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

Abstract

Abstract

In the aftermath of World War I, the US Government created eight cemeteries in France, Belgium, and the UK to honor American soldiers who died in Europe as well as to remind European audiences of that sacrifice. More recently, visitor centers were added to some of those sites. This essay explores how one of those visitor centers, located at Flanders Field American Cemetery in Belgium, serves to the cemeteries’ public diplomacy argument. We argue that amplification, as described by classical and more contemporary theorists, serves an important function in argumentation, and that these centers themselves deserve greater attention as they provide direction to visitors in making the place matter. In this analysis, we also consider the recursive relationship between text/argument and context in site interpretation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21024.bla
2023-02-23
2024-04-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allaback, Sarah
    2000Mission 66 Visitors Centers: The History of a Building Type. Washington, DC: US Department of Interior.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. American Battle Monuments Commission
    American Battle Monuments Commission. N.d. “Brookwood American Cemetery.” Retrieved fromhttps://abmc.gov/Brookwood
  3. American Battle Monuments Commission
    American Battle Monuments Commission. N.d. “Flanders Field American Cemetery.” Retrieved fromhttps://abmc.gov/Flanders-Field
  4. American Battle Monuments Commission
    American Battle Monuments Commission 2017 “Flanders Field: Remembering Their Sacrifice.” Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shKlMAvGTRo
  5. “Archibald MacLeish” 2021Poetry Foundation. Retrieved fromhttps://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/archibald-macleish
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aristotle
    Aristotle 2007On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. 2d ed.trans. byGeorge A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ash, James
    2012 “Attention, Videogames and the Retentional Economies of Affective Amplification.” Theory, Culture, and Society29.61: 3–26. 10.1177/0263276412438595
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276412438595 [Google Scholar]
  8. Balthrop, V. William, and Carole Blair
    2018 “’Lafayette, We Are Here’: Why Did the U.S. Commemorate Its World War I Dead in Europe?” InRecovering Argument, ed. byRandall A. Lake, 3–15. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315100869‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315100869-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2019 “Attentuating Argument: The Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery Visitor Center.” Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. byBart Garssen, David Godden, Gordon R. Mitchell, and Jean H. M. Wegemans, 63–71. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Balzotti, Jonathan Mark, and Richard Benjamin Crosby
    2014 “Diocletian’s Victory Column: Megethos and the Rhetoric of Spectacular Disruption.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly44.41: 323–342. 10.1080/02773945.2014.938865
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2014.938865 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergman, Teresa
    2013Exhibiting Patriotism: Creating and Contesting Interpretations of American Historic Sites. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bryant, Margi
    2006 “Tilden’s Children: Interpretation in Britain’s National Parks.” Heritage Interpretation, ed. byAlison Hems and Marion Brockley, 173–188. London: Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Burke, Kenneth
    1969A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. [Cicero] ad C. Herennium
    [Cicero] ad C. Herennium 1954De Ratione Dicendi (Rhetorica as Herennium), trans. byHarry Caplan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Craig, R. Bruce
    2007 “Introduction to the Fourth Edition.” Interpreting Our Heritage, byFreeman Tilden. 4th (50th Anniversary) expanded and updated edition, 1–21. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. De Cleen, Benjamin
    2015 “’Flemish Friends, Let Us Separate!’: The Discursive Struggle for Flemish Nationalist Civil Society in the Media.” Javnost – The Public22.11: 37–54. 10.1080/13183222.2015.1017270
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2015.1017270 [Google Scholar]
  17. Faral, Edmond
    1924Les Arts Poétiques du XIIe et du XIIIe Siècle. Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Farrell, Thomas B.
    1998 “Sizing Things Up: Colloquial Reflection as Practical Wisdom.” Argumentation12.11: 1–14. 10.1023/A:1007747321075
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007747321075 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2008 “The Weight of Rhetoric: Studies in Cultural Delirium.” Philosophy and Rhetoric41.41: 467–487. 10.2307/25655332
    https://doi.org/10.2307/25655332 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fitzmaurice, Megan Irene
    2016 “Commemorative Privilege in National Statuary Hall: Spatial Constructions of Racial Citizenship.” Southern Communication Journal81.41: 252–262. 10.1080/1041794X.2016.1200122
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2016.1200122 [Google Scholar]
  21. Finn, Tara
    . 9Nov 2018 “The War That Did Not End at 11am on 11 November. GOV.UK Blog: History of Government. Retrieved fromhttps://history.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/09/the-war-that-did-not-end-at-11am-on-11-november/
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Foucault, Michel
    1971 “The Discourse on Language,” trans. byRupert Swyer, 215–237. Appendix toThe Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. “Freeman Tilden Award” 2019National Park Service. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nps.gov/subjects/npscelebrates/tilden-award.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gallagher, Victoria J., Kelly Norris Martin, and Magdy Ma
    2011 “Visual Wellbeing: Intersections of Rhetorical Theory and Design.” Design Issues27.21: 27–40. 10.1162/DESI_a_00075‑Martin
    https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00075-Martin [Google Scholar]
  25. Goebel, Stefan
    2007The Great War and Medieval Memory: War Remembrance and Medievalism in Britain and Germany, 1914–1940. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gross, Alan G.
    2005 “Presence as Argument in the Public Sphere.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly35.21: 5–21. 10.1080/02773940509391308
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773940509391308 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gross, Michael, and Ron Zimmerman
    2002Interpretation Centers: The History, Design, and Development of Nature and Visitor Centers. Stevens Point, WI: UW-SP Foundation Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. HALS/HABS No. US-7-A
    HALS/HABS No. US-7-A. N.d. [Historic American Landscape Survey/Historic American Buildings Survey]. Flanders Field American Cemetery & Memorial, Superintendent’s Quarters. Retrieved from theUS Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/us0011/
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ham, Sam H.
    2013Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Haynal Allen, Kaitlyn
    2019 “Blurred Borderlands: Sustainability and the Urban/Nature Divide at the Frick Environmental Center.” Environmental Communication13.81: 1009–1023. 10.1080/17524032.2018.1553203
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1553203 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hawk, Bryon
    2018 “Sound: Resonance as Rhetorical.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly48.31: 315–323. 10.1080/02773945.2018.1454219
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2018.1454219 [Google Scholar]
  32. Helmbrecht, Brenda
    2019 “Revisiting Missions: Decolonizing Public Memories in California.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly49.51: 470–494. 10.1080/02773945.2019.1668048
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2019.1668048 [Google Scholar]
  33. “Hypotyposis.” Retrieved from Sylva Rhetoricae, n.d.rhetoric.byu.edu
  34. Ingraham, Chris
    2018 “Rhetoric’s Vitality.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly48.31: 260–268. 10.1080/02773945.2018.1454188
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2018.1454188 [Google Scholar]
  35. Karon, Louise A.
    1976 “Presence in The New Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric9.21: 96–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kennedy, Verne R.
    1968 “Amplification: A Central Theme in Late Medieval Rhetoric.” Central States Speech Journal19.31: 214–218. 10.1080/10510976809362932
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510976809362932 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1971 “Auxesis: A Concept of Rhetorical Amplification.” Southern Speech Journal37.11: 60–72. 10.1080/10417947109372124
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10417947109372124 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kjeldsen, Jens. E.
    2018 “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 Advocacy54.41: 364–371. 10.1080/10511431.2018.1525013
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2018.1525013 [Google Scholar]
  39. Larsson, Anders Olaf
    2019 “News Use as Amplification: Norwegian National, Regional, and Hyperpartisan Media Framing on Facebook.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly96.21: 721–741. 10.1177/1077699019831439
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019831439 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lechner, Joan Maríe
    1962Renaissance Concepts of the Commonplaces. New York: Pageant.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Levere, Jane
    2018 “Paul P. Cret, Storied Philadelphia Architect, Highlighted in Athenaeum Museum Show.” The Architect’s Newspaper, 30 August 2018. Retrieved fromhttps://www.archpaper.com/2018/08/paul-cret-athenaeum/
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Marks, Katrina
    2018 “Colonizing Sacred Ground: Adjacent Secular and Religious Sacredness at Christ Church Cathedral/Former Slave Market Site.” Paper presented at theconference of the Religious Communication Association, Salt Lake City, UT, 7 November 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Murphy, John M.
    1994 “Presence, Analogy, and Earth in the Balance.” Argumentation and Advocacy31.11: 1–16. 10.1080/00028533.1994.11951594
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1994.11951594 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nugent, Ciara
    2018 “How Poppies Became a Symbol of Remembrance After World War I.” Time8 Nov 2018. Retrieved fromhttps://time.com/5442887/world-war-one-poppies-remembrance/
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Olson, Crista J.
    2018 “American Magnitude: Frederic Church, Hiram Bingham, and Hemispheric Vision.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly48.41: 340–404. 10.1080/02773945.2017.1347952
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2017.1347952 [Google Scholar]
  46. Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. byJohn Wilkinsoon and Purce Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Pezzullo, Phaedra C., and Catalina M. de Onís
    2018 “Rethinking Field Methods on a Precarious Planet.” Communication Monographs85.11: 103–122. 10.1080/03637751.2017.1336780
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1336780 [Google Scholar]
  48. Plantin, Christian
    2009 “A Place for Figures of Speech in Argumentation Theory.” Argumentation231: 325–337. 10.1007/s10503‑009‑9152‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9152-0 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rahman, Rema
    2011 “Who, What, Why: Which Countries Wear Poppies?” BBC News9 Nov. 2011. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15637074
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ripp, Mathias
    2016 “Visitor Centres vs. Museums.” GoUNESCO. 31 Jan. 2016. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gounesco.com/visitor-centres-vs-museums
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ruzich, Connie
    2020 “A Belgian Letter.” Behind Their Lines: Poetry of the Great War. 19 Dec. 2020. Retrieved fromhttps://behindtheirlines.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-belgian-letter.html
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rybczynski, Witold
    2014 “The Late, Great Paul Cret.” The New York Times Style Magazine. 21 Oct. 2014. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/t-magazine/the-late-great-paul-cret.html
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sims, Christopher, and Patrick Lernout
    2017The Soldiers of the Flanders Field American Military Cemetery. Belgium: Christopher Sims – Patrick Lernout.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Tilden, Freeman
    2007Interpreting Our Heritage. 4th (50th anniversary) expanded and updated edition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. US Army Center of Military History
    US Army Center of Military History. Fall 2021 “World War I: Birth of the Modern Army Division.” Army History Magazine. Retrieved fromhttps://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/wwi/wwi_bomad/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Walser, Lauren
    . 8Feb 2017 “How Mission 66 Shaped the Vistor Experience at National Parks.” National Trust for Historic Preservation. Retrieved fromhttps://savingplaces.org/stories/how-mission-66-shaped-the-visitor-experience-at-national-parks#.YaJ_by-B3JE
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Westin, Monica
    2017 “Aristotle’s Rhetorical Energeia: An Extended Note.” Advances in the History of Rhetoric20.31: 252–261. 10.1080/15362426.2017.1384769
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15362426.2017.1384769 [Google Scholar]
  58. Winderman, Emily
    2019 “Anger’s Volumes: Rhetorics of Amplification and Aggregation in #MeToo.” Women’s Studies in Communication42.31: 327–346. 10.1080/07491409.2019.1632234
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2019.1632234 [Google Scholar]
  59. Yockelson, Mitchell A.
    2016Borrowed Soldiers: American Soldiers Under British Command, 1918. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhang, Yini, Chris Wells, Song Want, and Karl Rohe
    2018 “Attention and Amplification in the Hybrid Media System: The Composition and Activity of Donald Trump’s Following During the 2016 Election.” New Media and Society20.91: 3161–3182. 10.1177/1461444817744390
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817744390 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21024.bla
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21024.bla
Loading

Data & Media 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