Rhetoric & Western Culture: Scholarly Article Critique
By: Elisa Martinez and Starr Freeman Title: "Promise Keepers and the Rhetoric of Recruitment: The Context, the Persona, and the Spectacle" Scholar: Michael E. Eidenmuller Introduction This paper offers a critical analysis of Eidenmuller’s arguments in Promise Keepers and the Rhetoric of Recruitment: The Context, the Persona, and the Spectacle. In this article, a chapter in a book on the Promise Keepers movement, Eidenmuller proposes three reasons, from a rhetorical standpoint, for the rapid early growth of the Promise Keepers. His audience is a mixture of scholars and lay persons interested in the phenomenon of Promise Keepers’ extraordinary initial growth, and the movement’s subsequent decline. Eidenmuller’s main claim is that Promise Keepers’ rapid early growth may be ascribed to three rhetorical factors: the diverse “geo-ideological context” in which PK began, Bill McCartney’s “prior public persona”, and the “stadium event” in which public arenas are reclaimed for religious purposes. Explanations and evidence for this claim will be considered for each of the three rhetorical factors introduced above. Each point of this outline consists of a restatement of Eidenmuller’s claims, followed by a brief critical analysis of the arguments, taking into consideration the target audience of the essay.
Boulder, CO, is a diverse community, home to both liberal and conservative Christian viewpoints, as well as liberal anti-Christian viewpoints. According to Eidenmuller, “Boulder is part of a geo-ideological context uniquely situated in ways that favor the confluence of incompatible ideological interests.” He points out the likelihood that networks of relationships among Christians influence Boulder more significantly than might be assumed, given the city’s generally liberal reputation. The fact that this community provided both opposition to and support of religious expression of thought is also significant since both are vital, on a very basic level, to the growth of a movement. Evidence cited includes data from the Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, and the Colorado University Club Guide. The presence of many large churches, Christian ministries, and other para-church organizations in the larger area surrounding Boulder is also noted. In addition to this, Eidenmuller refers to a phone conversation with Steve Chavis, PK national spokesman, in which Chavis “confirmed that a loosely-knit personal network exists and probably did at the time of PK’s advent.” Ample evidence is provided to support Eidenmuller’s argument for a dual set of ideologies in place in the greater Boulder area, and is very likely to be persuasive to his audience. It is even more likely to persuade those people who are familiar either with the city itself or the Christian organizations mentioned.
The combination of McCartney’s successes and failures, his “beliefs package”, and his faith in action in difficult real-life situations gave him credibility with the men he wanted to address. Because of these things, McCartney’s target audience, which was made up of men very much like McCartney in many ways, was able to identify with him. Eidenmuller draws an analogy between McCartney’s recruiting techniques for CU and PK recruiting rhetoric. He describes McCartney’s “two-principle strategy”: 1. associating a “select geographical location with a new life-beginning,” and 2. addressing a lack of tradition: “Where a foundation does not exist, it must be built.” He suggests that the Promise Keepers used the same strategy in: 1. the “new” location for a religious event (the stadium), and 2. the idea that participants will usher in future blessings, a “nationwide revival”. Media portrayal of McCartney is also addressed, highlighting the near-impossibility of separating a person’s personal life from his public life, and the difficulty of balancing “secular” and religious demands. A main strength of this section of the argument is Eidenmuller’s grasp of the identification factors beyond professional success that afforded McCartney an attentive audience. Media portrayal of McCartney elicited sympathy and support for him, but more importantly, provided points of identification (Burke) for the men in the Boulder area who heard McCartney speak. A large part of these points of identification would be McCartney’s personal failures and his responses to those failures; men were able to identify with McCartney not only as Christians, as men seeking to honor God in their personal lives, and as men seeking excellence in their careers, but also as men who frequently failed in all three areas. Not as strong is the analogy between McCartney’s recruiting tactics and PK recruiting tactics. One paragraph is quoted, in which McCartney outlines his basic recruiting strategy; Eidenmuller’s treatment of the rhetoric of McCartney’s football recruitment brings out many nuances of thought involved, but the success of the CU football program can hardly be said to lie almost entirely in this strategy. McCartney undoubtedly had assistant coaches who also recruited, built morale, and worked with players. It is likely that McCartney’s recruiting tactics evolved over the years he spent at CU, and undoubtedly they changed as the program improved. Similarly, while the analogy of the stadium as a new location and the idea of joining with Promise Keepers to usher in a new wave of blessings is believable enough, it is readily apparent that the success of the movement must lie in more than rhetorical nuances. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the article, the point of all the rhetoric (the message itself) is hardly examined as a factor in Promise Keepers’ growth. Eidenmuller’s audience might consider a similar scenario without Promise Keepers’ pro-family message. NOW, the National Organization for Women, also employs many of the same rhetorical factors examined in the article. NOW’s spokeswomen include well-known celebrity figures with whom women can relate. NOW enjoys an almost unparalleled heritage of women’s suffrage in the US despite opposition from many conservative arenas. One of NOW’s main goals is introducing women into areas which have traditionally been closed to them. A major difference between PK and NOW, other than the very obvious gender factor, is their message. The Promise Keepers message is essentially pro-family. NOW’s message is essentially anti-family (by virtue of being pro-homosexual, pro-choice, anti-male, etc.). [Instructor's Note: The student was advised of additional ideological possibilities, and in particular the view that NOW's message operates under premises which privilege an alternative view of "family," -- a view that may or may not follow from premises concerning sexual preference and abortion -- but in any case, one that its subscribers would likely not see as "anti-family." Terministic choices notwithstanding, the logic is internally consistent, insofar as a conclusion is offered by 1) identifying the same set of "rhetorical factors" and their outcomes between each movement, and 2) identifying/arguing for an important difference between both movements (the message substance, tone) and thereby 3) attributing differences in popularity accordingly. Interested readers may refer to J.S. Mill's Method of Difference for a full treatment of this inferential procedure.] Considering the appeal of the two messages on the basis of sheer numbers, PK’s traditional family-centered message comes out far ahead. In 1997, PK’s Washington, D.C. rally drew approximately 450,000 men; NOW’s 1999 national conference, in contrast, hosted approximately 800 women. It must be noted that NOW continues to operate steadily in the support of its agenda, while the Promise Keepers movement has declined in numbers since 1997. Perhaps this is due, despite the hype often employed in both camps, to NOW’s more thorough recognition that it takes time, patience, and endurance to change society. The “stadium event”: reclaiming a public spectacle The idea of taking over a public arena for a religious cause had great appeal to the men who associated those public arenas with McCartney’s football triumphs: hard-won victories in a very masculine sport. This is tied to the “culturally unifying power with which such public spectacles are endowed”. Support for this idea includes the “competing modes of interpretation of CU football” (with little evidence provided), football game behavior rather than church behavior at early PK rallies, and speeches from CU football players during these rallies. The strength of this section of the article is the focus placed on the appeal of reclaiming culturally significant arenas for public religious expression. While this takeover of culturally significant arenas for religious purposes undoubtedly has appeal, the idea that McCartney’s football program, particularly his wins and losses, had religious significance to people in the Boulder area is somewhat less plausible. No hard evidence is provided, and Eidenmuller’s target audience is required to assume that, yes, many men in Boulder really believed that God was just as concerned about CU football wins and losses as they were, and that this transferred over into their enthusiasm for attending PK rallies. In summary, Eidenmuller’s article is a compelling argument for the success of those rhetorical factors that characterized the Promise Keepers movement in its incipient stages. Some of Eidenmuller’s analogical arguments are weak because the reader is asked to speculate along with him. However, Eidenmuller’s portrayal of Boulder as home to a dual set of competing ideologies is convincing, his treatment of the intangibles that built McCartney’s ethos is perceptive, and his analysis of rhetorical nuances with regard to McCartney’s football recruitment techniques and their implicit messages is strikingly perceptive. |
