Going Meta as a Rhetorical Balancing Act
 Judge Thomas' undoing of the Democratic majority at the hearing by way of biting commentaries on his situation provides vivid illustration of the power of going meta. In keeping with Bateson's "levels" metaphor, these are a way of going "one up" in the situation by arrogating to oneself the role of interpreter.(11) But, as suggested earlier, going meta requires a rhetorical balancing act, pivoting on the high wire of perceived legitimacy. There were reasons, after all, that Anita Hill did not go meta. Her almost exclusive reliance on direct exchange promoted an image of demure self-confidence; of politeness and a sense of propriety; of consideration for her interlocutors' interests and not just her own; of someone who had nothing to hide. Thus, meta-goers must skillfully balance the potential gains of enhancing their reputations, shaping agendas, influencing judgments against the dangers of appearing unjustifiably intrusive, disruptive, contentious, or evasive. Meta-goers in confrontative situations must also weigh into the balance their relative legitimacy as against that of their opponents.
"Having" legitimacy is rhetorically akin to holding the chips necessary to call or raise in a poker game. In each case, it is a matter of rights or entitlements. But calculations of legitimacy are by no means as easy as chip-counting. Ultimately, legitimacy is performative, a matter not simply of what one has, but of what one can do to shape audience perceptions of what one has. Legitimacy, then, is also subject to frame-altering.
Legitimacy is also contextual. Were Judge Thomas sitting on his own bench, there would be little question of his right to deflect questions by commenting upon them. Were he a teacher responding to a student or a therapist responding to a patient, he might be granted the right to provide, not just any interpretation, but the "authoritative" interpretation in that situation. But what are the rights of a Supreme Court nominee at a Judiciary Committee hearing on charges of sexual harassment? The waters were uncharted. Surely, a complex mix of countervailing factors entered into the public's determination of Thomas' rights, as they typically do in political confrontations, rendering generalizations problematic. Consider once again the Bush-Rather interview in 1988. Blum-Kulka (1983) and Heritage (1985) have suggested that interviewees on television news programs had best think twice before challenging the interviewer's questions or interpretations because the role of the newscaster as guardian of the public's interest, licensed to probe and to challenge the interviewee, has been normatively enshrined. But norms such as these are often "violated" successfully, and when they are, as during the Bush-Rather interview, they help to weaken the norm itself. Bush went meta to Rather repeatedly in the interview, seemingly with great success.(12)
Ironically, the very chanciness of going meta aggressively in high stakes political confrontations may lead viewers to construe the act as courageous. One thinks of Gary Cooper in Meet John Doe, daring to toss aside the pseudo-populist radio oration that had been prepared for him by his handler (played by Barbara Stanwyck), and, having served notice that he was to be his own man, delivering impromptu a "truly" populist speech (of Frank Capra's imagining) that fired the public's imagination. Why, we ask ourselves, could not our favorite political candidates have evidenced half as much bravery?(13) The bold meta-move stands out all the more in an age of micromanaged politics. (Never mind that it may have been the most carefully scripted.) |
