"PragerU as Genre: How Ideologies Typify Speech"

Download PDF

About the Author

Christopher Luis Shosted  is a student at Moravian College in Bethlehem, PA. He will graduate in May of 2020 with a B.A. in English and a certification in writing arts. Since enrolling at Moravian College in 2018, Christopher has focused on understanding the drives behind rhetorics that harm marginalized groups. He plans to continue his education through a Master’s and Ph.D program where he wishes to put rhetorical theory in conversation with literary studies.

Contents

Introduction

Theories on Genre

PragerU’s Videos

Comparing PragerU to Academic Discourse

PragerU and Post-Truth

Conclusion

References

Comparing PragerU to Academic Discourse

It’s important to note that PragerU vies for the same demographic as the organizations they attempt to discredit. PragerU styles itself as almost a diasporic university – a college with no campus. But these videos operate as a systematic deconstruction of the organizations they mimic. PragerU recognizes the importance of academia within the modern zeitgeist and aims to usurp its role in the mind of its audience. Linguist Ann M. Johns describes ten features of academic discourse in her essay “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership, Conflict and Diversity” (327-332) and defines the purposes and reasons these features recur throughout that community. But while PragerU appears to use this mode of discourse, it deviates in striking ways.

The features Johns lists do not align with PragerU’s style and in most cases are flouted by their speakers. The first characteristic Johns lists is textual explicitness, or how academic texts feature precise vocabulary, deliberate citation and clear descriptions of methodology, analysis, and argumentation (327). PragerU meanwhile trades in vagaries by obfuscating their arguments, using undefined terms, and not mentioning their sources by name. Will, for example, frames his entire argument around a hypothetical commencement address but never gives a reason for why he chose this form. Likewise, he makes mention of free-speech zones but fails to say which schools have implemented such policies, those administrations’ reasons for implementing them, and the effects – positive or negative – that those policies have had on their communities. These are not burdensome criteria for any publicly disseminated argument – especially for one written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist such as Will, but nevertheless, they are absent from this video.

The lack of specificity in PragerU’s videos is a deliberate rhetorical strategy, and this strategy is embedded in their patented five-minute video format. By keeping the time to five minutes, the speakers increase their authority and credibility by implying that their ideas align with common sense values. This juxtaposes with the months required to complete a single course in college and years of study to achieve a degree. It also further portrays professors as charlatans who dupe their students with overly complex and false ideas. Likewise, the specific and rigid format of academic discourse appears foreign to those outside of an academic environment, and Johns notes the difficulty of students applying this particular feature in their writing because exposure to this style is rare (327). Academic discourse outside of the context of academia can seem dull or even pedantic, thus PragerU’s style garners ethos among its viewers by abandoning this feature and adopting a more familiar discursive method.

The other features Johns lists follow a similar trend to the first; characteristics such as impartiality, openness, and objectivity are conspicuously absent in these videos. Johns makes mention of a habitual hedging of analyses that is present in academic discourse (329), meaning researchers make it clear that the evidence they report suggests or supports a possible fact; PragerU makes no such attempt to leave the proverbial door open for other interpretations. Mac Donald’s example of a dissatisfied student is not an isolated case, rather it “represent[s] the dominant ideology in the humanities today.” Similarly, Peterson’s video is not titled “Dangerous People May be Teaching your Kids,” rather, these people are doing irreparable harm to your children. Peterson’s video is not framed as an argument with this title; rather, it is framed as an alarm for a crisis that this community is facing.

The positioning of claims as facts is one of the starkest contrasts between PragerU and actual universities. Mac Donald, Will, and Peterson each attempt to promote ideologies about academia but do so without the discussion typically used to support those claims. As a result of the authority these speakers possess, and the importance of that appeal in modern discourse, these ideological claims are fast-tracked to being social facts. For example, Peterson states, “[the world of the post modernists] is instead a Hobbesian nightmare of identity groups warring for power. They don't see ideas that run contrary to their ideology as simply incorrect. They see them as integral to the oppressive system they wish to supplant, and consider it a moral obligation to stifle and constrain their expression.” There are several claims about postmodernists in these three sentences, but each lacks the hedging Johns mentioned. The result of this is that these claims operate as evidential facts to support Peterson’s main argument.

The supplemental material PragerU uses alongside their videos does more to further these claims. Linked to each video in PragerU’s catalogue is a PDF document that is referred to as a study guide, which includes key terms from the video, a section for notes, discussion and review questions, a five-question multiple choice quiz with answer key, and a further reading response to a news article that is framed as a case study. Each of these sections operates as a warped version of a genre the audience would be familiar with writing in. The study guides are one of the most troublesome characteristics of this genre because they dictate audience interpretation of the video itself and interpretation of further discourse. The quizzes are extremely simplified, as is the case with question four of Peterson’s video: “Post-modernists don’t believe in individuals.” The audience is asked to determine whether the statement is true or false with true being the correct answer, but without the qualifier, “according to Jordan Peterson,” this posits that post-modernists, whoever they may be, adhere to a strict dogma of absolute collectivism.

The discussion questions continue this habit of simplification but also phrase those questions to illicit a particular response. An excerpt from one of the discussion questions on George Will’s video asks:

What does [Will’s hypothetical speaker] mean by “enforced conformity?” What are some examples of “enforced conformity” that you have experienced? Do you feel that the money you are paying now and later for college is worth you being subjected to “enforced conformity” and the entitlement mindset being foisted upon you? Why or why not? How do you think that the enforced conformity and entitlement propaganda affect college students in regards to their course of study and in terms of preparing them for life after college?

Will’s term “enforced conformity” is a meaningless neologism because all societies are predicated on its members accepting social norms under threat of some sort of punishment. For example, workplaces have implicit and explicit rules that govern decorum and professionalism, and governments dictate which actions are acceptable through laws. Organizations ensure that their members follow these rules through responses that focus on punishment, reform, or restitution. Colleges and universities are no different. Enforced conformity is a term with fascist connotations used to describe a universal social system, therefore, this term engineers an indignant response from its audience. Colleges, in this argument, are attempting to craft an Orwellian environment that restricts free speech, and the tuition and tax dollars given to these institutions are providing the capital needed for that environment’s construction. The subtextual question posed here is: “are you O.K. with helping these people who are taking away your freedom?” which is, of course, met with a resounding, “No!”

The case studies of these study guides use the same technique shaping the questions but have the added caveat of prescribing and applying a methodology to interpreting outside discourse. The study guide for Mac Donald’s video offers an article written by the USA Today Editorial Board titled “Recommit to free speech on campus: Our view” as a case study to demonstrate an example of the concepts Mac Donald explains. The USA Today editorial is just that – an editorial – and as such, is another matter of opinion. The terms of discussing this editorial employ similar strategies as in Will’s guide with this guide asking: “Should professors have the power to so heavily influence students to become what Miss Mac Donald refers to as an '… academic narcissist, oblivious to beauty and nobility…'? If yes, why? If no, what is the alternative?” This question is listed under the heading “Case Study: University of Chicago” but makes no mention of the college, nor the ideas presented by the editorial’s author[s].

The use of Mac Donald’s terminology under this heading implies that the editorial board’s opinions agree with, or are at least similar to, Mac Donald’s critique of professors. However, the editorial makes no mention of professors, instead taking umbrage with students limiting free speech while University of Chicago faculty and staff are the actors whose actions are lauded. The USA Today Editorial Board writes: “recently, a desire by students to protect themselves and others from speech they consider hurtful is driving new assaults on academic freedom and freewheeling debate.” In this case, Mac Donald and the editorial staff are actually in disagreement on who is influencing whom, but because of the framing of the question, this discrepancy is not challenged.

Furthermore, USA Today publishes most of their editorials alongside a counter-argument, and in this case the editors of the University of Chicago student newspaper, The Chicago Maroon, wrote an editorial titled “Hate Speech Creates Fear.” PragerU strikes almost all mention of this counterargument save for a footnote that states “Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.” PragerU does provide a link to the original article, but this is superfluous because the editorial is reproduced in its entirety except for the link to the opposing editorial. The exclusion of the opposing editorial is due to the fact that these videos all describe topics of social debate as settled matters, and those who continue the debate as raving lunatics. To include a counterargument written by prominent students at a university that has just been assailed by conservatives would shatter the narrative that PragerU continually constructs.