1887
Volume 11, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Short videos depicting rural China have gained popularity on social media domestically and internationally. Among the genre’s creators, Li Ziqi stands out for her unique style of culinary craft, starting from the most basic materials. I interpret Li Ziqi’s mushroom videos as multimodal “argumentative meshworks” casting a counterstatement to the “involuted” urban life and nature/culture division. To unfold the analyses, I first place videos in the context of urban ills. Built on previous studies of multimodal argumentation and entanglement anthropology, I define “argumentative meshworks” in three aspects: a human-nonhuman entanglement, a simplicity-complexity harmony, and a production-audience interaction. Then I select three mushroom videos as artefacts to unpack the multimodal meshworks. Following the empirical call argumentation studies, I use viewers’ comments to support my points throughout the whole piece. This inquiry explores multimodal argumentation’s new possibility to not only stress things out but create space for harmony and peace of mind.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21010.lv
2023-02-23
2024-03-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allison, M. & Bloomfield, E. F.
    2019 “Rhetorical imaginings and multimodal arguments at the European Green Belt: Juxtaposing nonhuman nature and technology in our collective memory of the Cold War.” Journal of Argumentation in Context8 (3), 354–382. 10.1075/jaic.18005.all
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18005.all [Google Scholar]
  2. Amossy, R.
    2009a “The New Rhetoric’s inheritance. Argumentation and discourse analysis.” Argumentation, 231, 313–324. 10.1007/s10503‑009‑9154‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9154-y [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009b “Argumentation in discourse: A socio-discursive approach to arguments.” Informal Logic, 29(3), 252–267. 10.22329/il.v29i3.2843
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i3.2843 [Google Scholar]
  4. Amossy, R., Koren, R. & Yanoshevsky, G.
    2009 “Introduction.” Argumentation, 231, 293–300. 10.1007/s10503‑009‑9145‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9145-z [Google Scholar]
  5. Birdsell, D., and L. Groarke
    1996 “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy33(1), 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2007 “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy43(3–4), 103–113. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blair, J.
    1996 “The possibility and actuality of visual arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy33(1), 23–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2015 “Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments.” Argumentation29(2), 217–233. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9333‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brunner, E., and H. Li
    2018 “Fragmented arguments and forces majeure: the 2007 protests in Xiamen, China.” Argumentation and Advocacy54(4), 287–304, 10.1080/10511431.2018.1509596
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2018.1509596 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brunner, E.
    2019Environmental Activism, social media, and protest in China. Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Craig, D., J. Lin, and S. Cunningham
    2021Wanghong as Social Media Entertainment in China. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑65376‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65376-7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dahl, J. M. R.
    2015 “Visual argumentation in political advertising: A context-oriented perspective.” Journal of Argumentation in Context4 (3), 286–298. 10.1075/jaic.4.3.02dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.3.02dah [Google Scholar]
  13. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F.
    1988A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Athlone Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DeLuca, K. M.
    1999 “Unruly Arguments: The Body Rhetoric of Earth First!, Act Up, and Queer Nation.” Argumentation and Advocacy36 (1), 9–21. 10.1080/00028533.1999.11951634
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1999.11951634 [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLuca, K. M., and Betlemidze, M.
    2018 “The queen is dead; long live the queen? Hearing voices and sounds beyond the human.” Argumentation and Advocacy54(4), 351–358, 10.1080/10511431.2019.1525008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1525008 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eckstein, J.
    2014 “Yellow rain: Radiolab and the acoustics of strategic maneuvering.” Journal of Argumentation in Context3 (1), 35–56. 10.1075/jaic.3.1.03eck
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.3.1.03eck [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017a “Radiolab’s Sound Strategic Maneuvers.” Argumentation31 (4), 663–680. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9416‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9416-4 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017b “Sound arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy53 (3), 163–180. 10.1080/00028533.2017.1337328
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2017.1337328 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2018a “The acoustics of argumentation and advocacy.” Argumentation and Advocacy54:4, 261–269, 10.1080/10511431.2018.1525012
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2018.1525012 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2018b “Designing Soundscapes for Argumentation.” Philosophy & rhetoric51 (3), 269–292. 10.5325/philrhet.51.3.0269
    https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.3.0269 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2018c “Response to Groarke: Figuring Sound.” Informal logic38 (3), 341–345. 10.22329/il.v38i3.5120
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i3.5120 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2018d “Dished: Food as Argumentative Strategy,” InF. H. van Eemeren and B. Garseen (Eds). Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 302–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Eckstein, J. and Young, A. M.
    2015 “Cooking, Celebrity Chefs, and Public Chef Intellectuals.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies12:2, 205–208, 10.1080/14791420.2015.1014155
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2015.1014155 [Google Scholar]
  24. Finocchiaro, M. A.
    2013Meta-argumentation. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Geertz, C.
    1973The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldthread
    Goldthread 2019 Exclusive Interview with Li Ziqi, China’s Most Mysterious Internet Celebrity. YouTube, September12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9CfVcXoYh4
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodale, G.
    2013 “The Sonorous Envelope and Political Deliberation.” Quarterly Journal of Speech99 (2), 218–224, 10.1080/00335630.2013.775702
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2013.775702 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gordon, C., P. C. Pezzullo., and M. Gabrieloff-Parish
    2020 “Food Justice Advocacy Tours: Remapping Rooted, Regenerative Relationships Through Denver’s ‘Planting Just Seeds’.” InCrick NathanEd., The Rhetoric of Social Movements: Networks, Power, and New Media, 299–316. 10.4324/9780429436291‑23
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429436291-23 [Google Scholar]
  29. Groarke, L.
    2015 “Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why does it Matter?” Argumentation29 (2): 133–155. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9336‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2018 “Making room for auditory argument.” Argumentation and advocacy54 (4), 340–344. 10.1080/10511431.2019.1525002
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1525002 [Google Scholar]
  31. Groarke, L., C. Palczewski, and D. Godden
    2016 “Navigating the Visual Turn in Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy: Special Issue: Twenty Years of Visual Argumented: David Godden, Catherine H. Palczewski, and Leo Groarke, 52(4), 217–235. 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hariman, R.
    2015 “Between Confusion and Boredom in the Study of Visual Argument.” Argumentation29(2), 239–242. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9346‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9346-6 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hill, F. I.
    1983 “The rhetoric of Aristotle.” InA Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric, ed.J. J. Murphy, 19–76. Davis: Hermagoras Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ho, H.
    2020 “Cosmopolitan locavorism: global local-food movements in postcolonial Hong Kong.” Food, Culture & Society23(2), 137–154, 10.1080/15528014.2019.1682886
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2019.1682886 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ingold, T.
    2000The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2011Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203818336
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818336 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2017 “Five questions of skill.” Cultural Geographies25(1), 159–163. 10.1177/1474474017702514
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474017702514 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2020Correspondence. Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jia, Y., and Jia, X.
    2016 “The Anthropocosmic Perspective on Intercultural Communication: Learning to Be Global Citizens Is Learning to Be Human.” Intercultural Communication StudiesXXV1: 1
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kjeldsen, J. E.
    2012 “Pictorial Argumentation in Advertising: Visual Tropes and Figures as a Way of Creating Visual Argumentation.” InTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed.Frans H. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 239–256. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_16 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2013 Virtues of visual argumentation: How pictures make the importance and strength of an argument salient. OSSA Conference Archive. Paper 89.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015a “Where is visual argument.” Inbook: Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory107–120. ed.Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑21103‑9_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_8 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2015b “The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient.” Argumentation29(2), 197–215. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9342‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2016 “Symbolic Condensation and Thick Representation in Visual and Multimodal Communication.” Argumentation and Advocacy52(4), 265–280, 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821874
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821874 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2017 “Audience Analysis and Reception Studies of Rhetoric.” InRhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric, ed.J. E. Kjeldsen, 1–42. Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑61618‑6_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61618-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2018a “Visual rhetorical argumentation.” Semiotica 2018(220), 69–94. 10.1515/sem‑2015‑0136
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0136 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2018b “The rhetoric of sound, the sound of arguments. Three propositions, three questions, and an afterthought for the study of sonic and multimodal argumentation.” Argumentation and Advocacy54(4), 364–371. 10.1080/10511431.2018.1525013
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2018.1525013 [Google Scholar]
  48. Klein, J. A.
    2014 “Connecting with the Countryside? ‘Alternative’ Food Movements with Chinese Characteristics.” InEthical eating in the postsocialist and socialist world, ed.Yuson Jung, Jakob A. Klein, and Melissa L. Caldwell, 116–143. University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Latour, B.
    2005Reassembling the social an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Li, H.
    2020 “From Disenchantment to Reenchantment: Rural Microcelebrities, Short Video, and the Spectacle-ization of the Rural Lifescape on Chinese Social Media.” International Journal of Communication (Online), 3769–3787.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Miele, M., and J. Murdoch
    2002 “The Practical Aesthetics of Traditional Cuisines: Slow Food in Tuscany.” Sociologia Ruralis42 (4): 312–328. 10.1111/1467‑9523.00219
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00219 [Google Scholar]
  52. Olson, K. M. & Goodnight, G. T.
    1994 “Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur.” The Quarterly journal of speech80 (3), 249–276. 10.1080/00335639409384072
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639409384072 [Google Scholar]
  53. Perelman, C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    1969 [1958]The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Prody, J. M.
    2013 “A Call for Polycultural Arguments: Critiquing the Monoculture Rhetoric of the Local Food Movement.” Argumentation and Advocacy50 (2), 104–119. 10.1080/00028533.2013.11821813
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2013.11821813 [Google Scholar]
  55. Qian
    Qian 2021 “Making memory work: The SARS memory and China’s war on COVID-19.” Memory Studies, 14:6, 1489–1502. 10.1177/17506980211054358
    https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980211054358 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rice, J.
    2015a “Craft Rhetoric.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies12:2, 218–222, 10.1080/14791420.2015.1014186
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2015.1014186 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2015b “Craft networks,” InPaul Lynch and Nathaniel Rivers, ed., Thinking with Bruno Latour in Rhetoric and Composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 237–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Rittel, H. W. J., Webber, M. M.
    1973 “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.” Policy Science41, 155–169. 10.1007/BF01405730
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 [Google Scholar]
  59. Senda-Cook, S., and McHendry, G. F.
    2017 “Embodying Resistance: A Rhetorical Ecology of the Full Cycle Supper,” inTracing Rhetoric and Material Life. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp.223–250.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Serafis, D., Greco, S., Pollaroli, C., and Soria, C. J.
    2020 “Towards an integrated argumentative approach to multimodal critical discourse analysis: evidence from the portrayal of refugees and immigrants in Greek newspapers.” Critical Discourse Studies, 17(5), 545–565, 10.1080/17405904.2019.1701509
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1701509 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tindale, C. W.
    2020The anthropology of argument: cultural foundations of rhetoric and reason. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003107637
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003107637 [Google Scholar]
  62. Trinh, T.
    1989Woman, Native, Other Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tseronis, A.
    2015 “Multimodal argumentation in news magazine covers: A case study of front covers putting Greece on the spot of the European economic crisis.” Discourse, Media and Context, 71: 18–27. 10.1016/j.dcm.2014.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2014.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tsing, A.
    2015The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Tu, W.
    1985Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation. New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 1998 “Joining East and West: A Confucian perspective on human rights.” Harvard International Review, 20(3), 44–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tucker, M. E.
    2014 “The relevance of Chinese Neo-Confucianism for the reverence of nature.” InCallicott, J., & McRae, J.ed., Environmental Philosophy in Asian Traditions of Thought. State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Walker, G., and M. Bender
    1994 “Is it More than Rock and roll?: Considering Music Video as Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy31(2), 64–79. 10.1080/00028533.1994.11951601
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1994.11951601 [Google Scholar]
  69. Wang, Q., and S. Ge
    2020 “How One Obscure Word Captures Urban China’s Unhappiness.” Sixth Tone, November4. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1006391/how-one-obscure-word-captures-urban-chinas-unhappiness
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Xiang, B., and J. Lindquist
    2014 “Migration Infrastructure.” International Migration Review48(1), 122–148. 10.1111/imre.12141
    https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12141 [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhan, Q. and Y. Xu
    2019 “Network Red Marketing Strategy Analysis – Taking Li Ziqi, a Well-known Food Blogger on Weibo, as an Example.” Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 352. International Conference on Advanced Education, Management and Humanities (AEMH 2019). 10.2991/aemh‑19.2019.17
    https://doi.org/10.2991/aemh-19.2019.17 [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang, C. & Xu, C.
    2017 “Argument by multimodal metaphor as strategic maneuvering in video advertising the case of the Lin Dan Commercial.” Journal of Argumentation in Context6 (3), 359–380. 10.1075/jaic.17002.zha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17002.zha [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhen, L.
    2021 “Social Coding Platform as Digital Enclave: A Case Study of Protesting “996” on GitHub.” International Journal of Communication, 151, 886–904.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21010.lv
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error