I found this video on feministing.com, and it really moved me. It's a clip from the 2006 International World Poetry Slam Finals by Sonya "The Drama" Boom Renee. It made me cry. Please watch, and let me know what you think.
Why do you think slam poetry is propagandistic? Propaganda implies that a group of people with some sort of power, perhaps political, is using somewhat misleading information to promote their cause. My impression of slam poetry is that it is artistically expressing an opinion, and if expressing one's opinion is propaganda, then we're all propagandists. For it to be propaganda, this woman would have to represent a concrete group of people with a publicized cause, and you would have to prove that several of her statements were either false or misleading without proper context, or perhaps just empty rhetoric, like the original "Women Deserve Better." But most of her story was about her feelings based on anecdotal evidence, so I don't see how you could prove that.
slam poetry is not propaganda in that it is not wielded from a position of power, in a top-down manner.
slam poetry is propaganda in that it relies upon emotional and poetic appeals to strengthen its argument, instead of relying upon a logical, structured argument based upon facts. anecdotal evidence is propaganda according to your defintion. an anecdotal appeal is, if not false in the general view of the issue, at least questionable. the value of anecdotal is completely an issue of context. all that said, i believe all art and everything we say about anything we believe can be considered propaganda.
what i was questioning orginally was the notion that you can categorically distinguish between propaganda and non-propaganda. (for example: not "mainstream" = not propaganda.) while some things are more subversive than others, isn't everything we say irrational? as people, we appeal to our own nature when making an argument. we don't stick to any logical forms or structures.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
slam poetry is propaganda in that it relies upon emotional and poetic appeals to strengthen its argument, instead of relying upon a logical, structured argument based upon facts. anecdotal evidence is propaganda according to your defintion. an anecdotal appeal is, if not false in the general view of the issue, at least questionable. the value of anecdotal is completely an issue of context. all that said, i believe all art and everything we say about anything we believe can be considered propaganda.
what i was questioning orginally was the notion that you can categorically distinguish between propaganda and non-propaganda. (for example: not "mainstream" = not propaganda.) while some things are more subversive than others, isn't everything we say irrational? as people, we appeal to our own nature when making an argument. we don't stick to any logical forms or structures.
Reply
Leave a comment