4 18 2013 taureanna shimp

5/21/2018 4 18 2013 Taureanna Shimp

1/102

THE POLITICS OF PRANKING: THE YES MEN CULTURE

JAMMING AND DISRUPTIVE RHETORIC

____________

A Thesis

Presented

to the Faculty of

California State University, Chico

____________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Communication Studies

____________

by

Taureanna Shimp

Spring 2013


2/102



A Thesis

by

Taureanna Shimp

Spring 2013

APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES

AND VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH:

_________________________________

Eun K. Park, Ph.D.

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

_________________________________ _________________________________

Susan Avanzino, Ph.D. Zach Justus, Ph.D., Chair

Graduate Coordinator

_________________________________

Young Cheon Cho, Ph.D.

_________________________________

Susan Avanzino, Ph.D.


3/102

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is with a deep sense of gratitude that I acknowledge all those who have

contributed to my success in this endeavor. I would first like to thank Dr. Zachary Justus,

without whom this thesis would not have been possible. His precision, insight, and

generosity are incomparable. I am profoundly grateful for his guidance and friendship

during this process. I would also be remiss if I did not mention his outstanding ability

(and willingness) to map dense postmodern concepts on small scraps of paper.

I would like to thank committee member Dr. Young Cheon Cho. He is one of

the deepest thinkers I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. His unique perspective,

rigorous standards, and humility always remind me to question what I know. While I am

particularly grateful for his expertise and insight on matters of the public sphere, he is an

educator whose influence is immediate and enduring in all areas.

I would like to thank committee member Dr. Susan Avanzino. Her

thoroughness and clarity have been invaluable. I am immensely grateful for her

practicality, keen observations, and good sense of humor. She is someone who always

makes herself available to students even when she is at her busiest, and has been one of

the best resources I could ask for.

I would also like to acknowledge those who were not directly involved but

were nonetheless integral to my success in this undertaking. I am deeply indebted to Dr.

Timothy Elizondo, who seemed to know me before I knew myself. His intelligence,


4/102

iv

kindness, and creativity cannot be matched. Additionally, I could not have done this

without the friendship and support of my cohort; sometimes you just need to meow and

have someone answer. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, father, and sister for

always loving me and being proud even when I forsook the dirty dishes for weeks on end

in favor of writing this document.


5/102

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... iii

Abstract....................................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER

I. The Politics of Pranking: The Yes Men, Culture Jamming,and Disruptive Rhetoric...................................................................... 1

II. Literature Review ..................................................................................... 6

Public Sphere................................................................................ 6

Image Events ................................................................................ 13

Culture Jamming .......................................................................... 18

III. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................ 28

Background................................................................................... 29Spaces of Invention ...................................................................... 33

IV. Analysis .................................................................................................... 36

Satire............................................................................................. 37

Sincerity........................................................................................ 61

V. Discussion................................................................................................. 80

Implications .................................................................................. 80

Limitations.................................................................................... 85Future Research............................................................................ 85

References .................................................................................................................. 87


6/102

vi

ABSTRACT



by

Taureanna Shimp

Master of Arts in Communication Studies

California State University, Chico

Spring 2013

This thesis examines the rhetorical strategies of the culture-jamming duo, the

Yes Men. Specifically, this thesis poses the following research question: What rhetori-

cal strategies do the Yes Men use to critique dominant corporate discourse and expose

counter discourses? A Foucauldian rhetorical analysis reveals that the Yes Men rely on

pranks that employ satire and sincerity to disrupt dominant corporate discourses, open

spaces of freedom, and encourage critical self-reflection. Furthermore, the Yes Men use

image events in strategic ways to deploy these pranks and access the public sphere. The

strategies of the Yes Men offer important insight into the relationship between rhetoric,

discourse, and activism.


7/102

1

CHAPTER I

THE POLITICS OF PRANKING: THE YES

MEN, CULTURE JAMMING, AND

DISRUPTIVE RHETORIC

I am very, very happy to announce that for the first time, Dow is accepting full

responsibility for the Bhopal catastrophe. . . . This is the first time in history that a

publicly owned company of anything near the size of Dow has performed an actionwhich is significantly against its bottom line simply because its the right thing todo. (Voster, 2003)

This announcement came from Dow Chemical spokesman Jude Finisterra on

BBC World news on December 3, 2004. This was exactly 20 years after Union Carbide

(owned by Dow) caused a chemical disaster in Bhopal, India that killed thousands and

left 120,000 in need of lifelong care (Voster, 2003).

Hours after Finisterras surprising and unprecedented statement, the BBC

discovered that the reedy, distinguished spokesman was not really named Jude

Finisterraand he was decidedly not a representative of Dow Chemical. In fact, his

name was Andy Bichlbaum, an Assistant Professor of Communication, Design, and

Technology and one half of the culture jamming duo, the Yes Men.

The Yes Men, comprised of Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno, are well

known for their elaborate, performative pranks. Most often, these pranks target the moral

bankruptcy of corporate giants like Dow Chemical and Halliburton. The pair has

successfully produced two independent films documenting these misadventures: The Yes


8/102

2

Men (2003) and The Yes Men Fix the World (2009). A third is in production, The Yes

Men are Revolting.They have also published a book, The Yes Men (2004) and founded

an organization called the Yes Lab, where like-minded individuals can team up to

instigate troublemaking of their own.

It is not only the Yes Mens prolificacy that warrants study, it is the creativity

of their hijinks. The Yes Men use disruptive rhetorical actsknown as culture

jammingto humorously appropriate and subvert political, corporate, and social

messages. Posing as a Dow representative on national TV is just one example, but

whatever their tactics, they invariably cause a spectacle.

Spectacle oriented activism is necessary because of the pervasive influence of

corporate power in the public sphere and in media outlets. Historically, these media

outlets have served as a counterbalance to both government and corporate power.

However, the public sphere has become increasingly corporatized (Daskalaki, Stara, &

Imas, 2008; Fraser, 1996; Klein, 2002; Tufecki, 2010) and mediated (DeLuca & Peeples,

2002). Rhetors must adapt if they are going to be heard. This is because creeping

corporate influence and control of media means access to the public sphere is limited.

Entering the public sphere in a meaningful way is increasingly difficult, and holding

corporate giants accountable is nearly impossible. However, the Yes Men offer a set of

rhetorical strategies for disrupting corporate power and entering the public sphere by

utilizing the same tools frequently used to maintaincorporate power.

While much of the Yes Mens work depends on leveraging traditional mass

media networks like television, they also frequently make use of newer online and social

networking technologies. Bichlbaum and Bonanno have been known to hack computer


9/102

3

games, start faux websites for corporations like Dow Chemical or political figures like

George Bush, and organize activists online (Ollman, Price, & Smith, 2003; Bichlbaum,

Bonanno, & Engfehr, 2009). As recently as March 2013, they launched Actipedia in

conjunction with The Center for Artistic Activism. Actipedia is an open database

cataloguing activist efforts so that others may share ideas and strategies for their own

activist work (www.actipedia.org). They are also currently developing an Action

Switchboard as another resource for activists. The Yes Men make ample use of all

communication avenues, though much of their work remains dependent upon television

and traditional news sources.

The Yes Men warrant study for three reasons. First, while they have had

substantial impact, there is limited research regarding their group and culture jamming in

general. Second, because their approach to politics is jocular, their work is often

dismissed as less serious than other forms of activism. Third, their activism is entirely

communication driven. Their activism is enacted by challenging social and political

discourses, not marching in the street or going on strike. This thesis seeks to add to the

body of literature by exploring the rhetorical strategies of the Yes Men and the way they

manage tensions between corporate and anti-corporate discourses in humorous and

effective ways.

Much of the Yes Mens work is accomplished through humor and

imagination. In fact, many of their campaigns are carried out becauseof a desire to

imagine a different world. Not long after Bichlbaums initial appearance on BBC, he was

invited backas himselfto explain the hoax. He said,


10/102

4

Essentially,Dowhas been promulgating a hoax by which theyve convinced peoplethat they cant do anything about Bhopalthat they cannot accept responsibility.

And we wanted to prove that that was not accurate. . . . We want to show that

another world is possible and that Dow could do the right thing. Bichlbaum,Bonanno, & Engfehr, 2009)

This kind of imagination is vital to the Yes Mens brand of playful protest because it is

what allows people . . . to recognize that what exists is not necessarily what ought to

exist, or what might exist (Mickenberg & Nel, 2008, p. 137).

Thus, this thesis seeks to explore the Yes Mens rhetorical tactics. The Yes

Mens pranks take place in a very different public sphere from the one Habermas,

Lennox & Lennox (1974) originally wrote about. Because the public sphere increasingly

functions through the use of media, groups like the Yes Men are required to find

inventive, eye-catching ways of disseminating their messages. Specifically, this project is

interested in identifying how they use the humorous, imaginative tactics of culture

jamming to manage power relations and resist dominant corporate discourse. This leads

to the following research question: What rhetorical strategies do the Yes Men use to

critique dominant corporate discourse and expose counter discourses? In order to

examine the Yes Mens rhetorical strategies, this thesis analyzes six press conferences

recorded between 2004 and 2009 in which they pose as the WTO, the Chamber of

Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Halliburton, and Dow Chemical.

Before this question can be answered, it is necessary to situate the project in

literature that explores the state of the public sphere today, the tactical use of image

events, and culture jamming itself. In order to examine these rhetorical strategies, this

project utilizes a Foucauldian perspective, emphasizing his work on the relationship

between discourse, power-knowledge, and resistance. Specifically, this theoretical


11/102

5

foundation allows for an examination of the way disruptive rhetoricsuch as that utilized

by the Yes Menopens spaces of invention through dissension, freedom, and thought

(Phillips, 2002).


12/102

6

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Public Sphere

The public sphere has long been a point of political and academic interest.

Understanding the public sphereand the ailments that plague itis essential to

understanding the role culture jammers like the Yes Men play in shaping public

deliberation and social thought. The following section outlines the public spheres

evolution, perceived deterioration, and current trends in the hope that we may define it

and revive itas a robust rhetorical realm.

Many accounts of the public sphere begin with Jrgen Habermas et al. (1974),

who explains that before the eighteenth century, the public sphere was represented by the

princes and kings of the feudal system. Their power as ruling figures was performed

publicly for the citizens. This meant that the citizens were a passive audience rather than

an active public. While they were a necessary part of the representative publicity,

serving as an audience to the kings performance, they were excluded from its glory

(Cho, 2009, p. 814).

However, this changed during the eighteenth century, when the public sphere

evolved into a space where a lively citizenry engaged one another through assembly,

speech, and dialogue on matters of the common good. Fraser (1996) explains that the

public sphere designates a theater in modern societies in which political participation is


13/102

7

enacted through the medium of talk. It is the space in which citizens deliberate about their

common affairs, and hence an institutionalized arena of discursive interaction (p. 110).

This evolution of the public sphere was made possible in part by the

popularization of French salons and coffeehouses, which served as accessible meeting

places and outlets for discussion (Habermas et al., 1974, p. 49). Because of these

everyday interactionsor vernacular rhetorics (Hauser, 1999, p. xi)the merchant

class were no longer relegated to passive roles but became active contributors to public

and political discourse.

However, Habermas et al. (1974) asserts that in order to partake in public

judgment about the common good, one must leave aside particularities and bracket any

inequalities (Fraser, 1996, p. 113). Bracketingor self-abstraction (Cho, 2009)is

meant to foster an indifferent democracy where everyone is treated equally despite

gender, race, income, or other individual characteristics. This notion of an equalizing

self-abstraction drew critics ire, as access to public forums still required a certain degree

of privilege and many citizens were excluded from deliberations based on gender and

class (Fraser, 1996, pp. 113-115).

Thus, participation in the public sphere is complicated by issues of privilege

and powereven when the playing field is supposed to be leveled by self-abstraction. In

fact, Fraser (1996) notes that declaring a deliberative arena to be a space where extant

status distinctions are bracketed and neutralized is not sufficient to make it so (p. 115).

In other words, self-abstraction is not achieved just by virtue of saying itshouldbe, and

performed social equality cannot stand in for actualsocietal equality (Fraser, 1996, p.

117). This is a particularly salient point, because when it comes to self-abstraction,


14/102

8

certain particularities such as Whiteness or maleness are scarcely even imagined as

particularities (Cho, 2009, p. 815). Instead of being excised upon entry of the public

sphere, particularities of whiteness and maleness are assumed to be a neutral position.

In response to this privileged, bourgeois public, multiple counterpublics took

shape. Fraser (1996) explains that [v]irtually from the beginning, counterpublics

contested the exclusionary norms of the bourgeois public, elaborating alternative styles of

political behavior and alternative norms of public speech (p.116). These counterpublics

gave peoplesuch as women and the working classaccess to public forums and

representation even if they did not meet the white, male standards of bourgeois society,

which, if not explicitlyenforced, were systemically enforced. The public sphere should

not be thought of as a monolithic, unified body of citizensrather, it is best explained as

a multiplicity of publics and counterpublics that conflict with and respond to one another.

This tension between counterpublics and publics can open a liberating space.

Fraser (1996) writes that counterpublics

function as spaces of withdrawal and regroupment; on the other hand, they alsofunction as bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward

wider publics. It is precisely in the dialectic between these two functions that their

emancipatory potential resides. (p. 125)

Counterpublics are characterized by a dualistic nature that offers members a sense of

solidarity and protected space, but also resources for engaging other publics and social

injustices.

Despite this potential for liberation, some argue that the public sphere has

become a wasteland of narcissism and corporate exploitation. One of the problems

plaguing the contemporary public sphere is a general lackof self-abstraction; public


15/102

9

deliberation is overrun by egocentric arguments that focus on the self rather than the

common good (Levasseur & Carlin, 2001). Perhaps this is due to a cultural rise in

narcissism, where doting parents, TV shows devoted to self-centered celebrities, and

networking sites like YouTube and Facebook are evidence of a culture inhabited by

people who care mostly about themselves (Twenge & Campbell, 2009, p. 4). This is

problematic, because apublic sphere, by its very nature, should compel citizens to arrive

at collective outcomes instead of private interest (Levasseur & Carlin, 2001, p. 411).

In addition to egocentrism, the public sphere is increasingly corporatized.

Habermas et al. (1974) argues that as corporations grow, so does their power over the

public sphere. Corporate colonization of the public sphere influences the political, social,

and physical dimensions of our lives. Often these overlap in complex and interdependent

ways in what Deetz (1991) describes as colonization of the life world.

Corporatization underscores much of our political deliberation. Fraser (1996)

makes the point that the public sphere should be distinct from state and economic

systems, but as corporations become increasingly involved with our political candidates

and policy issues, the distinction becomes harder and harder to make. Habermas et al.

(1974) initially identified the necessity of a public sphere to keep state power in check.

Publicity through newspapers, pamphlets, and books served as a way to disseminate

information, hone public discussion, and rein in the state.

Now it is not just governmental power but corporate power that threatens the

public sphere. Corporate institutions are ballooning, and overlap with government in deep

and insidious ways. Corporations have become the ruling political bodies of our era

(Klein, 2002, p. 340) because they increasingly set the agenda for the publics policy and


16/102

10

value debates. For instance, corporate personhood means businesses can fund political

campaigns without limit. This allows corporations to help defeat or elect candidates

(Schouten & Biskupic, 2010) and encourages them to prioritize, promote, and protect

corporate interests in return.

Furthermore, corporations have monopolized the mass media. This renders

traditional publicity useless against state or corporate power because they are one and the

same. Most media outlets can be traced back to one of five corporations, including Walt

Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS (CNN, 2012). As a result, the

government, corporations, and the media converge in a tangle of profit and power.

McChesney and Nichols (2003) offer a striking illustration of this relationship when they

recount Comcast, CNN, Fox, and NBCs refusal to air ads opposing the Iraq war during

the week of President Bushs State of the Union address (p. 19). In this example,

corporate media works to complement state power and limit public discussion. The fact

is, corporate interests are an integral and ever-increasing part of political and public

discussions. Because of this, activists like the Yes Men must find inventive ways to

leverage corporate-controlled media for their own purposes.

Corporatization not only affects political and public concerns, but is also

underscores most social interactions, whether they take place in the real worldwhere

activities involve consumption of products, services, and experiencesor online, where

networks like Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest are based on sharing the products and

organizations we like with one another. In many ways, these sites make users complicit

in public marketing and branding techniques when pop-culture giants weave messages

into the lives of young people by providing free and entertaining content, by becoming,


17/102

11

as best they can, one of them (Harold, 2007, p. xviii). Tufekci (2010) argues that it is

almost impossible to separate the corporate from the public because [m]any online

environments (Facebook, now it seems Google) force an architecture that allows for

meaningful participation only if you play by rules that are designed for maximizing

profit, not optimum social and personal interaction. Thus, our interactions within the

public sphere are shaped by corporate influences and ideologies, whether they happen

face to face or online.

Similarly, corporations increasingly colonizephysicalpublic spaces. This

should not be surprising, because Soja (1989) writes that [u]nder advanced capitalism

the organization of space becomes predominantly related to the reproduction of the

dominant system of social relations (p. 91). In other words, our daily surroundings are

co-opted by cityscapes, skyscrapers, and advertisements for the sake of privatized

profitand open spaces become spots to stand and look at the skyscrapers and

advertisements (Daskalaki et al., 2008). Topinka (2012) notes that this physical

colonization may be as subtle as the layout of streets, which control time and space

through stoplights, one-way limitations, and the presence or absence of sidewalks. He

argues that these routes reinforce a capitalist, corporate ideology because they not only

require users to driveconsuming vehicles and fuelbut they often take drivers through

shopping centers even if they do not intend to stop there. While we may not always

consciously evaluate our surroundings, physical spaces are capable of dictating our daily

habits and reinforcing powerful ideological systems.

While it has been argued that serving the private interest of corporations could

be used to simultaneously promote the public interest (Randall, 2011, p. 211), the


18/102

12

consequence is that public spaces become about consumption and predictability instead

of civic engagement (Daskalaki et al., 2008, p. 54). Corporations, technology, and mass

media have turned public affairs into entertainment and spectacle rather than something

to be meaningfully engaged by the public (Levasseur & Carlin, 2001, p. 408). According

to Lasch (1992), this leads to the atrophy of . . . judgment, prudence, and eloquence (as

cited in DeLuca & Peeples, 2002, p. 133). This corporatization of the public sphere is a

refeudalization of the public sphere, with corporations taking on the role of princes and

kingsreturning the public to passive audience members (Deetz, 1991).

While this speaks to a degree of disintegration of the public sphere, it is also

reflective of some of the current trends in scholarship, namely the idea that technology

and spectacle are the mark of an evolvingpublic sphere, not necessarily an ailing one. For

instance, while Habermas emphasizes face-to-face interaction, many contemporary

scholars make the argument that television and the internet should be evaluated as

mediums for engagement in the public sphere (DeLuca & Peeples, 2002). Corporatization

has made the public sphere harder to access, but DeLuca and Peeples (2002) suggest that

television, if handled correctly, offers the possibility of participatory democracy in a

corporate-controlled world (p. 126). Specifically, they posit that there has been a shift

from the public sphere to the public screen, which activists can take advantage of by

broadcasting spectacular image events of their own to make the practices of

corporations and politicians visible (DeLuca & Peeples, 2002, p. 134). In this way,

spectacles can be co-opted by counterpublics as a tool for contestation and emancipation.

The Yes Men in particular offer a set of strategies that disrupt corporatization and allow

access to the public sphere.


19/102

13

In the end, the public sphere is difficult to characterize. The public sphere is a

place for citizens to engage issues of common interest, but entrance comes at the cost of

self-abstraction, or leaving behind ones particularities. Even the equalizer of self-

abstraction is wrought with privilege and power, because we must ask whose

particularities are left at the threshold of the public sphere. While contemporary

corporatization and egocentrism may weaken the public sphere, current trends indicate

that mass media and technologysuch as television and the internetmay be part of an

evolvingpublic sphere. Whether dissemination and dialogue happen in the public sphere

or on the public screen, they are essential to the strength and vitality of democracy. This

is a central concern for the Yes Men, whose rhetorical strategies attempt to make the

public sphere accessible to the actualpublic and not just the corporations that have

overtaken it.

Image Events

The public sphere is evolving. Coffee shop deliberations of yore are drowned

out by the corporatization, egocentrism, and fast-paced media of todays public sphere.

Instead of relinquishing the public square to institutions with louder voices and more

resources, activists must find ways to use corporate media to their advantage. Many

activists have found the answer in image events, which offer a strategic way to access a

public swamped by spectacles. This section defines image events and their theoretical

characteristics, outlines the major objectives of image events, and identifies limitations of

image events.


20/102

14

Definition

Image events are staged acts of protest designed for media dissemination

(Delicath & DeLuca, 2003, p. 315). Put simply, they are used in an attempt to respond to

dominant ideologies and practices by defamiliarizing them (Delicath & DeLuca, 2003;

Jones, 2009; McGuire, 2009). In order to do this effectively, image events must find a

way to garner media attention and convince the press such an event is worth covering

(Sheridan, Michel, & Ridolfo, 2009, p. 6). Essentially, this process involves rhetors

taking the existing structure of media relationships, inserting themselves, and then

leveraging that network. Delicath and DeLuca (2003) supply one example of this,

writing,

During the . . . confirmation hearings for Interior Secretary Gale Norton,

Greenpeace, in protest of prospective Bush/Norton policies, graced the InteriorDepartment headquarters with a banner reading, Bush & Norton: Our Land, Not

Oil Land. A picture of the draped headquarters illustrated The New York Times

coverage of the hearings. (p. 316)

Thus, image events make a spectacle of themselves to capture media attention.

This allows them to capitalize on the medias obsession with novelty, spectacle, and

drama instead of begrudging it from a distance.

There are several theoretical characteristics that mark image events. These

include a pictorial turn, body rhetoric, polyvocality, and connections between the local

and the global (Jones, 2009; Yanoshevsky, 2009).

The pictorial turn refers to the rising significance of images in public

discourse. Jones (2009) makes the point that images offer a more flexible and diverse

range of strategies than traditional civic participation or even traditional protest

practices (p. 2). This is largely because image events play off of clichs and stereotypes,


21/102

15

wordlessly communicating either an earlier literary discourse or a generalized social

discourse that asks viewers to contextualize and reframe what they are seeing, situating

it as a response to the pre-existing discourse from which it was taken (Yanoshevsky,

2009, p. 8).

Image events are often a form of embodied rhetoric. DeLuca (1999) argues

that the use of physical bodies is an important practice of public argumentation (as

cited in Jones, 2009, p. 4) because it allows people to use their body as evidence in a

way that employing only textual discourse could not (Jones, 2009, p. 4.). DeLuca (1999)

identifies Earth First!, ACT UP, and Queer Nation as groups that use their physical

bodies as a way to create spectacle and articulate arguments. For instance, members of

Earth First! have been known to bury themselves up to their necks in roads or dress in

animal costumes.

Image events also strive for polyvocality. This means that the most effective,

meaningful image events represent many individual voicesnot a single, powerful one.

This builds important bridges between the individual and community experience

(Jones, 2009, p. 4) that validates both personal injustices and larger, systemic injustices.

Yanoshevsky (2009) makes the point that the visual rhetoric of image events [appeals]

to artistic modes of expression that allow for a polyphony of arguments under one roof

(p. 12). This allows nuanced, individual input to shape a coherent public discourse.

Image events make connections between local and global levels of action and

discourse. Image events can force tangible local change, but should also contribute to

larger global discourses and action. Orchestrating an event in one place achieves local

action. An event should also create networks and sharing strategies so that it can function


22/102

16

in multiple sites (Jones, 2009, p. 5). This is important to the effectiveness and

sustainability of an image event.

Objectives

Image events ultimately serve three objectives: creating alternative space;

rejecting logic and rationality as the only legitimate means of public debate; and

revitalizing the public sphere.

Image events create alternative spaces. Spurlock (2009) points out that as

visual rhetoric becomes increasingly prevalent in public discussionsespecially given

the rapid development of mediait also becomes increasingly responsible for shaping

the contours (if not radically shifting the parameters) of most contemporary social

controversies and for carving out oppositional, alternative spaces and forms of dissent

and social protest (p. 2). Image events can act as a tool to open spaces for marginalized

or silenced perspectives and give access to mainstream forums of discussion.

Image events seek to reject rational dialogue and logic as the only legitimate

means of public debate by connecting mind and body as well as private and public

experiences. Jones (2009) explains that

[t]hrough image events, activists advocate a model of public discourse thatencourages conversation rather than an end game solution. Their use of images to

discourse with others shows an attempt to connect with a viewers own body,

emotions, and intuitions as a method of conversing rather than appealing only to

logic. (p. 10)

Image events expand legitimate forms of engagement in the public sphere. The use of

images fosters a holistic space that recognizes the relationship between intellect and

embodiment, as well as blurs the line between private and public issues. Because the

public screen recognizes a discourse of images as a powerful vehicle of participatory


23/102

17

democracy (McGuire, 2009, p. 5), they engage the public in ways that extend beyond

the largely white, patriarchal standards of dialogue in the traditional public sphere.

Normalized discourses and values are challenged not only by the content of image

events messages but the form of them as well.

Image events educate the public, encouraging them to be savvy consumers of

information. This is because image events invite and challenge the public to be critical

cultural analysts if they want to be in on the act. Image events are powerful because

they operate on multiple levels. They spark interest at face value because they are strange

or funnybut they also require the public to engage more deeply and consider complex

layers of irony, juxtaposition, and context. Sheridan et al. (2009) write that this type of

rhetorical education nurtures a public sphere characterized by a citizenry prepared to

engage in visual activism, including rhetorical practices associated with image events (p.

2).

Limitations

Despite the potential of image events to achieve great things, they are not

without their limitations. Like any tool, image events serve different purposes depending

on who uses them. Image events do not belong to any particular political party or social

movementthey are a tool that can be strategically mobilized by anyone.

However, some scholars argue that image events can never truly depart from a

corporatized system. First, due to certain material necessities (making photo copies,

phone calls, websites, buying props, etc.), image events do not exist in a pure space,

because there is no space that is uncontaminated by, or unconnected with, corporations

(Littler, 2009, p. 7). Second, Littler (2009) cautions that corporations have produced


24/102

18

their own versions of image events, and . . . corporate discourse interacts with the visual

and rhetorical strategies deployed by the more radical variants of image events in

complex ways (p. 1). According to Littler (2009), this corporate co-opting of image

events serves different purposes, including 1) trying to neutralize the impact of image

events that are critical of the company in order to maintain their corporate

reputation/face, or 2) participating in image events to promote their business. For

example, at the London-based protest of the Iraq war in 2003, some of the most

prominent posters were

yellow placards featuring an image of British Prime Minister Tony Blair holding a

rifle and sporting an upturned teacup on his head next to the slogan Make Tea not

War. . . . If you looked below the anti-war slogan, you could see another word:"Karmarama." As became apparent to those who investigated, Karmarama was a

relatively new London-based communications agency specialising in branding,

advertising and design. The "Make Tea Not War" placardswere in part a means

of raising the profile of the company by participating in the anti-war march. (Littler,2009, p. 5)

Karmaramas ability to leverage these tactics toward corporate ends is demonstrative of

the ways image events can be used to promote or reject any given ideology. Thepotential

behind image events is their most striking featureas with publics and counterpublics,

image events are part of a process that manages discourse and the give-and-take of

power.

Culture Jamming

One type of activism that makes extensive use of image events is culture

jamming. Culture jamming is a disruptive rhetorical act that humorously appropriates and

subverts political, corporate, and social messages. While image events and culture

jamming share many similarities, it is important to note a key distinction: not all culture


25/102

19

jams make use of image events. That is, they do not always attempt to draw media

attention. However, the Yes Men in particular do use media spectacle to their advantage

when they perform culture jams. Their brand of culture jamming is characterized by

multiple tactics. Major tactics include turning around messages through dtournement,

capitalizing on media spectacle, and using humor. Strategies like this allow culture

jammers to act as critical rhetoricians who are nonacademic but socially engaged

(Waisanen, 2009, p. 120). Second, culture jamming must be understood in relation to an

audience. Culture jamming invites and educates audiences. However, culture jammings

relationship to audiences is also complicated by the polysemic nature of messages and the

polyvalent interpretations of audiences.

Dtournement

The tactics of contemporary culture jamming are indebted to the Situationists,

a revolutionary French group that popularized the practice of dtournementas a form of

social and political commentary in the 1950s and 60s (Wettergren, 2009). The

Situationists were uneasy about a culture that increasingly emphasized consumption and

entertainment over critical thought. This is what Guy Debord (1977), one of the most

prominent members of the Situationists, termed the society of the spectacle.

The society of the spectacle was characterized by media saturation and

corporate presence. Much like scholars today, Debord was concerned by an increasingly

detached public and a society that was devoted to media, novelty, and consumption.

Shukaitis and Graeber (2007) explain that [t]he spectacle breaks down and destroys any

sense of life as art, adventure, or community . . . and then hooks us into the system by

selling us dead spectral images of everything we have lost (p. 21). Despite this


26/102

20

pessimistic perspective, Debord (1957) writes that [w]e must not reject modern culture,

but seize it in order to repudiate it (p. 42).

Thus, in response to these corporatized spectacles, the Situationists used

dtournement. Dtournementis not easily translated, but scholars suggest it has

connotations that include diversion, hijacking, and misappropriation (Sadler, 1999,

as cited in Harold, 2004, p. 192). For the Situationists, hijacking corporate images and

slogans was a way to use media, novelty, and material goods against the society of the

spectacle. Altering these constructs was a way to turn them into subversive tools of

resistance and change.

This tactic of dtournementhas been enthusiastically adopted by

contemporary culture jammers, who happily liberate billboards, impersonate

Halliburton executives, and reconfigure Barbie dolls. One good example of dtournement

in contemporary culture jamming is the Barbie Liberation Organization, who infamously

swapped the voice boxes in Barbie Dolls and G.I. Joes. Afterward, the group repackaged

and returned them to stores. Unsuspecting consumers purchased the toys only to find G.I.

Joe parroting phrases such as Lets plan our dream wedding! and Barbie snarling,

Vengeance is mine! (Firestone, 1993). The Barbie Liberation Organizations point was

to highlight the oppressive gender norms embeddedliterallyin childrens toys. This

strategy of dtournementdisrupts normalized constructs and expectations. It also allows

culture jammers to use corporate branding tosubvertcorporate branding.

Media Spectacle

Culture jamming not only co-opts corporate branding through dtournement,

but it also co-opts the media spectacle itself. For instance, the Barbie Liberation


27/102

21

Organization (headed by Yes Man Mike Bonanno) had to find a strategy so their message

would reach beyond the consumers buying G.I. Joes and Barbies. They knew that their

stunt would get the most attentionand have the most impactif they got the media to

run the story. To ensure this, when the Barbie Liberation Organization returned the

altered toys, they included stickers urging consumers to contact their local news. This

capitalized on the visibility offered by television news while simultaneously poking fun

at the powers that be (Harold, 2004, pp. 198-199).

This strategy takes advantage of the evolving public sphere. Increasingly,

discussions of public interest take place outside traditional face-to-face forums. Now,

public discussions mostly take place with the use of technology such as television,

internet, and radio. This is what DeLuca and Peeples (2002) call the public screen.

Culture jamming takes advantage of the public screen by using rhetorical tactics that

commandeer the media and [c]ritique through spectacle, not critique versus spectacle

(2002, p. 134).

Humor

Culture jamming is also characterized by its humor. Humor can be a powerful

force, and can serve any political or social paradigm. However, not all humor is equally

useful for instigating social change. Its important to draw distinctions between parody

and pranking.

Parody. Put simply, a parody is an imitation meant for comic effect or . . .

ridicule (Parody, n.d.). While parody has some strengths, it is not the most effective

for social change. In recent years, separating subversive campaign parodies from

campaigns that secretly reinforce dominant structures has become an almost Herculean


28/102

22

task. For instance, radical tactics that poke fun at corporate figureheads, policies, and

advertisements have been co-opted by Madison Avenue culture jammers who

appropriate parody for their own purposes (Harold, 2004, p. 191). This allows

corporations to use sheepishly self-aware marketing campaigns that poke fun at their own

corporate image. This clever self-deprecation invites consumers to share in the joke. To a

certain extent, it also allows consumers to feel like they are part of an anti-corporate

revolution when they, paradoxically, purchase the brands products. Harold (2004)

explains that parody becomes one of many social codescodes that are as available to

the capitalist as they are to the artist (p. 191). Because of this, parody lacks impact. In a

world where people process and filter thousands of persuasive messages, it becomes

difficult to identify the parodies that challenge dominant discourse and the ones that

subtly reinforce them becauseat least on the surfacethey look the same.

Furthermore, instead of deconstructing existing structures, parody operates

within them. Parodies act as a negation of the status quo, but this implicitly reinforces

dichotomies or constructs within dominant discourse (Harold, 2004). Parodies also

privilege the parodist as the revealer of Truth (Harold, 2004, p. 191). In other words,

parodies fail to acknowledge or reflect the situatedness of the parodist. While parody may

vehemently reject any given ideology or practice, its power for change is limited. Parody

addresses the content but not thepatterns of what it sees as oppressive rhetoric, making

it difficult to affect lasting change (Harold, 2004, p. 191).

Pranking. Social agitators must use strategies that challenge the content and

form of discourse. Pranking, a prominent characteristic of culture jamming, meets these

criteria. Unlike parody, pranking is effective because it resists less through negating and


29/102

23

opposing dominant rhetorics than by playfully and provocatively folding existing cultural

forms in on themselves (Harold, 2004, p. 191). Instead of simply rejecting or validating

a construct, prankingproliferatesthe number of messages and possibilities for change.

One example of this is the Yes MensNew York Timescampaign in 2008.

Through the collaborative efforts of many culture jammers, the Yes Men created a fake

paper that looked and felt like the real deal, handing out copies in cities throughout the

U.S. The papers motto had been changed from All the news thats fit to print to All

the news we hope to print. The most prominent headline declared, Iraq War Ends.

Steve Lambert, one of the projects organizers and editors, wrote,

As activists we are often put in the role of critics. We march in response to currentevents carrying signs that say NO ______! DONT ____! and STOP _____!

Its inherently reactive, negative, and critical instead of constructive.With the

Special Edition, we wanted to find a way to celebrate what we wanted, rather thancriticize what we didnt. We wanted to create our own vision instead of responding

to others. (Lambert, 2008)

Pranking serves as a general framework for understanding culture jammers

use of humor. Specific strategies for humorous pranking include using perspective by

incongruity, which involves mimicry and strategic juxtaposition (Demo, 2000, p. 133).

Perspective by incongruity means that culture jammers satirize what they perceive as an

oppressive discourse and place it alongside alternative discourses. This juxtaposition of a

dominant discourse and alternative interpretations allows culture jammers to expose the

incongruity between social ideals and practices (Demo, 2000, p. 138). Stephen Colbert

and Jon Stewart often use perspective by incongruity, using satire and paradox to

refashion public discourse in a humorous way (Waisanen, 2009, p. 122). They do this

by enacting characters with multiple perspectives, using and critiquing language


30/102

24

strategically, and juxtaposing discourses. Analyzing dominant constructs from so many

angles allows Colbert and Stewart to reject the status quo and explore possibilities of an

alternative world.

This type of critical humor is a significant tool for culture jammers, because it

serves five major functions. According to Woodside (2001), humor 1) allows taboo topics

to be spoken about, 2) subverts and resists dominant discourses, 3) liberates through the

equalization of authority and power, 4) strengthens group and cultural identity, and 5)

fosters social interaction and participation. Harold (2004) wryly notes that culture

jammers use of humor is not only entertaining but [makes] manifest Michel Foucaults

observation that one need not be sad to be militant (p. 208).

Audience

Culture jamming is best understood in relation to an audience. Culture jamming

invites audiences to participate and serves as informal education. There are also

complications with audience interpretation due to the polysemic nature of messages.

Invitation. Culture jamming is invitational. Instead of being a performance or

text that the public is meant to consume, culture jamming often opens spaces for the

public to participate, even if they did not originate the idea for the jam. This is an

important aspect of culture jamming because often media does not invite participation

or only does so to a limited extent. Condit (1999) notes that media generally use a

vocabulary that prefers the dominant audiences interests and thus normalizes those

interests (pp. 502-503).

In order to challenge the dominant interests, Condit (1999) points out that the

marginalized audience would have . . . to do double workdeconstructing the dominant


31/102

25

code and reconstructing their own (p. 504). Furthermore, audience members are not

always equipped with the tools to do that double work in the first place. Condit (1999)

writes, [I]t is not the case that all human beings are equally skilled in responding to

persuasive messages with countermessages. The masses may not be cultural dupes, but

they are not necessarily skilled rhetors (p. 501).

Culture jamming invites the audience to participate by creating opportunities

for deconstructing dominant codes and reconstructing marginalized codes. To a certain

extent, culture jamming also equips people with tools and skills to do so. This is

embodied by Ji Lees Bubble Project, wherein Lee posted blank speech bubbles on

advertisements in New York, inviting passersby to give voice to the ads (Lambert-Beatty,

2010, p. 105). Carducci (2006) suggests that acts like this may be seen as making a

claim of democratic sovereignty relative to the social contract (p. 118). In this way,

culture jamming becomes a way for jammers themselvesand the public at largeto

assert political and social identity in a world saturated by media.

Education. Culture jamming serves as informal education. Mischievous

pranks that disrupt popular and political culture provoke discussion and raise awareness

of the cultural forces that shape us as well as potential alternatives (Lambert-Beatty,

2010, p. 101). Popular culture should be seen as a site of informal learning . . . where

individuals resist, negotiate, and accommodate power relations (Sandlin, 2007, pp. 73-

74). The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are good examples of this because they

operate within the society of the spectacle but disseminate dissident interpretations of

current political events and serve as a type of public education (Warner, 2007, p. 19).


32/102

26

Culture jamming offers a rich resource to audiences for navigating tensions of power and

politics.

Interpretation. However, as with all messagesand especially mass-

distributed onesaudiences may interpret any given culture jam in multiple ways.

Condit (1999) suggests that while audiences may share a basic understanding of a text,

they evaluate texts differently, assigning different value to different portions of a text

and to the text itself (p. 498). One striking example of this is illustrated by audience

interpretations of TheColbert Report. Stephen Colbert is well known for his late-night

political comedy show, where he mimics conservative political pundits and offers

commentary on current events. A study from Ohio State University reveals that

conservative and liberal viewers find him equally funny. The more interesting finding is

that conservatives believe that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant

what he said whereas liberal viewers believe that he used satire and was not serious

when offering political statements (LaMarre, Landreville, & Beam, 2009, p. 212).

Colberts audience shares a basic understanding of the show and they agree it is funny.

However, they interpret the content differently, especially regarding Colberts intent and

why the jokes are funny.

In the end, culture jamming seeks to proliferate discursive constructs by using

humorous tactics of dtournement to capitalize on media spectacle. These tactics invite

audience participation and serve as informal education. However, as with any message,

there may be complications with the ways audience members interpret and evaluate the

meaning of any given culture jam.


33/102

27

Still, these rhetorical strategies provide significant insight into the relationship

between the public sphere, image events, and culture jamming itself. This is because the

public sphere is evolving as part of a mediated society. Using image events allows culture

jammers to capitalize on the media and gives them access to a broader audience, where

their playful misappropriation can have greater impact.


34/102

28

CHAPTER III

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The rhetorical strategies of groups like the Yes Men are best understood

through a Foucauldian framework that highlights the way culture jamming humorously

disrupts dominant discourses. Michel Foucault has profoundly shaped the way we think

about power, knowledge, morality, history, and identity from the postmodern perspective

(Prado, 2000). A Foucauldian approach is especially useful because it allows us to

analyze and understand the framework, context, or system in which discourse is

produced and functions (Foss & Gill, 1987, p. 392).

While Entmans (1993) Framing Theory is similarly useful for identifying the

way certain artifacts construct knowledge of the world, it does not account for rhetorical

acts of resistance. Alternatively, a Foucauldian perspective allows us to see the Yes

Mens disruptive rhetorical campaigns as acts of resistance made possible by spaces of

invention (Phillips, 2002). First, its important to contextualize this approach with a

brief background on postmodern assumptions as well as Foucaults own work regarding

discourse, power-knowledge, and resistance. Secondly, spaces of invention will be

outlined as the theoretical model of analysis.


35/102

29

Background

In the broadest sense, postmodernism is a critique of what Lyotard

(1979/1984) calls metanarratives (p. xxiv). Metanarratives are comprehensive

explanations about knowledge, history, and experience. These narratives are often blind

to their own ideological bindings, and normalize a single perspective at the expense of

alternatives. Postmodernists are highly skeptical of metanarratives that assume universal

histories, values, practices, and the knowability of truth. For Foucault, there is no

external position of certainty, no universal understanding that is beyond history and

society (Rabinow, 1984, p. 4). Thus, a more useful system of knowledge is one that is

broken into localized, fragmented narratives that acknowledge the multiplicity of

experience and interpretation. Lyotard (1979/1984) writes that because of this,

[p]ostmodern knowledge . . . refines our sensitivity to differences and reinforces our

ability to tolerate the incommensurable (p. xxv).

Foucault in particular is concerned with how metanarratives work. This is

because he is most interested in understanding how and why we hold some things true,

how and why we deem some things knowledge, and how and why we consider some

procedures rational and others not (Prado, 2000, pp. 9-10). To answer these questions,

Foucault develops the concepts of discourse, power and knowledge, and resistance.

Discourse, in the crudest terms, can be thought of as a world view that

comes about from certain ways of speaking (OFarrell, 2005, p. 78). These ways of

speaking are everywhere, including the pronouncements of judges to scientific

journals to TV advertisement, pop songs, and the broadsheets of the day (Butler, 2002,

p. 64). Foucault is interested in these discursive formations not for the words themselves,


36/102

30

but for the larger structural regularities the words reveal (Paras, 2006, p. 22). That is to

say, these discursive formations frame particular ways of thinking, speaking, and acting

as legitimate while marginalizing or erasing other ways of thinking, speaking, and acting.

In this way, discourses establish social and political norms. In the process of

establishing these norms, categories of rationality, common sense, and normality emerge.

As a result, categories of irrationality and deviance alsoemerge. Ward (2003) explains

that

[s]ociety defines itself by what it excludes. By defining and marginalizing groups ofdeviants as criminal, mad or ill, it reassures itself of its own sanity, health, and

naturalness. Thus discourses are the systems of exclusion and categorization upon

which society depends. (p. 144)

Dominant discourse becomes the criteria by which legitimacy is measured. This

includes determining whose perspective, what ways of knowing, and what types of

questions are legitimate (Danisch, 2006, p. 294). Importantly, Butler (2002) notes that

the more dominant a discourse is within a group or society, the more natural it can

seem, and the more it tends to appeal to the ways of nature to justify itself (p. 64). This

becomes an endlessly self-referential cycle through which dominant discourses maintain

themselves.

Power and knowledge are largely inseparable from discourse. This is because

discourse [is] the location where power and knowledge intersect (OFarrell, 2005, p.

81). It is discourse that makes possibleor legitimatecertain systems of power

relations (Herrick, 2009, p. 250). Power, as Foucault (1976/1990) defines it, is not an

institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is

the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society (p.


37/102

31

93). In this explanation, Foucault warns against parametricizing power down to a central

source such as the state, an institution, or even an individual. These are only components

of power. Foucault (1976/1990) calls them crystallizations, perhaps alluding to the way

something fluid and invisible can assume a physical shape under the right conditions (p.

93).

Still, these crystallizations are not the sourceof power because power is not

owned. Instead, it is enacted in the web of relationships between people, manifesting as

something exercised rather than possessed (Paras, 2006, p. 79). Due to this relational

nature, it is important to emphasize that power is not always oppressive. Instinctively, the

term power conjures associations with domination, coercion, and subserviencebut it

is more complex than this. It is also a productive force that can be harnessed by both the

rulers and ruled (Foucault, 1976/1990, p. 94). This is because power is neutral,

privileging neither repressive nor productive ends. Rather, power relations emerge in the

practices, techniques, and procedures (Townley, 1993, p. 520) used during action and

reaction.

The concept of knowledge is critical to fully understanding power and

discourse. Knowledge and power share a symbiotic relationship wherein one makes the

other possible. Herrick (2009) elaborates, writing that [p]ower is understood as the

discursive constraint on what can be known, and what can be known determines the

allocation of power in the material realm (pp. 250-251). Power shapes knowledge, but

knowledge is also a mechanism of power. While they are distinct from each other, one

cannot exist without the other.


38/102

32

Power and knowledge can be understood as an invisible system of control

(Danisch, 2006). Foucaults prison metaphor illustrates the relationship between

discourse, power, and knowledge. Foucault has likened modern society to Jeremy

Benthams blueprint of the Panopticon. The Panopticon is a prison with cells that form a

circle around a central guard tower. Prisoners cannot see one another or the inside of the

tower, but they constantly feel the threat of being watched. This threat is felt whether or

not a guard is actually in the tower. As a result, the prisoners come to discipline

themselves.

Its important to note that this control is not necessarily the goal or intention

of any one individual or institution; it emerges from larger patterns of interaction. For

instance, it is discourse that makes the identification of criminals possible in the first

place. Knowledge then determines the constraints put on criminals in prison as a form of

disciplinary power. Constraining criminal behavior generatesfurtherknowledge when

their subsequent behavior either upholds or violates expectations (Prado, 2000, p. 70).

For Foucault, this panopticism is at work in almost all modern institutions including

schools, hospitals, and malls (OFarrell, 2005, p. 104).

Given the fluid and pervasive nature of power, the question then becomes: is

resistance possible? Some scholars critique Foucault for his ambivalence toward

resistance and reform (Fraser, 1989; Eagleton, 1990; Muckelbauer, 2000, as cited in

Phillips, 2002). His position tends to inspire frustration because it unveils and critiques

systems of discourse, power, and knowledge yet makes no attempt to change them. But

this is part of Foucaults postmodern sensibility, wherein anything that purports to be

authoritative or righteven emancipationshould be approached with a healthy


39/102

33

skepticism (McKerrow, 1999). This is because, as Phillips (2002) writes, the very act of

articulating a political agenda, to the extent that that agenda is intelligible, becomes

enmeshed within relations of power (p. 330). Instead, for Foucault, subversion is only

achieved through permanent criticism (McKerrow, 1999, p. 446). Resistance is thus

enacted as an unrelenting skepticism that confuses and disrupts the system without

imposing an equally problematic alternative (Biesecker, 1992).

Spaces of Invention

Rhetorical acts of resistance are made possible by spaces of invention. Phillips

(2002) explains that discourse formations work to create an illusion of authority and

absoluteness or, in other words . . . work to hide the existence of incoherence (p. 333)

and adds that [a]ttending to the discourses of the dominant may serve to problematize

these discourses and, in so doing, open up spaces of invention (2002, p. 342). This

theoretical framework looks at how the Yes Mens campaigns disrupt dominant discourse

to produce points of uncertainty and invention. These spaces of invention are created

through dissension, freedom, and thought (Phillips, 2002). These spaces are important

because they allow the subversive rhetor to navigate the warp and weft of power

relations. If we think of discourse as the framework of a house, dissent is the storm that

destroysor partly destroysit; freedom is the scattering of debris; and thought is

making sense of how best to rebuild.

Dissension

Dissension is an interruption in the coherence of the dominant discourse. For

culture jammers like the Yes Men, the interruption may include mimicry, parody, and


40/102

34

impersonation. Phillips (2002) suggests that [t]he emergence of such contradictions

represents a temporary usurpation of the regularized discourse, a point where the

enforced consensus is disabled and various new discourses may emerge within this space

of dissension (p. 334). Dissension questions the dominant discourse and invites

viewers to become aware of it as only one of many lenses through which to experience

the world, as opposed to a natural truth. This strategy can constitute a powerful . . .

comic corrective (Demo, 2000, p. 140) and make room for previously excluded

discourse.

Freedom

Dissension and freedom are closely related because both are experienced as

points of uncertainty and possibility and both are productive points for the creation of

something new (Phillips, 2002, p. 336). If the dominant discourse seeks to project

authority and absoluteness (Phillips, 2002, p. 333), then freedom can be characterized

as the space between the present and possibility, manifesting after the dominant discourse

has been destabilized but before it has been concretely replaced. Phillips (2002) explains

that freedom [can] be conceived not as the reversal of power relations or the

introduction of reforms, but the uncertain point of reversibility (p. 336).

Freedom is about calling into question the dominant discourse and opening

space for a multitude of alternatives. Demo (2000) concludes that this is a form of social

criticism that seeks to correct the inadequacies of the present social order through

demystification rather than revolution (p. 135). This space between is often a key

characteristic of culture jamming. Culture jammers can open a space of freedom by


41/102

35

displacing mainstream authorities and forcing conversation between dominant and

excluded discoursesnot replacing one with the other.

Thought

Thought can be characterized as a moment of critical self-reflection, and is the

ultimate goal of creating spaces of invention. Phillips (2002) explains, Thought, as

Foucault defines it, consists of stepping back from ones own action, turning it into a

problem to be probed and questioned (p. 337). The self-reflection of thought is essential

to the type of critical cultural literacy the Yes Men try to foster. This is because self-

reflection highlights an encounter with the incompatiblewhere the habitual ways of

knowing and doing fail (Phillips, 2002, p. 338), which is the catalyst for thought and

invention. Phillips (2002) cautions that thought is not the emergence of a new

subjectivity, but the reflection on ones self and ones actions . . . before some new way

of living comes forth (p. 339).

Dissension, freedom, and thought offer a useful way to describe the process of

rhetorical resistance. Each one demonstrates that resistance cannot be thought as an

assault from the outside or an incursion from the fringe. Instead, resistance must be

deciphered asa practice that works within and against the grain (Biesecker, 1992, p.

357). This approach allows for an important discussion of the way discourse, power, and

resistance are rhetorically managed by the Yes Men.


42/102

36

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

The Yes Men utilize several unique tactics in their brand of prankster

advocacy. Engaging Foucaults theoretical explanations of dissension, freedom, and

thought helps us understand the ways in which the Yes Men enter a public sphere that is

otherwise largely unavailable to those without power. Specifically, their tactics

demonstrate how dominant corporate rhetoric can be turned against itself. Even in

different contexts, the Yes Men have found a flexible formula for addressing issues of

significance. In order to do so, the Yes Men have been known to adopt identities in three

broad categories, representing world organizations, U.S. organizations, and corporations.

While there are significant areas of overlap in each of the Yes Mens stunts, in this

analysis I argue that they have two primary tactics to disrupt dominant corporate

discourse: satire and sincerity.

In this analysis, the Yes Mens satirical presentations include the WTOs

Management Leisure Suit, the Re-Burger system, and the SurvivaBall while their sincere

presentations include announcements as representatives from the U.S. department of

Housing and Urban Development, Dow Chemical, and the Chamber of Commerce. Satire

and sincerity require different tactical approaches from the Yes Men and thus result in

different types of presentations when it comes to dissent, freedom, and thought.

Ultimately, however, their use of satire and sincerity serve the same ends, which are to


43/102

37

disrupt dominant narratives, make space for alternatives, and engage in critical self-

reflection.

Satire

Each of the Yes Mens satirical presentations is marked by visual mimicry,

satire, and spectacle. Their use of satire is, in part, what gives the Yes Men access to the

public sphere. This is especially important in an age when the common, public good is

dictated by corporate values. Harold (2007) asks, What kinds of public spaces and

public discourses are available to us in an environment that increasingly encourages us to

see ourselves as consumers or as members of niche markets? (p. xxiv). For the Yes Men,

satire and purposeful pranking are part of the answer. Returning to Woodsides (2001)

five functions of humor, satire allows the Yes Men to 1) voice taboo opinions, 2) subvert

and resist dominant discourses, 3) equalize authority and power, 4) strengthen group and

cultural identity, and 5) foster social interaction and participation. It is hard to be

frightened of a fool, and humor is a particularly sharp tool for cutting someoneor

somethingdown to size. Thus, satire becomes uniquely useful for culture jammers who

seek to create spaces of invention through dissension, freedom, and thought.

Dissent

The Yes Mens impersonation of governmental and corporate figureheads as

well as their imitation of unfeeling corporate rhetoric becomes a way to disruptthe same

discourses they engage. Within Foucaults framework, this becomes an act of dissent.

This is because, in the end, the Yes Mens performances are not so much a distortion as

they are clarification. This is part of what the Yes Men call identity correction (The


44/102

38

Yes Men, n.d.b), or the practice of adopting personas and exaggerating them until they

are actually more accurate and honest representations. The Yes Men enact dissent on

several levels, with particular emphasis on visual mimicry, satire, and spectacle. These

elements allow the Yes Men to turn the dominant rhetoric back on itself so that it begins

to collapse under its own weight.

The first satirical presentation of note took place in January 2001, when

Bichlbaum and Bonanno traveled to Tempere, Finland to a textile conference. There, they

posed as members of the WTO and presented a keynote speech titled The Future of

Textiles, the Future of a Lifetime, and the Lifetime of the Future.

During this presentation, the Yes Men visually mimic corporate norms.

Bichlbaum traditionally buzzes his hair before each presentation for a close-cropped,

utilitarian look. Bonanno and Bichlbaum both wear suits in dark, neutral colors such as

black, navy, or brown with white button-downs and ties for a professionally bland

aesthetic. Additionally, the fact that they are white, male, physically fit, and able-bodied

is important to the success of their pranks, because these are characteristics with which

we tend to associate authority and competence. This lends the Yes Mens pranks a certain

visual fidelity because audiences expect corporate spokespersons to be well-dressed white

men with short, salt-and-pepper hair. Furthermore, because whiteness and maleness are

often regarded as a neutral identity (Fraser, 1996), audiences tend to trust the Yes

Mens presence in the public sphereand their rhetoricin a way that would be difficult

if they were Black, Asian, Native American, or inter-racial women.

The Yes Mens ability to visually emulate traditional corporate norms serves

two prominent functions. First, it makes them more believable. Audiences do not


45/102

39

immediately suspect them of being up to something. Second, it makes the Yes Mens

critique more persuasive. Once audiences do realize they have been pranked, the fact that

the Yes Men are white, male, and able-bodied lends credibility to arguments that are

critical of those same privileges. This has been a source of frustration for marginalized

populations, because it often takes someone who embodies a dominant identity to give

credence to their arguments. For instance, a man advocating for womens rights often has

more persuasive power to make the issues salient for the general population (Bennhold,

2010). While this is obviously problematic, the fact is that Bonanno and Bichlbaums

visual and physical identities help them to be rhetorically effective.

The Yes Men never make specific mention of the role race and sex play in

their activism, but they are clearly attuned to the significance of their appearance.

Visually, they strategically juxtapose their physical bodies with their rhetorical strategies

in a way that is ultimately unexpected, surprising, and thought provoking. This attention

to visual details and physical embodiment is a key aspect of successful image events.

Because the Yes Men look like icons of corporate authority, it is much more powerful

when they throw a rhetorical wrench into the gears of dominant corporate discourse. This

is particularly clear when they perform these identities in conjunction with satire and

hyperbole at the textile conference in Finland.

The Yes Men often quip, Sometimes it takes a lie to expose the truth,

(Bichlbaum et al., 2009). That statement speaks to the heart of their satire. The Yes Men

script their presentations with inflated versions of corporate platitudes thatshouldcome

across as unreasonable or morally bankrupt. However, their audiences often accept it

without reservation. It becomes clear that this is because the Yes Mens hyperbole is not


46/102

40

that far from the truth. Rather, people are so used to hearing similar things from real

organizations that the Yes Mens facetious advocacy of sweatshops, child labor, and chip

implantations just sounds like common sense.

At the textile conference in Finland, Bichlbaum opens his speech by saying,

What we want to do at the WTO is to help you achieve your dollar results and promises

that he has the perfect solution for maintaining rapport with distant workforce and . . .

maintaining healthful amounts of leisure (Ollman et al., 2003). While this may seem like

a standard, reasonable opening, Bichlbaums rhetoric becomes increasingly preposterous,

and he eventually reveals that the WTOs solution to balancing work and leisure is a

Management Leisure Suit. Throughout the presentation, Bichlbaum complicates the

logic of traditional corporate rhetoric. In many ways, his satire is an effective act of

dissent because he distorts corporate values and justifications, but it does not render them

unrecognizable. Rather, it brings them to a point of true clarity. This strategy becomes

particularly clear as he talks the audience through a brief history of textiles beginning

with cotton production, slave labor, and the U.S. Civil War.

As he begins, Bichlbaum explains that the invention of the cotton gin

increased the production of cotton in the South. That is, until the North unfairly

intervened [i]nto this rosy picture of freedom and boon (Ollman et al., 2003). He goes

on to add that the North not only committed a terrible injustice against the freedom of

the South but also deprived slavery of its natural development into remote labor (Ollman

et al., 2003). Though Bichlbaum uses the phrase remote workers during the

presentation, what he is truly describing is remote sweatshop labor (The Yes Men,

n.d.a) The Yes Men go on to make the unlikely argument that the biggest benefit of the


47/102

41

remote labor system is to the slave him or herself because workers remain in their own

country and thus do not suffer homesickness nor have a reason to flee (Ollman et al.,

2003). An additional benefit, they add, is that remote labor allows managers to put

children to work, which is otherwise prevented by the regrettable child labor laws of

Finland. Now that remote labor is possible, the Yes Men lament the fact that managers

face the problem of actually managing their distant workers andmaintaining their own

leisurely lifestyles. The WTOs solution is the Management Leisure Suit.

The Yes Mens introduction of the suit weds visual mimicry and satire with

spectacle. Making a show of it, Bonanno dramatically rips Bichlbaums business suit off

to reveal a tight-fitting, golden leotard. Attached to the suit is an inflatable Employee

Visualization Appendage. In reality, this is a huge golden phallus with a video screen on

the tip. While this display is met with laughter from the audience, Bichlbaum goes on to

calmly explain that the Employee Visualization Appendage is the answer to remote

management. On the screen, images of remote laborers and productivity data are

transmitted to the manager, who continues to live in luxury. In order to transmit this data,

the workers are fitted with corresponding transmitting chips that are implanted

humanely directly into the shoulder (Ollman et al. 2003). This is nothing short of an

Orwellian nightmare, but Bichlbaum suggests it with such calm certitude that it serves as

commentary on the strange extents to which real corporate entities will go to serve the

bottom line. Ultimately, the spectacle they make of themselves with the suit earns them a

color photograph and caption in a local papers report on the conference.

In addition to the suit, the Yes Men show a PowerPoint to augment their

satirical discourse. For instance, when they discuss the importance of managing rapport


48/102

42

with workers, they show an image of a white female manager shaking hands with a group

of black male employees. Managerial leisure is represented by yachts, tennis, champagne,

private jets, and a Yin-Yang symbol of balance. Aside from the last, these are all classic

signifiers of privilege, wealth, and entitlement.

The Yes Men also supply an animated rendering of the leisure suit. The video

shows a middle-aged white man stripping off his business clothes to reveal the golden

suit, much as Bichlbaum himself did. Aided by the Yes Mens narration, the animated

manager dances, hikes in the mountains, and sashays on the beach and other lush

environments. The fact that the fictional manager is depicted as white, male, and middle-

aged reflects both cultural assumptions about who we imagine in roles of authority and

truths about the people who actually tend to occupy these roles. Using a representation of

a white male to critiquewhite, male authorities of a capitalist system becomes an act of

dissent that draws attention to the particularities of identity and authority.

Originally, the Yes Men hoped that this performance would clarify how

dangerous it is to equate human freedom with a free market and make their audience

think twice (The Yes Men, n.d). However, when Bichlbaum ends with the optimistic but

nonsensical statement that we can always look forward on the highways of progress

towards ever new horizons with cooperation and mutual delight in the fruits of

prosperity (Ollman et al., 2003), he is met with a hearty round of applause.

The Yes Men utilize some uniquely effective strategies of dissent in this

presentation with regards to visual mimicry, satire, and spectacle. However, it is

important to acknowledge potentially ineffectivestrategies as well. For instance, it is

difficult to say whether Bichlbaums cryptic ending was intentional, or what purpose the


49/102

43

Yes Men hoped it would serve. It is possible it was meant to highlight the nonsensical

absurdities of the presentation as a whole. After all, the Yes Men pitched the leisure suit

with an explanation of historical events that excused slavery and justified not only

sweatshop labor but child labor. Furthermore, they argued that these practices would be

most beneficial for the remote workers. By challenging the audience to question the

coherence of their final statement, the Yes Men may have been challenging the audience

to question the coherence of their entire presentation. It is noteworthy that the audience

applauds and the panel respondent only says, Thank you Mr. Unruh for this very

interesting presentation. I think that it was the first presentation from the WTO side for

demonstration I ever saw (Ollman et al., 2003). Essentially, the incoherence and

absurdities of the Yes Mens presentation are smoothed over as if they were all just part

of the show. Later, it will become clear that this has implications for the invention of

freedom and thought.

The second satirical presentation under analysis is the Yes Mens Re-Burger

project at the State University of New York. During this presentation, the Yes Men utilize

similar strategies of dissent regarding visuals, satire, and spectacle. Bichlbaum again

poses as a representative of the WTO while Bonanno accompanies him as a

representative of McDonalds. As outlined earlier, they both visually mimic the role of

corporate spokespersons by wearing their business suits. However, Bonanno in particular

is vigilant about their appearances. Before they arrive at the university, Bonanno says,

Its about time, pointing at Bichlbaums feet. I was so worried about your shoes. This

guy brought real shoes for you, look (Ollman et al. 2003). Bonanno gestures to their

other friend, who has supplied dress shoes for Bichlbaum. Bonanno is acutely aware that


50/102

44

this visual coherence is an essential part of their success with rhetorical dissent. In order

to properly disrupt the dominant narratives, they must properly co-opt them first.

However, Bonanno is not only concerned that they visually dress their roles

but that they visually perform their roles. For instance, they have brought several boxes

full of McDonalds burgers with them to hand out to their audience. As they begin to

unload the car, Richard, the professor who has invited them to speak (and is in on the

prank) reaches to carry a box but Bonanno stops him, saying, You know, I think for look

I should probably carry these in. Yeah, Im thinking that you probably shouldnt be

associated with the hamburgers (Ollman et al., 2003). Thus, it is important for the Yes

Men to look right for the partbut also play the part so that it looks right.

Once in the classroom, Bonanno and Bichlbaum once again make use of satire

in their presentation. Together, they pass out McDonalds burgers to the entire class. As

the students unwrap their burgers and begin to eat, Bichlbaum poses the problem of

world hunger and explains that starvation could be solved if only food could be recycled.

And, he argues, it can: consuming one burger means the waste produced later can be used

to create another burger. We do this for oil, we could do this for food as well,

Bichlbaum says placatingly as the students begin to shift uncomfortably (Ollman et al.,

2003).

As Bichlbaum continues, he explains that recycled waste products from the

U.S. would solve hunger in Third World countries. The Yes Men openly use problematic

lan

4 18 2013 taureanna shimp

Documents