Exigence: Green’s exigence begins as the issue of the penny’s usefulness—how it is no longer useful in our economy and has become a burden to society, but we haven’t taken any steps to get rid of it in the United States. However, the exigence transforms as the podcast goes on, and turns into a broader issue of how money is tied to politics, which leads to corruption and economic equality.

Audience: Green’s audience can embody everyone, because his podcast makes everyone more aware of economic issues, particularly how money is tied to politics and how that leads to corruption because the only issues we can make change on are divisive issues that will be backed by wealthy interest groups. However, his argument particularly targets congress members and other politicians.

I plan to use the genre of the podcast to talk about Green’s podcast, so that I can show how the medium influences the argument.

Artifact: John Green’s podcast, The Anthropocene Reviewed.  Episode 9: “Pennies and Piggly Wiggly”

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/anthropocene-reviewed/episodes/episode-9-pennies-and-piggly-wiggly I’m particularly looking at the first half of the podcast which focuses on the penny. I stop at 8:27. I might add the section about Piggly Wiggly into the final project, but I want to start by focusing on the first half of the podcast in the draft. 

I plan to make the final project into a podcast of my own that discusses Green’s podcast and the rhetorical techniques it uses. However, I’m sticking to writing for the draft. 

What is this artifact?: The Anthropocene reviewed is a podcast that reviews everyday objects and aspects of the human experience on a five star scale. This particular episode rates pennies and Piggly Wiggly grocery. 

Summary: The first half of Green’s podcast, The Anthropocene Reviewed, Episode 9: “Pennies and Piggly Wiggly” discusses the penny. He begins the podcast very critical of the penny, citing numerous facts about the amount the United States spends on pennies, and he details some of the history of the coin. He goes on to explain how useless pennies are in our everyday lives, even from an economic standpoint. We can’t use them in vending machines or parking meters, and it goes against social norms to use the penny because it’s a pain for cashiers to count them out. There really is no good way to use the penny, so they just end up accumulating, and we try to find ways to get rid of them. They’re not really working as currency. 

Green then addresses some counter arguments that people make in favor of keeping the penny, but he swiftly shuts them down. Some say that getting rid of pennies would increase prices, but he provides evidence from other countries to show that getting rid of the penny doesn’t actually do this. Some say that it would result in increased inflation, but he assures us that there is no evidence to support that either. Some like the penny simply because it honors Lincoln, but Green jokingly asks us to think about whether Lincoln would really want to be on such an awful coin. 

He comes to a turning point in the podcast where makes us question if arguing about the penny is even worth it. Green illustrates all of the other, more important economic and political issues in the U.S. He argues that there are so many more important issues that need our attention besides the penny, but the fact that we can’t seem to get rid of the penny shows that we can’t accomplish simple tasks. Green laments that the only issues we can get congress to pay attention to are the divisive ones; money is corrupting our politics and should not have the level of influence that it has. Even though the majority of the country is united in support of removing the penny, we can’t accomplish this simple task because the issue isn’t divisive enough to garner attention. Green ends by giving the penny a 1.5 out of 5 star rating. 

Context: Application of Lanham

The podcast itself is representative of our attention economy, but also Green’s whole idea behind the podcast, which is to review aspects of the Anthropocene (a term that describes the current era we’re in as human-centered). The podcast is a success of the attention economy.

Context: Application of Zelizer

The content of this podcast seems to support Zelizer’s idea that money has social ties. Green describes the influence of the penny on our social sphere and how it can become a nuisance in everyday interactions. This episode focuses mainly on the compensation payment type mentioned in the Zelizer reading. 

Context: Application of Bourdieu

Green’s argument shows that using pennies is actually harmful for social capital. People are generally irritated when you pay with pennies because they take forever to count and they’re basically useless for purchasing anything of value. Green also talks about economic inequality, an issue that would fall under Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital. 

Rhetorical Terms:

Green’s arguments are well organized, with strong diction that is clear and easy to follow, but still eloquent, intelligent, and relevant to the subject matter. He addresses counterpoints and shuts them down using logos, but he also uses pathos by talking about how these issues impact us on a personal level, and by cracking the occasional joke. He has ethos from all of the podcast’s sponsors, and it also helps that he consistently cites facts to back up his arguments. 

Rhetorical Context

I will discuss how Green’s podcast ties in to Bitzer’s ideas of exigence, audience and constraints.

 Argument: John Green’s podcast episode reviewing the penny is an important artifact for understanding our economy because it uses the issue of the penny’s usefulness to evaluate broader issues of economic inequality and socioeconomic dysfunction in our political system.

In my opinion, the most important thing to understand about the economy is how it is working for and against people. We need to understand economic inequality and the systems that are perpetuating it if we want to create social change and work towards reducing the wealth gap in this country. In addition to studying English, I also study social welfare, so I am interested in learning more about the ways that our political and economic systems are broken, and what some potential solutions may be for fixing them. It really saddens me that there is such a huge income gap in this country that particularly impacts marginalized communities. I want to learn more about economic inequality so that I can gain a better understanding of how we can push for equality and equity across race, class, gender, etc.

In The Education Gospel, Tressie McMillan Cottom discusses her firsthand experience working at for-profit colleges, and how that has influenced her present-day view on for-profit education as a sociologist. McMillan Cottom describes how when advising students at the for-profit schools, she always felt pressure to “close the deal” even for students who really couldn’t afford to. Students were treated more like business transactions, because for-profit colleges profit from socioeconomic inequality. She has a really interesting analogy that describes the difference between working as a teacher at a non-profit college versus a for-profit college. McMillan cotton says that teachers and professors at non-profit universities are more like priests, because they get to help foster students’ faith in themselves and in social institutions. On the other hand, she says that working as a recruiter for a for-profit college is more like being a TV Evangelist. It’s selling education with the false promise that it will solve all the student’s problems. McMillan Cottom points out that we like to pretend like the main reason we support education is because we think it’s a public good. However, in reality, we really see it as a necessary pathway to jobs. Education is serving market interests. These for-profit colleges that tend to dupe students who can’t afford or don’t have the option to attend anywhere else can be described as “Lower Ed.” Lower Ed is made up of institutions that perpetuate social inequalities and are mainly trying to increase capital. 

    McMillan Cottom makes it clear that for-profit colleges are dangerous and detrimental to the lives of many students, particularly targeting those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. These institutions are perpetuating socioeconomic equality rather than working to alleviate it. However, she also says that she doesn’t see for-profit colleges coming to an end anytime soon. She says that even if they were forced out of business, some other lower-ed scheme would take their place. I’m wondering what McMillan Cottom would suggest as a solution to the issue of For-Profit colleges. Should non-profit education be made more accessible to a greater range of students? Or does this issue start all the way back with inequalities in K-12 schools, since schools in the U.S. are funded based on income-taxes, which further perpetuates income-inequality. My hunch is that McMillan Cottom would support change in both our K-12 system and our university system here in the U.S. Quality education should be accessible to everyone, regardless of socioeconomic background.

Pierre Bourdieu’s “The Forms of capital” provides a thorough analysis and categorization of what constitutes capital, which he defines as “accumulated labor”. His introduction seems to suggest that capital is inextricably tied with the social world, and this becomes increasingly apparent as Bordieu classifies different types of capital. The distribution of capital and its classifications are connected to social structures. To get a clear look at capital and its connection to the social sphere, all types of capital (not just economic, self-interested exchange) need to be taken into account. He categorizes capital into three distinct types: economic capital, cultural capital, and social capital. Economic capital is what usually comes to mind when we think of capital. It is capital that can immediately be transferred to money. Cultural capital can sometimes be converted into economic capital (and vice versa), and it is essentially the cultural objects and values that a person holds. Social capital is all about social relationships and obligations, and can also be converted into economic capital in some circumstances. By the end, it seems that Bourdieu believes the three groups are all derived from and rooted in economic capital, but they require transformation to get there. 

I found the article most interesting when Bourdieu was describing cultural capital, particularly how it plays out in a school setting. He acknowledges the existence of an achievement gap by class. He talks about how academic ability and investment in academics are connected, which means that a good education requires investment (both in time and money). This means that lower socioeconomic groups are not only at a disadvantage when it comes to having economic capital, but they would also be at a disadvantage in attaining cultural and social economic capital. This makes an argument for free college. If you need economic capital in order to gain social and cultural capital, then those without economic capital will always be at a disadvantage in acquiring the other two types of capital. By getting rid of the economic burden for education (which is an institutional form of cultural capital that can also provide the connections necessary to expand social capital), it would help to level the playing field and provide the opportunity for more people to enjoy the benefits of all three forms of capital. Bourdieu explains that cultural capital (and the other types of capital) can be hereditary. In order to gain cultural capital, one would need a family that has the privilege of being able to provide them with the time and financial stability to gain skills. I wonder if knowledge of these three types of capital and how they relate to one another could help combat issues of economic inequality.

    In “Payments and Social Ties,” economic sociologist Viviana Zelizer discusses different types of monetary transfers and their connection to social relationships. Zelizer argues that there are three primary types of payment: compensation, entitlement and gift. Compensation is a direct payment exchange (and perhaps the most business-like and impersonal). Entitlement is a payment that is granted as a right, which Zelizer claims gives the recipient of the entitlement more power and control over the transaction. Lastly, gifts are payments given voluntarily which Zelizer says “impl[y] subordination and arbitrariness” (482). The article opens with an imaginary portrayal of what monetary transfers would like like in domestic households and in the workplace in the year 2029. It’s a surprising scenario because it flips the script for how we imagine payments to categorized in these contexts; it imagines household money exchange as compensation, and turns business payments into gifts or entitlements. By turning our assumptions around, Zelizer uses this scenario to present an important point: although there are distinct categorizations for types of payments, they do get mixed up and taken out of their usual contexts for specific occasions. These categories may be more fluid than we think. Zelizer goes on to illustrate how the contexts in which money gets used both shape, and is shaped by, social interactions. She shows how humans have a tendency to categorize money for distinct purposes, which can lead to disagreements. She uses the example of domestic households, and how spouses have conflicts about the proper allocation of money that can create a power imbalance in the relationship. Zelizer also compares and contrasts payments in the sexual economy with payments in the economies of large, bureaucratized organizations, and finds that although payments are given in different ways, there are more similarities between the two economies than we might think. Ultimately, Zelizer seems to conclude that contrary to popular belief, money doesn’t create impersonality because it is inextricably tied up in social relationships. 

I don’t doubt Zelizer’s assertion that money has social ties, but she never fully fleshes out how the nature of relationships is impacted by their monetary transactions. I wonder whether it is necessarily a good thing that money is personal. Maybe it is impossible to separate money from social connections since we live in a capitalistic society (which I think is the point Zelizer is trying to make), but it would be interesting to see a comparison of how social connections differed from ours in past societies that didn’t use currency at all (assuming that they existed). 

I also wonder how long Zelizer sees this trend happening of the continued categorization of payment exchanges based on their social connections. Does she think this will continue for years down the road, even if electronic forms of currency become the primary payment methods? Is it possible for money exchange in relationships to eventually become desensitized to the point where it no longer holds the same meaning and value?

A few weeks ago I heard the song “Money” by Pink Floyd on the radio. This song literally has money in the title, but the song as the whole is about how money rules our world, and the consequences of living in a capitalistic society. A lot of Pink Floyd’s songs are critiques of capitalism, but it’s ironic since they have profited off the society their songs are critiquing.

Engagement: I think that a rhetorical analysis of a song could be achieved in a lot of ways. If I were analyzing Pink Floyd’s song “Money”, I would start by taking a look at the lyrics, and how diction is used to develop an anti-capitalist message. This would be more of a textual analysis than a rhetorical analysis. In this case, I might focus on deliberative rhetoric, since this song seems to be a warning about the dangers of capitalism and greed, with the intent to change views surrounding our country’s economic structure. However, I think it would also be important to add contextual analysis, perhaps by looking at the time period in which the song was written, and maybe even the experiences of the band members, and how those experiences would have influenced their music.