Discuss something to be ranked, but you cannot choose colleges or universities. For example: movies, musicians/bands, sports teams, athletes, news sites, politicians, restaurants, hospitals, doctors, jobs, cities, states, countries, “best” anything, etc.

1. Describe at least three different ways you could rank these kinds of things/people/etc. You do not need to actually get the data and rank them (or even verify that the data you would use to rank is available), but you should briefly discuss what that data could be.

For example, if you want to measure reputation, would you survey people, like the US News Peer Assessment Score surveys university presidents? If so, does it matter who you survey?

Or would you use certain kinds of data that is likely already being collected, like our college dataset that includes data like tuition, cost of room and board, or class sizes? You do not have to make sure that this data actually exists.

2. Make an argument for why one of these three ways of operationalizing the ranking is “better” than the other two, based in some values and/or goals someone could have about the thing to be ranked. It may help to speak from your personal beliefs, someone you know, or to imagine and discuss a fictional case:

For example, one way of ranking may be better for some people than others because the two groups care about different things. In college rankings, some people may care more about tuition, debt, and how much students earn after graduation, while other people may care more about small class sizes, how happy the students are, or the amount of research that the professors publish. The new Black newspapers, mass-produced and distributed to the growing Black populations in large cities, spearheaded this charge alongside the explosion of musical, literary, and visual reinventions of Blackness created by African American artists. Counterpublicity is facilitated by greater independent media resources and distribution channels. Mass production and dissemination of indigenous media not only means more exposure to wider publics, but also allows and encourages participation in wider discussions. Hence, an “imagined community” and participation in debates via shared information and opinions can be realized across space and time with the mobility of mass media (Anderson, 1992). The counterpublic was a dominant response for African Americans during and after World War I, when hundreds of new publications and political organizations spoke boldly to wide audiences about Black interests and demands for equality. But counterpublicity does not guarantee success: many of these discourses of self-determination were answered by White mob violence. In 1919, lynchings soared as Whites targeted returning Black soldiers who demanded respect. In the same period, the federal government used sedition laws to harass and shut down many Black newspapers that spoke out against Jim Crow policies in the armed forces (Washburn, 1986). Although counterpublics create more opportunities for intersphere discussions, the members of dominant publics may monopolize these opportunities. Members of marginal publics who test the waters in dominant publics or state forums may not be considered equals. As Warner 461 Communication Theory (1992) describes, even if marginal groups utilize the speech norms and rules manufactured by dominant publics, they may not succeed because of adverse reactions to their embodied speech: The bourgeois public sphere claimed to have no relation to the body image at all. Public issues were depersonalized so that, in theory, any person would have the ability to offer an opinion about them and submit that opinion to the impersonal test of public debate without personal hazard. Yet the bourgeois public continued to rely on features of certain bodies. Access to the public came in the whiteness and maleness that were then denied forms of positivity, since the white male qua public person was only abstract rather than white and male. . . . The rhetorical strategy of personal abstraction is both the utopian moment of the public sphere and a major source of domination. . . . The subject who could master this rhetoric in the bourgeois public sphere was implicitly, even explicitly, white, male, literate, and propertied. (pp. 382–383) For example, even when African Americans use the speech norms and institutions of the dominant White public, White perceptions of racial difference may derail Black attempts at negotiation. Or, Black spokespersons may be considered exceptional and not representative of the skills and character of the masses. Furthermore, counterpublics are affected by their interactions with wider publics, often in ways not of their choosing. The state and dominant publics can undermine counterpublic discourses, performances, and movements. In addition to censoring and attacking counterpublic discourses, dominant publics or the state often appropriate selected aspects of counterpublics’ imagery, opinions, ideas, and performances in ways that harm counterpublics. For example, the oft-cited passage from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech about judging the “content of our character” rather than skin color has also been retooled to fit the agenda of antiaffirmative action advocates. Likewise, the discussion of the “antiracist-white-hero” films earlier in this essay provides another example of dominant publics’ misappropriation of counterpublics’ history and imagery. The dominant media are often a source of this appropriation. Even when “positive” images of Blacks are manufactured, they are often used to undermine the position of other Black people who are defined as unworthy. As Jhally and Lewis (1992) demonstrated in their analysis of audience reactions to the Cosby Show, the “good” Black family represented by Cosby was used as a tool to argue against the need for affirmative action and social welfare policies. These “positive” portrayals, alongside the prevalent distortions of Black identity and Black lives in dominant media have long existed without Black consent or control. This double-edged use of media texts has occurred even when Black public spheres act in an enclave fashion, producing a visibility/invisibility paradox. 462 Rethinking the Black Public Sphere American culture, popular and otherwise, treats blacks as though they are both invisible and highly conspicuous at the same time. Blacks are ignored while their status as inferior others dictates that their behavior is heavily and constantly scrutinized. (Jeffries, 1992, p. 160) Thus, even when Blacks create their own media vehicles to redress stereotypes or present alternatives to dominant representations, they circulate simultaneously with presentations of Black deviance. At the same time, Black and White-made representations of Black “cool,” Black celebrities, Black music, and Black style compete for audiences whose desire to consume these aspects of Blackness create complex and often contradictory results, alternately reinforcing and challenging myths of Black inferiority (Dates & Barlow, 1990; Dixon & Linz, 2000; Entman & Rojecki, 2000; hooks, 1994; Jhally & Lewis, 1992). In such a scenario, we see how the enclave response and its related safe spaces remain important even when there are opportunities for counterpublic formations. When rejections or distortions of counterdiscourses occur, enclave spaces and discourses serve the group’s needs to regroup and rethink strategies. Satellite Publics: Deliberate Separatism From, and Erratic Engagement With, Wider Publics Satellite public spheres are those that desire to be separate from other publics. In contrast to an enclaved public, where distance from wider publics is the result of oppression, satellite public spheres are formed by collectives that do not desire regular discourse or interdependency with other publics. Satellite public spheres aim to maintain a solid group identity and build independent institutions. Satellite publics enter into wider public debates when there is clear convergence of their interests with those of other publics or when their particular institutions or practices cause friction or controversies with wider publics. Satellite publics are, of course, not wholly independent of other publics or the state, but by design their paths only overlap intermittently with others’. Satellite publics can emerge from dominant or marginalized groups. One example of a Black satellite public sphere is the Nation of Islam, which aspires to institutional independence—some of its grander designs envision acquiring sufficient land to start a “nation within a nation.” Although the Nation and its spokespersons become involved, from time to time, in wider public discussions and controversies, the goal is not to eventually integrate itself amongst multiple publics, but to always offer its constituents separate spaces and worldviews. Another example of a satellite public sphere would be that of the radical White rightwing. Like the Nation of Islam, this satellite sphere does not envision 463 Communication Theory Table 3. Characteristics of Satellite Publics Spaces and discourses separate, independent spaces open to group members Resources Goals consolidation of group media and material resources to be used by group maintenance of group identity; strengthen institutions Performance in wider publics members do not feel compelled to hide or change cultural particularities Sanctions Example threat of violence and disrespect Nation of Islam broadening the constellation of publics to include itself in harmony. This public desires separateness in order to remain pure. Despite their designs on White purity and fears of conspiracy that lead many in this public to live “off the grid,” the radical right also periodically becomes embroiled in wider public debates over moral issues, racial tensions, and the limits of government power. For the most part, however, this public stays in its own orbit usually crossing paths with wider publics only at points of crisis. Of course, not all satellite publics will be composed of radical groups; one can also imagine a privileged class becoming a satellite public when it is deposed or displaced. Such a public might selfsegregate to retain its sense of superiority over the publics that ended its dominance, inserting itself into debates with the new regime only when its interests were directly challenged or questioned. Conclusion I intend for this typology not to be a developmental model; rather, institutional, political, and social contexts may make the use of one of these types of responses more prevalent at any given moment. At times, the discourse and cultural expressions of a public may employ all of the responses. For example, even in a period when the enclave response is most often used, there may be some opportunities for constructive interaction with dominant publics, especially for particular individuals, but these will not constitute the prevailing mode of interaction between dominant and marginal publics. Furthermore, enclave sites exist simultaneously with all of the responses. The continued presence of enclave institutions and separate spaces is not detrimental to the aims of wider participation in debates with outsiders. Rather, nurturing the cultural strengths and memory of a public in enclave sites is key to maintaining a storehouse of knowledge, potential tactics, and strategies, to be used in counterpublic moments. Without the enclave, there is no longer a “safe space” to develop and discuss ideas without interference from outsiders whose interests may stifle tactical innovations. 464 Rethinking the Black Public Sphere In addition, different sites within a public sphere may foster any of the responses at a given time. Reflecting back on Felski’s (1989) depiction of the varied sites of the feminist public sphere (with the vocabulary of this model) we can rethink the description of the diverse women and institutions of her feminist public sphere. We can see that women lobbying and protesting the state and its agencies acting as a feminist counterpublic, while a women-only commune would be acting as an enclaved feminist public sphere. Both, however, help make up the diversity and vibrancy of feminist and women’s public spheres, and participants in both spheres could contribute to counterpublic actions together when their interests converge, such as public protests for abortion rights or wages for housework. Finally, discourses may begin as one type and transform into another. For instance, a change

Do you have a similar assignment and would want someone to complete it for you? Click on the ORDER NOW option to get instant services at essayloop.com. We assure you of a well written and plagiarism free papers delivered within your specified deadline.