Uppsala-Stanford
Cross-Cultural Rhetoric
Marratech November 17 2008
Activity: Focus on the Rhetorical Situation of Globalization; case study McDonald’s websites
I.
Welcome and introductory remarks
Time: 18.10-18.20 (Uppsala) / 9.10-9.20 am (Stanford) 10 minutes
Location: Put http://switchboard.stanford.edu into marratech address bar; choose CCR Lounge.
Welcome and introductory remarks: Patrik Mehrens, Alyssa O’Brien
Analyzing Globalization Artifacts as Rhetorical Texts
Supporting CCR Workshop Page: http://ccr.stanford.edu/workshops/111708.html
II.
Small Group Discussion
Time: 18.20–19.00 / 9.20–10.00 40 minutes
Location: Using “switching instructions handout,” connect to small group room with your letter
(A-F). Click on World, type http://switchboard.stanford.edu in Marratech, choose room letter.
Introductions: Getting to Know Everyone in the Group
Activity 1 : What is your name and email? Type answers on the whiteboard. What is a writing
activity you enjoy? (blogging, remixing, poetry, research, facebook, myspace, other?)
Activity 2: Each person, share your “consumer product” by holding it up to the webcam. (This
“product” can be a soda can, candy bar, cigarette pack, computer game, packaged food
container, etc.) Discuss the visual rhetoric elements of the product – how does it appeal
(ethos, pathos, logos?) What are the signs of Globalization in the product?
Small Group Rhetorical Analysis and Discussion
In a new Internet window, visit McDonald’s at http://www.mcdonalds.com/. Each side
pick one McDonald’s website that strongly represents specific cultural values or DOXA.
You might, for instance, select the US and Swedish websites. Otherwise, pick a nation’s
website that has rich material for group analysis.
Tech Tip: Take a screen shot of the Website and past it into a “new page” on your whiteboard.
Process: Next, join back as a team and together analyze what argument each specific ad strategy
or restaurant design makes about both McDonald’s and the home country.
Analysis: Look closely at the two websites you chose, address the following questions as a team:
1. Describe the argument of each website. Is there an additional cultural argument
being made (besides “eat at McDonald’s”)?
2. Does that cultural argument work primarily through logic, character or emotions?
Why might that choice of appeals work right now (kairos)?
Next Page 
3.
Discuss the audience/audiences. Who do you think is addressed by the website? Are
there any groups that you think will not understand it?
4. What specific rhetorical and/or visual elements suggest cultural values? In other
words, how are a nation’s specific cultural values, fashions, and musical trends
reproduced in Web design and visual elements of each website? How does the
website reflect culture or contribute to shaping culture? Consider Doxa (or accepted
cultural values – or what we believe) and Nomos (or imposed cultural values – what
we are told). In what way does each website reinforce or challenge cultural norms?
5. Most importantly, what do you learn about DIFFERENCES between the cultures of
your chosen Websites – how does visual rhetoric show this?
III. Collaborative Projects in Globally-Distributed Teams
Time: 19.00-19.15 / 10.00-10.15 15 minutes
Complete the following task as a team and post your writing/visuals on the whiteboard.
By 19.15 or 10.15, save the whiteboard by selecting EXPORT then JPEG (save on
Desktop) so that you can present your teamwork to all the other groups.
Important: please email the JPG’s to alfano@stanford.edu & aobrien@stanford.edu
Task: As a team, design a website that would be your response to your new understanding of the
visual rhetoric of McDonald’s across the globe. Since you read the pieces from the China Daily
and the Daily Targum (Rutgers), what would be your team’s response if you had to present your
team perspective as a visual argument, in a website (rather than in writing, as an article)? Design
a website that shows what you have learned about different audiences, about globalization, and
how DOXA and NOMOS work. What do we learn about audiences across the globe?
Suggestions (for ex): Draw on the whiteboard. Include images from websites you’ve analyzed.
Make a montage of images and write new captions that change the argument of the images.
Take a photo of your own team. Locate new images as visual rhetoric. Add words. Etc.
You will present your team’s visual argument to the class at 19.15/10.15, so please keep on time.
IV. Report on Team Projects
Time: 19.15-19.30 / 10.15-10.30 15 minutes
Switch Marratech rooms back to CCR Lounge (http://switchboard.stanford.edu)
Pick 1 person from each side to present your project; everyone comment in the chat box.
Learn effective communication (writing, speaking, visual presentation, collaboration)
V. After the Video Conference
Activity: Write a 50-100 word reflection as a comment on the Uppsala-Stanford blog post
http://www.stanford.edu/group/ccr/blog/ - see entry on McDonald’s and Globalization
What did you learn about rhetoric across cultures?
What was most memorable?
What new insights do you have?
What ideas do you wish you could continue to discuss?
What improvements to the video conference process can you suggest for next time?