Ideograph


 * Definition**

Ideograph is a concept with a discrete disciplinary home in contemporary rhetorical studies. It emerges from the work of Michael Calvin McGee, specifically his 1980 article, “The Ideograph: A link between Rhetoric and Ideology.” Ideograph as a term extends beyond McGee, however, and it finds its etymological roots in the 19th Century. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2015, n.p.), ideograph is a combination of ideo- + -graph and is defined as a “character or figure in a writing system that represents something conceptually without depending on a particular name for it, as in Chinese characters and most Egyptian hieroglyphics or in numerals.”

McGee builds on this usage, defining ideographs as “one-term sums of an orientation” (McGee, 1980, p. 7). Like a Chinese character or a hieroglyph, ideographs represent a broader orientation, a whole sum of meanings, and a “unique ideological commitment” (McGee, 1980, p. 7). Ideographs are therefore ordinary language terms that function as the “building blocks of ideology” (McGee, 1980, p.7). To illustrate the concept, McGee (1980) introduces examples such as , , and . The use of angle brackets to denote an ideographic usage has been accepted as a scholarly convention in order to provide clarity. While these terms live and appear in everyday discourse, they are also descriptive terms for social human conditions.

McGee (1980) explains that ideographs are “high-order abstraction representing collective commitment to a particular…goal” (p. 17). As such, they are a “vocabulary of concepts that function as guides, warrants, reasons, or excuses for behavior or belief” (McGee, 1980, p. 6). For example, the restriction of civil rights is typically unpopular, but such a decision might be justified on the basis of protecting  or , thus steering something that “might otherwise be perceived as eccentric or antisocial…into channels easily recognized by the community as acceptable and laudable” (McGee, 1980, p.15).

Ideographs are not capable of being captured and laid out for display, and McGee (1980) reminds us that “No one has ever seen an ‘equality’ strutting up the driveway” (p. 10). Ideographs live in language and are found in both the elite discourse and the everyday talk of a community. Therefore, in order for ideographs to function, there has to public rhetoric that is agreed upon and shared by the entire community. This "collective language" may have different meanings in public and private spaces; however, its public meaning "constitutes social narratives for public action" hence the necessity that members within the community share a commitment to the linguistic elements of ideographs (Condit, 1987, p. 82).


 * Ideographs and Ultimate Terms**

Ideograph is a term coined by McGee but it has roots in “ultimate terms” as defined by Weaver. Weaver (1953) extends Burke’s term – “ultimate terms” by stating that there is a sacrificial aspect to the ‘god term.’ It is value-laden. He uses several terms – “god term [ultimate and positive], devil terms [terms of repulsion], charismatic terms [such as freedom], and uncontested terms [which] are fixed by universal enlightened consensus” (Weaver, 1953, pp. 166-174). These terms are unique to a particular culture, time, and space. Cultural and ideological identification are important in order to accurately understand the value behind the term.

Weaver asserted that through the understanding of the power of values, can speakers then “purify the language [they] use” (Smith, 2003, p. 63). “To do that, dialectic must come first and rhetoric second; that is, inquiry must precede advocacy” (Smith, 2003, p. 63). Additionally, the value that is placed on certain terms may not always be positive. Smith (2003) uses the term “work” and asserts that depending on what the work produces, determines whether it is “good” or not. He asks whether the result of the work is “creative,” “betters humankind,” “money generated used for good;” or is it “mind numbing, corrupting, or polluting” (Smith, 2003, p. 63). Because of the hierarchical nature of "ultimate terms," some find that it is reductive.

McGee extends Weaver’s use of “god” and “devil” terms through ideographs. Ideographs are an example of the interconnection of rhetoric and ideology. McGee (1980) asserts that the “political language which manifests ideology seems characterized by slogans, a vocabulary of “ideographs” easily mistaken for the technical terminology of political philosophy” (p. 5). Within ideographs, there are “structures of public motives” that are “’diachronic’ and ‘synchronic’ patterns of political consciousness which have the capacity both to control ‘power’ and to influence the shape and texture of each individual’s reality” (McGeee, 1980, p. 5).


 * Ideographs--Synchronic and Diachronic **

McGee outlines a programmatic approach to studying ideographs—and thus rhetoric, materiality, and ideology. McGee directs critical attention to the changes in ideographs across time as well as the variety of ideographic meanings at a particular moment. Within ideographs, there are “structures of public motives” that are “’diachronic’ and ‘synchronic’ patterns of political consciousness which have the capacity both to control ‘power’ and to influence the shape and texture of each individual’s reality” (McGee, 1980, p. 5). Diachronic and synchronic analysis is thus how one carries out the study of ideographs.

Diachronic analysis traces past uses of the ideograph, seeking the underlying foundations that contribute to its present meaning. Any attempt to define or understand a term, McGee explains, soon requires us to dig into its historical uses, the precedents that structure it. Definition or analysis of an ideograph requires us “to make reference to its history by detailing the situations for which the word has been an appropriate description. Then, by comparisons over time, we establish an analog for the proposed present usage of the term. Earlier uses become precedent, touchstones for judging the propriety of the ideograph in a current circumstance…even when the term changes its signification in particular circumstances, it retains a formal, categorical meaning, a constant reference to its history as an ideograph” (McGee, 1980, 10). By digging through public documents, etymologies, legal histories, and professional histories, McGee (1980) suggests scholars can discover the diachronic roots of an ideographic usage (p. 12). A diachronic investigation of , then, might take a critic to the Declaration of Independence, Patrick Henry’s speeches, Civil War orations, and 17th Century English political philosophy.

Even the most rigorous diachronic analysis, however, does very little to explain “how ideographs function //presently//” (McGee, 1980, p. 12). Synchronic analysis provides this explanation by tracing the linkages among ideographs in the present moment: “ideographs seem structured horizontally, for when people actually make use of them presently, such terms as ‘rule of law’ clash with other ideographs…and in the conflict come to mean with reference to synchronic confrontations” (McGee, 1980, p. 12). Contemporary uses of ideographs will be influenced by their history, but they also act in the present in a complex relationship to other ideographs. Indeed, McGee explicitly states that ideographs gain their full meaning in connection with other ideographs: “An ideograph, however, is always understood in its relation to another; it is defined tautologically by using other terms in its cluster’ (McGee, 1980, p. 14). A synchronic analysis of , then, would look to its uses in contemporary public discourse and the links forged or challenged between it and ideographs such as , , and .

The division into diachronic and synchronic is, as McGee (1980) notes, an analytic convenience that nonetheless stresses the necessity of attending to both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of a phenomenon. One aspect may predominate or overshadow the other, but “Both of these structures must be understood and described before one can claim to have constructed a theoretically precise explanation of a society’s ideology, of its repertoire of public motives” (McGee, 1980, p. 14). Ideographs therefore are found in ordinary language, have important historical precedents, exist in relationship to other ideographs, and are fully understood only through vertical and horizontal perspectives.

An example used by two of McGee’s former students, Lucaites and Condit (1990), is the ideographic term equality. It is considered one of the best templates to illustrate how ideographs work. Their article examines the ways in which Malcolm X and King centered the term in their discourse but “urged different meanings and practices” (Lucaites & Condit, 1990, p. 6). Malcolm X centered equality from the perspective of difference and King centered equality from a position of sameness (Lucaites & Condit, 1990). This example of synchronic differences demonstrates McGee’s point that social conditions and various usages influence an ideograph. Condit and Lucaites (1993) offer a well-developed diachronic perspective on  in their book-length treatment of the term’s development in the Anglo-American context.


 * Ideographs in Contemporary Rhetoric**

Particularly in Rhetorical Studies, ideographs have been taken up consistently since McGee’s introduction of them. Scholarship putting ideographs to use has split into two rough tracks: 1) standard applications of ideographic analysis to a huge variety of contexts and 2) ideographic analysis that pushes ideographs beyond purely spoken or written language.

Ideographs have been consistently popular since their introduction in 1980. Scholars enthusiastically investigated ideographs during the last three decades, generating various case studies of ideographic usage. Martin (1983) quickly adapted ideographs to study the 1980 presidential election while Lucaites and Condit carried out their work on  (1990; 1993). Later prominent scholarship includes Cloud’s (1998) article analyzing <Family Values>; Delgado’s (1999) article focusing on ideographs and the Chicano movement, and Parry-Giles’ (1995) article pairing Thatcherism and <Terrorism> in Northern Ireland.

Starting in 2004, scholars adopted a wider time frame for objects of study and collectively broadened the scope of ideographic analysis beyond traditional terms drawn from or found in political philosophy. Kuypers and Althouse (2009) examine 17th Century English parliamentary rhetoric, Enoch (2012) studies how <Home> functioned in debates over childcare the World War II era, and Kelly (2014) articulates competing visions of <Freedom> in American Indian resistance to the War on Poverty. Other scholars have emphasized contemporary ideographic usages: Connelly (2012) draws out the relationship of <Privacy> and <National Security> in the War on Terror while Potter (2014) examines <Illegals> in contemporary immigration debates. Hayden (2009) describes the tensions between <Life> and <Choice> in a 2004 abortion protest and Carpenter-Bennett, McCallion, and Maines (2013) trace the proliferation of <Personal Relationship with Jesus> in evangelical Catholic discourse. Ideographs remain a popular framework for analyzing everything from government secrecy to social movements.

Although traditional ideographic studies remain popular, there is a distinctive trend of scholarship that pushes the ideograph towards new texts. Such articles have suggested everything from representational ideographs to landscape ideographs as new ways of conceptualizing ideographs and carrying out ideographic analysis.

The largest move is towards the visual, and it was initiated by Edwards and Winkler (1997). Edwards and Winkler (1997) assert that “images used strategically in the public sphere reflect not only beliefs, attitudes, and values of their creators, but those of the society at large. Cartoonists must use cultural references that readers can easily understand” (p. 289). They analyze various cartoons using the representative form of the iconic Iwo Jima image, arguing that visuals can themselves be considered ideographs (Edwards & Winkler, 1997, 305). Offering more support for visual dimension to ideographs, Moore (1996) suggests that the cigarette functions as a representational ideograph for both pro- and anti-smoking interest groups. Palczewski (2005) turns to the images on anti-woman suffrage postcards to find other significant visual ideographs. In all these cases, the image is itself an ideograph, as with Moore’s cigarette or Palczewski’s feminine Uncle Sam. However, Cloud’s 2004 article contends that visual ideographs (such as pictures of Afghan women) can also index, reinforce, and activate verbal ideographs such as the <Clash of Civilizations>. More recently, Ewalt (2011) has proposed that ideographs can manifest in landscapes and embodied experiences as well as texts or images. So far, the idea of a material ideograph has not been taken up.

Written by Anita Mixon (August 2012). Revisions by Donovan Bisbee (2015)

include component="comments" page="page:Ideograph" limit="10"


 * References**

Carpenter-Bennett, B., McCallion, M. J., and Maines, D R. (2013). <Personal Relationship with Jesus>: A popular ideograph among Evangelical Catholics. //Journal of Communication and Religion// //36//, 1-24

Cloud, D. L. (1998). The rhetoric of : Scapegoating, utopia, and the privatization of social responsibility. //Western Journal of Communication 62//, 387-419.

Cloud, D. L. (2004). “To Veil the Threat of Terror”: Afghan women and the <Clash of Civilizations> in the imagery of the U.S. war on terrorism.” //Quarterly Journal of Speech// //90,// 285-306.

Condit, C. M. (1999). Crafting virtue: The rhetorical construction of public morality. // Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 //, 79-97.

Condit, C.M. and Lucaites, J. L. (1993). //Crafting Equality: America’s Anglo-African Word//. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Connelly, E. (2012). State secrets and redaction: The interaction between silence and ideographs. //Western Journal of Communication// //76//, 236-49.

Delgado, F. P. (1999). Chicano movement rhetoric: An ideographic interpretation. //Communication Quarterly 43//, 446-454.

Edwards, J. L. & Winkler, C. K. (1997). Representative form and the visual ideograph: The Iwo Jima image in editorial cartoons. //Quarterly Journal of Speech 83//, 289-310.

Enoch, J. (2012). There’s no place like the childcare center: A Feminist analysis of <Home> in the World War II Era. //Rhetoric Review// //31//, 422-42.

Ewalt, J. (2011). A colonialist celebration of national <Heritage>: Visual, verbal, and landscape Ideographs at Homestead National Monument of America. //Western Journal of Communication// //74//, 367-385.

Hayden, S. (2009). Revitalizing the debate between <Life> and <Choice>: The 2004 March for Women’s Lives. //Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies// //6//, 111-31.

Ideograph. (n.d.) In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from [|http://dictionary.oed.com]

Kelly, C. R. (2014). “We are not free”: The meaning of <Freedom> in American Indian resistance to President Johnson’s War on Poverty.” //Communication Quarterly// //62//, 455-73.

Kuypers, J. A. & Althouse, M. T. (2009). John Pym, Ideographs, and the Rhetoric of Opposition to the English Crown. //Rhetoric Review// //28//, 225-45.

Lucaites, J. L. & Condit, C. M. (2005). Reconstructing equality: Culturetypal and counter-cultural rhetoric in the martyred black vision. //Communication Monographs 57//, 5-24.

McGee, M.C. (1980). The ideograph: A link between rhetoric and ideology. //Quarterly Journal of Speech 66//, 1-16.

Moore, M. P. (1996). The cigarette as representational ideograph in the debate over environmental tobacco smoke. //Communication Monographs 64//, 47-64.

Palczewski, C. (2005). The male Madonna and the feminine Uncle Sam: Visual argument, icons, and ideographs in 1909 anti-woman suffrage postcards. //Quarterly Journal of Speech// //91//, 365-394

Parry-Giles, T. (1995). Ideology and poetics in public issue construction: Thatcherism, civil liberties, and terrorism in Northern Ireland. //Communication Quarterly 43//, 182-96.

Potter, J. E. (2014). Brown-skinned outlaws: An ideographic analysis of “Illegals”. //Communication, Culture, and Critique// //7//, 228-45.

Smith, C. R. (2003). Rhetoric & human consciousness: A history (2nd Ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Weaver, R. (1953). Ultimate terms in contemporary rhetoric. In R. Weaver, //The ethics of rhetoric//. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company.