anywhere on the planet with an internet connection.  In a 2009 article published in Leadership Journal, Bobby Gruenewald, Pastor of Innovational Leadership at Lifechurch.tv, estimated that approximately 50,000 unique IP addresses log onto services every week, with about one in ten staying for the entire service.

I get a lot of questions when I tell people I’m researching online Christian churches.  They want to know if an online church can actually function as a church.  Certainly, the Internet is a great informational tool, and nobody is surprised about the proliferation of religious websites, but the idea that people can form spiritual connections over the internet seems counterintuitive.   However, the Internet presents enormous opportunity for evangelicals, and we shouldn’t be surprised that churches would want to levy that technology.  Stephen O’Leary reminds us that as people spend more and more time online, it “would indeed be an anomaly if a cultural force of this magnitude were not to find expression in the newly developing world of computer networks” (282).

The adoption of any technology, however, should raise questions about the effect of that technology on the people who use it.  Heidi Campbell writes that fears have “emerged that online religion [will] cause people to abandon their pews in exchange for worship via the keyboard and computer screen, further effecting the steady decline of “real world” church attendance” (xvi), and Brenda Brasher suggests that the “chief worry is that engagement with the Internet could reconfigure the traditions that technologically adept, spiritually committed people have gone online to maintain” (xii).  Others are more optimistic, but essentially, as Dawson and Cowan remind us, the “consequences for religion are yet largely unknown,” and we need to ask how this “new way of being religious” will make a difference in the way “religion is conceived and practiced in the future.”

Morten Høsgaard states the obvious when he says that religion cannot have an essence or existence independent of human existence, and that “allegedly pure cyber-religious sites are . . . produced and used by persons who do not live their entire lives ‘on the screen.’”  In other words, people who participate in online religious websites are real people living in a real world.  This way of thinking is compatible with evangelical Christianity, which argues against a purely propositional or virtual belief system, stating that faith without works is dead.   Evangelical Christian churches have very specific goals–life transformation, becoming like Christ, and sharing the story of Jesus with others.  The Christian faith is more than propositional; it is transformational.  Craig Van Gelder, professor of congregational mission at Luther Seminary in St. Paul argues it is “important . . . to keep returning to the foundations of what it means to be the church of Jesus Christ in the world” (1).  Indeed, he claims that the “the primary issue confronting the church in our context today “is the need to re-examine and re-envision what it means to be the church” (vii).  That includes the innovative use of technology.

Gruenewald, LifeChurch.tv’s Pastor of Innovation, says, “Our desire is to leverage technology to connect people to Christ, to each other, and to their community” (Hall 48).  These are the same goals as they have for their physical campuses.  But can an online church really do that?  Can an online church achieve the same things as a church with a physical presence?  And can decisions made in the cyberworld actually change the way individuals live in the material world?  LifeChurch.tv’s Church believes that they can.

In an attempt to fulfill its goals, Church Online has incorporated layers of rhetorical strategies, designed to take any cyberworld response into the material world.  In examining some of those strategies, we’ll look at three major elements of Church Online: embedded features on the website; the chat feature that is ongoing throughout services, enabling guests to interact with each other; and the actual recorded worship experiences.  Next, we’ll examine appeals made to extend the message of life transformation from the cyberworld into the world in which we all live.  We will also discuss the development of ethos and the use of repetition to effect life transformation.

First, the embedded features on the website allow visitors to the website to explore Church Online 24 hours per day, whether a service is going on or not.  Guests to the website can link to Facebook, they can “tell their stories” on a form, request additional information or “Live Prayer” in a private chat setting.  They can also access a blog written by Church Online staff and volunteers, who write about issues relevant to the online community including service opportunities through Church Online as well as opportunities to serve in the real world, and the importance of belonging to a Life Group.  One blog discussed how online communities deal with a death.  There was even a humorous video depicting Church Online chat conversations, which actually seem pretty odd at times.

The chat component of the Church Online worship experience opens approximately 30 minutes prior to the service starting and extends for approximately 15 minutes after the service ends.  The forum can be distracting for individuals who want to focus on the sermon without interacting with others.  As I said, the chats can seem odd as multiple conversations go on simultaneously – individuals will log on with their own agendas, their own theologies, or looking for dates.  However, after observing these chats for the last month, I understood that this chat component is a major way that relationships form at Church Online, and increases the likelihood that participants will respond to the messages found on the site.  I began to see many of the same people on the chat.  A few were present every time I logged in; others logged on to the same services week after week.  Listening in to their conversations, it was clear that these people had “history” together.  The forum is moderated by volunteers: a captain, an admin, hosts, and prayer volunteers.  They all receive video training on a password-protected portion of the website.  Volunteers greet every guest who signs into the chat, and from time to time they suggest ways for guests to make the Church Online worship experience more comfortable, such as turning off the chat or accessing sermon notes.  Volunteers respond to questions and engage guests in thinking about messages communicated through the recorded segments.  Frequently, one of the volunteers will send out Tweets with essential questions asked within the sermon or they’ll reference major points made in the sermon.  These Tweets become part of the chat.  For example, during week two of Red Letter Day, volunteers regularly sent out the statement, “Withholding forgiveness can hold you captive.  How can you truly forgive and be free?”  As guests chat, they engage these questions, and as a result the appeals made in the prerecorded segment are repeated throughout the Church Online experience.

The prerecorded portion includes a variety of segments.  Every service begins with a greeting from a campus pastor in the United States or from one of their global partners.  In the last few weeks we have been greeted by a couple from Northern Ireland, a pastor from Australia, a pastor from South Africa, a Czechoslovakian woman as well as a lay pastor from Atlanta.  These greetings connect viewers around the world and emphasize that although Life Church headquarters are in Oklahoma, the church itself has a global presence.  A second greeting comes from Brandon Donaldson, the Church Online Campus Pastor.  The worship band sings three songs.  This is a highly energetic band, and the music has broad appeal, featuring acoustic and electric guitars, bass, and drums.  Song lyrics flash across the screen, and guests can link to the band’s Facebook site if they want, choose to follow the lead vocal on Twitter, or purchase songs through i-Tunes.

Topical sermons emphasize practical real world application.  In the three sermons I transcribed, we were urged to trust God during difficult times, we were challenged to forgive, and we were asked to serve others out of love.  Past sermon series have focused on marriage, raising children, and financial issues.  Scripture appears on the screen, below the speaker, and guests can access the sermon outline by clicking on an icon.  They can take notes on the outline and if they write in their email address, Church Online staff will send a copy of the notes. The pastor wears jeans, a T-shirt, maybe a blazer, but never a tie.  In fact, you won’t find a suit and tie anywhere on this website or during these services.  These are real people, living in a real world, and guests to the website can identify with them.  Sermons often includes video testimony from church members who tell portions of their life story to illustrate the sermon points.  For example, in Red Letter Day #1, a supplemental video featured three individuals from different ethnic backgrounds and different ages.  Each sat alone on a red bench in front of a white background, looking directly into the camera, essentially into the eyes of the Church Online participants:

  • The first, a young white female, was nearly in tears as she spoke: “Hi, my name is Lisa, and in July 2008, my husband and I went in for a routine ultrasound at 20 weeks, and we found out then that our baby didn’t have a heartbeat.”
  • Next, a middle-aged white male spoke: “Hi, my name is Scott.  About, it was early morning, I got a phone call, and it was about my grandson being taken to the hospital.  And he was my little buddy.  He was the world to me.  I have other grandkids, but he was special.”
  • Finally, a twenty-something black female told her story:  “Hi, my name is Deidre, and, um— my father sexually abused me until I was eight years old. And he also beat the living daylights out of my mother.”

They continued to alternate, telling portions of their stories, describing a variety of situations where individuals might ask God what was going on.  After the pastor completed his sermon, a follow-up video ensued, and these individuals returned to tell their stories about how God breathed light into darkness.  Videos like this one function in a variety of ways.  Obviously, there is a pathos appeal as these individuals tell their stories, as we focus on their faces and hear the pain in their voices.  We are likely to have experienced something similar, or at least we know someone who has, and so we identify with these individuals.  In addition, these videos allow us to see points of the message applied to real life situations, like the ones we experience on a daily basis.

One of the most powerful elements to establishing Church Online as a legitimate spiritual community is the construction of ethos.  In On Rhetoric, Aristotle writes that if a speaker seems to be a “certain kind of person and . . . his hearers suppose him to be disposed toward them in a certain way . . .” (112), then the rhetoric will be more effective in persuading hearers to respond in a particular way.  In the case of Church Online, not only do the various speakers need to develop credibility, but the website itself and the various uses of technology must be constructed in such a way as to build trustworthiness.  Aristotle cites “three reasons why speakers . . . are persuasive” and listed “practical wisdom . . virtue . . and good will” (112) and certainly these are evidenced in the presentation as teaching pastors and lead musicians share personal challenges in living out their marriages, raising children, or dealing with economic issues.  They demonstrate a strong desire to live good lives, positively impacting and influencing their communities.  In the chat, captains, hosts, and admin open the chat by welcoming anyone attending the service.  They greet each guest who logs on, and they respond with caring tones.

In her rhetorical analysis of the websites of congregational churches, Lynne Raab notes that “high quality photos and graphics” which “demonstrated . . . a tight and coherent design . . . conveyed to some audiences a sense of authority and credibility based on quality, increasing their persuasive appeal” (153).  Indeed, this is a professional, quality site.  Videos feature multiple camera angles, lights, effects.  This is as good as anything seen on television.  If participants arrive before service begins, a time clock, counting down the hours before the next service starts.  Remarkably, participants can converse with people in multiple countries through translation software. All of these professional qualities convey a sense of trustworthiness and credibility that increases the persuasive appeal of the messages LifeChurch communicates.

A map of the world identifies all the countries logged onto any service, further legitimizing the experience, as does the presence of people from various cultures in the chat.  Furthermore, the existence of thirteen physical campuses across five states lends credibility, constructing an identity that extends from the cyber world into the physical world.  During the music segment, the cameras primarily focus on the worship band, but from time to time, it pans back, showing the congregation standing, engaged in worship.  The effect of these shots is to connect Church Online participants to real people, engaged in a live service.  When participants worship with Church Online, they are part of something that extends beyond the Internet.  Lives are being changed, decisions are being made, and communities are being formed as Church Online partners with churches across the United States and even around the world in building the Kingdom of God.  Indeed, last fall Church Online tangibly partnered with LifeChurch.tv’s physical campuses to put together Life Packs containing items to help people meet basic needs.  Campuses across the United States chose where to deliver Life Packs, and individuals involved with Church Online could choose to deliver them to their own community or to be part of sending Life Packs to a school in Pakistan.

All of these elements lead to a sense that Life Church can be trusted, that LifeChurch.tv has the authority to speak for God.  This lays a foundation for other messages, communicated repeatedly through various means in the sermons, ads, on the chat, and on the website.  The more times participants hear the same thing, the more likely they are to respond, and Church Online stays on message throughout the one-hour experience.

During Red Letter Day #3, Church Online Campus Pastor Brandon Donaldson pulled up his iPhone to read the story of a woman whose life changed because of being involved with Church Online.  During the same service, a video ad reminded participants that not only can they access several versions of the Bible through YouVersion, a free “app” for web-enabled phones, but they can also participate in surveys and type sermon notes on the outline provided through YouVersion.  Guest speaker Pastor Joel A’Bell commented to the live congregation that he no longer hears the shuffle of page turning as people open their Bibles.  Instead, he hears the click-click-click of people accessing their iPhones.

I don’t have a web enabled phone—I’m not sure I need one, and I’m not sure my eyesight would even allow me to read a YouVersion Bible—but after spending the last month with Church Online, I really want one.

Over and over I watched a video exhorting me, “You are called,” “You were meant for something greater.”  Faces of men and women of all ethnicities directly facing the camera, eyes apparently looking directly at me.  In her rhetorical analysis of church websites, Lynne Baab identifies these kinds of images as a “demand” because the participant’s gaze demands that I enter into some kind of imaginary relationship with him or her (154).  The call is vague and ambiguous—it applies to anything and everything that has been said during the service, whether on the chat, in various videos, or during the sermon.  The voice continues:

You will restore good back into the broken everywhere

All you need is Christ at the center of everything

Be who he called you to be because who you are is far greater than what you do

You are called.

This video exhorts me to do something, and allows me to interpret its message.  Perhaps it’s to forgive, to work on my marriage, to invite people to Church Online, to make a decision for Christ, to do something significant for my community.

At the end of each service, participants are asked to acknowledge their response to the sermon message.  During the first sermon in the series Red Letter Day, Pastor Craig Groeschel addressed his listeners, stating:

If you’re in a difficult place right now, and you say, Craig, I really do need prayer.  I would love to pray for you.  If you would like, if you really need prayer right now . . . would you just lift up your hands right now, at all of our locations, just go ahead . . . and just lift your hands up right and say, I need prayer.

At Church Online, response to this appeal is signified by clicking on a raised hand, shown on the screen.  A box below the screen acknowledges that the participant has raised a hand and counts the number of hands lifted.  A few minutes later, the Church Online Campus Pastor returns to the screen and urges respondents to request a “What’s Next Kit” containing a Bible, to join a small online Life Group community, or to click on the prayer link to speak to someone more privately.

Repetition is a powerful rhetorical strategy, and the service is filled with invitations to get involved in life groups, to volunteer with Church Online, to choose to follow Christ, to log on to the Prayer link.  As I watch again and again, I lower my natural defenses and I become more open to the messages of Church Online.

The first time I logged on to Church Online, I was distracted by the chat.  There were too many things going on for me to concentrate on the actual sermon message, and for whatever reason, the prerecorded segments seemed distant. Despite the fact that I was warmly welcomed by people on the chat, I wondered whether or not true spiritual community was possible and questioned whether or not Church Online could function as a “real church.”  After spending the last month transcribing services, though, watching people interact on the chat, hearing the message of life transformation over and over, I am changing my mind.  Perhaps it is the development of ethos, or perhaps it is sheer repetition, but I am beginning to believe that Church Online is a real church. However, I am already amenable to ideas of faith, and perhaps my bias toward faith influences my response.  As a Christian, already involved with a faith community, I am not Church Online’s intended audience.

I am curious as to their actual audience, a difficult determination due to the anonymity of the internet.  And yet, these are questions that have to be asked in order to determine whether or not the rhetoric of Church Online actually achieves its goals.  I want to know:  Is Church Online the primary religious experience for participants, or is it supplemental?  How do participants find Church Online, and what prompts them to stay?  What is their religious background, and how does that background affect their response to the rhetoric?  I also want to know: How many participants begin attending one of LifeChurch’s actual campuses, and how many begin attending another church?

Church Online Campus Pastor Brandon Donaldson closes every service, saying:“Remember, whoever finds God finds life.” And so these next questions are probably the most important in determining the persuasiveness of rhetoric:  What effect do decisions to begin a relationship with Christ made in the cyberworld make on lives lived in the world outside the internet?  Is there long-term transformation?  These and other topics concerning the nature of online religious community and the effect of technology, particularly religious technology, depending on the way individuals think and respond to the world offer endless opportunities for research.
Works Cited

Aristotle.  On Rhetoric.  George A. Kennedy, Ed.  New York: Oxford University Press.  2007.

Print.

Baab, Lynne M.  “Portraits of the Future Church: A Rhetorical Analysis of Congregational

Websites.”  Journal of Communication and Religion 31, November 2008: 143-181.  Web.

20 Feb. 2010.

Brasher, Brenda E.  Give Me That Online Religion.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  2001.  Print.

Campbell, Heidi.  Exploring Religious Community Online: We are One in the Network.  New

York: Peter Lang Publishing. 2005.  Print.

Cooper, Joshua.  “Finding God on the Web.” Time.  Time.com.  16 Dec. 1996.  Web. 29 Nov.

2009.

Dawson, Lorne.  “The Mediation of Religious Experience in Cyberspace.”  Religion and

Cyberspace.  Morten T. Højsgaard and Margit Warburg, Eds. 15-37.  Print.

Dawson, Lorne and Douglas E. Cowan, eds.  Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet. 

New York: Routledge.  2004.  Print.

Hall, Chad.  “Church Virtually.”  Leadership Journal Fall 2009: 46-52.  Print.

Højsgaard, Morten T. and Margit Warburg, eds.  Religion and Cyberspace.  New York:

Routledge.  2005.

O’Leary, Stephen J.  “Cyberspace as Sacred Space.”  Journal of the American Academy of

Religion 64:4 (1996): 781-808.  JSTOR.  Web. 24 Nov. 2009.

Van Gelder, Craig, Ed.  The Missional Church in Context.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Wm. B.

Publishing Company.  2007.  Print.