Collaborative Post: Pranking Rhetoric

Christine Harold

Definitions and key terms

Sabotage, from “Sabot” or clog, to clog the machine with clogs, to disrupt an employer’s property, by dissatisfied workers. p190 “However, in the word’s second sense, as a launching tube, sabotage also implies a channeling, or a transmission of energy or resources through a conduit.” p197

“Culture jamming is usually described as a kind of “glutting” of the system; it is an amping up of contradictory rhetorical messages in an effort to engender a qualitative change.” p192

“Prank, in this sense, is an augmentation of dominant modes of communication that interrupts their conventional patterns. In the second alternative sense, a prank is a wrinkle, or a fold. Like a fold, a prank can render a qualitative change by turning and doubling a material or text.” p196

Response

In this article, Christine Harold does a good job of defining the terms of the genre of “pranking”, and also elaborates on the features of pranking to construct (or appropriate) a rhetorical form thereof. She distinguishes in her introduction between parody and prank, remarking that “parody becomes one of many social codes” (p191) and that “whereas parodists attempt to change things in the name of a presupposed value, comedians diagnose a specific situation, and try something to see what responses they can provoke.” (p194) To assist with the dissection of these rhetorics, Harold also refers to the theoretical conversation between Deleuze and Foucault, in which they conceive of a shift in late capitalist societies from “disciplinarity to control” (p193) and Harold suggests that the corresponding responses to this shift are from sabotage to appropriation.

So what is the difference? My understanding is that sabotage (and this includes simple parody in this genre of resistance) is didactic; that it tries to teach explicit lessons to its supposedly ignorant audience. Part of the motivation is revenge, part is revolution, but ultimately the intent is to bring about a state of knowing in the audience that will undermine sources of discipline. On the other hand, appropriation is the realm of the prankster or comedian. In this mode, the intent is playful rather than spiteful. The result is one in which mass mediated communication (and sources of control) are redirected and “folded” (p196) as an ends of itself:

“The mass-mediated pranks and hoaxes discussed here do not oppose traditional notions of rhetoric, but they do repattern them in interesting ways.” p207

This reflexive aspect of pranking is the central conflict that Harold is exploring. That is, the fact that for these mass-mediated pranks to have their intended effect, they do have to take place within the medium, that is, within an existing scheme of mass distributed information that in turn, enforces the types of control that Deleuze is identifying.

Harold does acknowledge that “culture jamming should not be seen as supplanting other, more traditional modes of engagement” (p209). However, I’m still not sure that pranking and culture jamming does much more than entertain a mass-mediated audience, given that it is so reliant on these forms of distribution. The rhetoric may well offer some folding and a destabilising voice (seeing as we’re talking theorists, this brings to mind Derrida’s notion of ‘play’ and the ‘centre’) but nonetheless, my thought is that modern media audiences are not so hoodwinked as the jammers want to make out. A pie in the face is entertaining, and I think people understand the motive of the BBB, but to some extent this is just so much a funny picture of a cat with some added fury.

This criticism is pretty glib, particularly seeing as “Capitalism sucks, but it’s the only game in town” as Adbusters puts it, and because the stated aim of pranking and culture jamming is to expose the patterns of mass media through by augmenting and hijacking those same patterns. To my mind, Joey Skaggs does this best. As a counterpart to the ‘cathouse’ prank that is mentioned in the article, he subsequently performed a ‘dog soup' prank that effectively exposed the shortcuts, amplification, and predictability of the mass media production line, without implying any conclusions at all. Perhaps this is how pranking can be most effective: by divorcing the hijack from any preachy ideological message, the audience can appreciate the absurdity of the pattern that has been hijacked, without being asked to swallow the red pill.

Links to the Pranks

Harold offers a variety of examples of pranks in her exploration of their rhetorical style and modus operandi. These examples vary in their complexity, the pranksters who are carrying them out and in their intended level of mass mediation, and I think in this respect there is a good range of rhetorical technique for analysis.

Adbusters
Harold mentions their straightforward parody ads taking off campaigns by Calvin Klein and others. The blackspot sneaker is a bit more involved, seeing as you can actually buy the parody product. Despite the stated target, it seems like the shoe is not in fact the type of product that Nike would produce; rather it is styled after canvas All-Stars. (And perhaps more appealing to Adbusters’ audience?)

Joey Skaggs
This fellow is a veteran prankster and performance artist. The prank that Harold mentions is Cathouse for Dogs, but another good one to read about is Kea So Joo a.k.a. Dog Meat Soup.

Rtmark and the Barbie Liberation Organisation
As Harold points out, Rtmark is a kind of clearing-house for pranks. They will help fund and organise pranks that are suggested by members, and in so doing make use of the idea of corporate “limited liability”.

Biotic Baking Brigade
Sorry, the original link is down for this one so I’ve linked to the wiki. You can see pies thrown in the face of “pompous people” here.

American Legacy Foundation
The Truth anti-smoking campaign; I think this website is worth checking out if only for the design.