| OCR Text |
Show 264 reason, logic). Corporate subjects long ago learned that logos exceed dreams of meaning and representation, and it is time that rhetorical critics also realize this nonhumanist, immanent assumption. To assume otherwise, and presume that corporate subjects use logos28 to prevent publics from discovering their truer identities, is to assert a problematic Marxian framework that imposes structures of morality onto the image. Admittedly, this kind of criticism can be frustrating when confronted with devastating environmental impacts such as global climate change and oil spills, but the benefit is that critics may finally begin to understand how corporations succeed as strategic, visual subjects. To do this, we must begin again by comprehending the logo from a nonhumanist theoretical orientation. Theorizing the Logo From a Nonhumanist Orientation A nonhumanist, networked, orientation allows critics to study the logo as an irreducible actant defined only by its relations. This abdicates the humanistic instinct to hold the image accountable to certain moralist standards about how it ought to work. In other words, critics must overcome their own humanist iconoclasms that attempt to control the image.29 As will be explained, humans cannot speak for the image because 28 The play on this word is intentional and will be developed in the margins of the following section (see footnote 30). 29 This point should not be confused with Finnegan and Kang's (2004) argument that public sphere researchers employ iconoclasms in rhetorical and argumentative research, because, as was mentioned in Chapter 2, there are important philosophical disagreements between this author and Finnegan and Kang over how images work. Primarily, Finnegan and Kang study images, but they still impose a humanist perspective onto the image by 1) assuming images contribute to the idea of the "public sphere" 2) importing rational frameworks about rhetoric and argumentation from public address scholarship to the image 3) judging images and other critics who have studied the image from moralist perspectives. |
