En retorisk analys av Fahrenheit 9/11 ur ett dokumentärhistoriskt perspektiv

The history of rhetorics in documentary film is a long one. The French brothers Louise and Auguste Lumiére were among the first persons who produced a documentary and their work has had a big impression in the history of documentary during the 1900 century. John Grierson has been called “the father” of documentary film. He produced films in the English speaking part of the world and he is the founder of the concept “documentary film”. Propaganda filming has a big part in the history of documentary film. Most frequently it appeard in Germany before and during the secound WW II, but propaganda films has been produced in Great Britain and USA as well as in other parts of the world. Rhetorics are of current interest today. It effects the news, papers, magazines, books and movies. The purpose with this essay is to investigate the rhetorics in Michael Moores controversial documentary of September 11th, Fahrenheit 9/11. The main question is: what rhetorical tools does Michael Moore use in order to communicate his politcal message in Fahrenheit 9/11? The rhetorical analysis includes exordium, narratio, propsitio, argumentatio and conclusio as well as ethos, logos and pathos. In order to conduct the analysis I have used Kurt Johannesson’s book Retorik eller konsten att övertyga, Maria Karlberg and Brigitte Mral’s book Heder och påverkan. Att analysera modern retorik. And at last a chapter by Brigitte Mral named Retorikanalys in the book Metoder i kommunikationeverenskap, by Mats Ekström and Larsåke Larsson. For the background about the history of documentary film I have used Barsam M. Richard, Nonfiction Film A Critical History and Bjørn Sørenssen’s book Å fange virkeligheten –Dokumentarfilmens århundre.The analysis shows that Moore uses different rhetorical tools in order to point out that George W Bush is the wrong man for the role as the president of United States of America. Some of the most effective tools that Moores uses are his own voice, pictures who awakes emotions, recordings and sharp arguments. His way of using ethos, logos and pathos is very clear. The disposal can also be distinct discern, however there are some exceptions towards the classical rhetoric. One example is that Moore doesn´t describe the arrangement of the movie in exordium.

Sociologin, hybriderna och den sociala verkligheten : exemplet kärnavfall

Sociology, hybrids and social reality: the case of nuclear waste The continuing technological transformation of nature means that sociology’s traditional vision of a sharp divide between nature and society is becoming ever harder to defend. Starting from Bruno Latour’s critique of modernity, and Nikolas Rose’s explorations of political power beyond the state, this article presents a framework for analysing the expanding wealth of hybrids of nature and society surrounding us today, and the problems of government they pose. These hybrids confront us with the need to rethink sociology’s conception of ‘the social’. With Latour’s help, the interplay of nature and society can be understood as subject to technical mediation, opening the way for studies of the varying arrangements through which different configurations of nature and society are produced. Rather than alternative social constructions of nature, what sociologists should be at pains to analyse and question are different programmes and strategies for bringing together natural and social forces in durable combinations. In the article, the geological disposal of nuclear waste serves as a useful example for exploring the fruitfulness of the analytical framework put forward. This complex undertaking constitutes just one component in a larger field of technoscientific endeavour that has irrevocably transformed nature while simultaneously re-making society. Addressing this case, we seek to reveal the promise of a sociology that does not bound ‘the social’ in advance, but rather makes the co-production of technology and society one of its most important objects of study.