Marie Kondo, a Japanese organization expert, talks about objects being able to “spark joy” for those who own them. She says in her best-selling book “The life-changing magic of tidying up: The Japanese art of decluttering and organizing” that we should “keep only the things that spark joy” when advising people as they go through their decluttering journey. Given Kondo’s popularity, this phrase has influenced Western popular culture in the past few years. Still, there is no specific definition of spark joy in her books nor her Netflix show. In Japan, spark joy or tokimeki, is a common phrase that has been used since the 900s, but the phrase has been used more to describe the emotions surrounding romantic relationships rather than for objects. Previous studies on the meaning of objects (largely in the West) have indicated more focus on the self-reflection brought on by an object rather than relational reasons for seeing an object as special. For instance, objects have been found to represent self and achievement. People also give meaning to an object based on memories or identities, such as ties with ones’ family or ethnic background, suggesting some relational ties to an object. In this research, I examine what object sparks joy to people and what “spark joy” means to them. The research was conducted by interviewing people from Japan and the U.S., where popular culture has been influenced by her methods. I also had participants complete assessments of their self-construals and attachment styles. Qualitative data were examined by content analysis where I looked for relationships between self-construals and attachment styles to see if these predict the ways people give meaning to an object. This research deepens knowledge about objects and their meanings as well as provides a cultural comparison of what spark joy means to people.

 After Andrew Wakefield, the physician who claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, was discredited and disbarred, he spent almost a decade in relative obscurity before trying to clear his name and provide a concrete foundation for his pseudoscientific crusade. The method he picked to accomplish that was to publish a movie in 2016, meant to illustrate the supposed dangers of vaccination and the purported concealment of that fact by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and assorted pharmaceutical corporations. This film, Vaxxed, failed – it was barred from the Tribeca Film Festival, and opened to a crowd of a few dozen. Nonetheless, it is an immensely useful work in understanding both antivaccination ideologies and tactics, as it represents a summation of all their ideas and rhetorical strategies in a single vector. Over the course of this rhetorical analysis, I consider the strategies used by Wakefield and his associates, and find that they focus on anecdotal evidence, a conspiracy narrative, and the manufacturing of doubt, fear and scientific controversy wherever possible. I then discuss the impact of this film, both its reception and its effects as propaganda, and the reasons why it appears to have been such a dramatic failure, when previously, Wakefield’s paper drawing connections between the MMR vaccine and autism stirred such controversy and was so successful. Finally, I offer a few suggestions regarding recommendations for individuals seeking to debate or rebut antivaccination rhetoric, as well as a general perspective on the continuance, such as it is, of the antivaccination movement.

The study of the rhetoric of science reveals the means of persuasion scientists use when communicating their ideas. In the mid-twentieth century, when the controversial oral contraceptive pill was being developed, rhetoric surrounding its biology and morality was cautious and conservative. Some scientists discussed only the revolutionary science behind the pill and others condemned it as socially and scientifically unacceptable, but few walked the middle ground between biology and morality. In his publication “Control of Reproduction in Mammals,” however, Doctor Gregory Pincus integrates science and morality. This rhetorical analysis discusses the techniques Pincus used to communicate his ideas and determine whether or not they successfully persuaded his audience. His diction, figurative language, and argumentative appeals are analyzed and compared to contemporary documents. In assessing his choices, recent studies of the rhetoric of sexuality and medicine are consulted. I find that, while Pincus’ methods may have been unintentional, he successfully communicated to a divided public through contrasting language, varied arguments, and polysemy. This research is valuable because studies of the rhetoric surrounding issues at the intersection of science, politics, and sexuality are surprisingly limited. As medical technology and society progress, it is crucial to learn more about the role of rhetoric in the communication of science in order to preserve scientific integrity, freedom of accurate information, and reproductive rights.

Members of the LGBT+ community have long been wanting accurate representation on the big screen. Following the outlawing of “sexual perversion” by the Hollywood Production Code of 1930, homosexuality of any form was only allowed if the character was shown as a villain so as not to encourage their behavior. Traces of this restriction still remain today. Bisexual people in particular are even more problematic with their onscreen images often being either negative or absent completely. This is true even of films created by and for members of the LGBT+ community. To illustrate the pervasiveness of these issues, my research has taken a critical look at four films, Gray Matters, Imagine Me & You, I Can’t Think Straight, and Kyss Mig (Kiss Me), that have bisexual themes and have been celebrated for providing LGBT+ characters with rare happy endings. My project is titled “Happy Endings for Whom?” because I argue that these films perpetuate narratives tying bisexuality with deception and infidelity that are harmful to bisexual people and other members of the LGBT+ community. To do so I break down the plot structures and how the main characters are described and portrayed (ex: Who are the heroes? Villains? How do they identify?). The goal of my research is to expose the power structures that exist within media about and for members of the LGBT+ community and encourage individuals to be more thoughtful audience members and content creators.