​Using the description of rhetoric as posed by I.A. Richards, that rhetoric is a "philosophic enquiry into how words work in discourse," was a deliberate choice on my part because of my interest in how the text on the cards worked to establish discourse, community, and ethos (4). Opening up the definition of rhetoric to expand beyond "truth" or "persuasion" allows for a broader view of things that are rhetorical. If one where to only view rhetoric as persuasion or truth, then the rhetorical meaning, or how words work in discourse, of QSL cards would be lost. Expanding what is rhetorical allows for this study to be performed and for it to be academic in nature. For instance, when examining the cards to evaluate the sender's ethos, one could look for humor in the text and/or images or notice pride in the sender's place of origin. The varying nature of operators' ethos is typical within this community despite the standards which they all follow.

 

Despite the varying ethos' presented by the operators, this does not mean that rhetoric, in the form of "truth" or persuasion is not present on the cards. It just means that the focus of this study wasn't on that aspect of the study of rhetoric. According to Richards, persuasion is "only one of the many aims of rhetoric," and I found that the persuasion present on these cards came in the form of the senders' ethos: the operators’ word choice of the pre-printed and written text and the images displayed the character and beliefs of the sender (16). This ethos helps to inform the recipient as to the sender’s values and interests. Therefore, to answer the first of my research questions, "What is the rhetorical meaning of these cards?," I would describe the cards as showing the senders' ethos in the form of images and text and that further, the interplay of the images and text forms a discourse with the sender and the receiver. In addition, the reason behind the discourse is to assist in forming a community. There is also a common rhetoric in the text pre-printed on the cards. This pre-printed text is usually in the form of technical discourse and one can assume is pre-printed to save time and effort since the technical information is a standard by which all the hams use. The hand-written text took varying forms, from both personal and humorous to strictly technical. The cards also indicate both reciprocal and linear types of messaging which assist in establishing meaning (Rogan 15-16). Discourse occurs to exchange technical information and to establish relationships (see Figure 3 in Literature Review.)

 

The operators may have printed and written the QSLs in this way, the technical information pre-printed and the more personal or funny text handwritten, because they were aware of their audience. Based upon the radio communication, an operator could discern whether a recipient would be open to humor. If so, the sender could allow his ethos to be humorous, if that was his nature. If the sender couldn't tell, opening up with humor may or may not have been well-received and this could result in a judgement of his ethos within the community. Despite this, it seems as if humor, despite the published standard that humor or artistic flourishes were discouraged, resisted said standard (Codella, "Call and Card"). Humor is often used to form relationships and to establish place in a community so it is no wonder that the operators quickly ignored the standards set by Pyle in his 1924 tract, "Amateur DX Report Cards" (Codella, "Call and Card"). In addition, despite many of the cards showing signs of humor, the cards still served the same purpose of their exchange. This community was and is able to share the same ritual of exchanging QSLs which are different in the way they are presented.

 

​​The community of ham radio operators is a well-defined community with set parameters; one must have a ham radio and know how to use it. Within this community, there are different subgroups of people. Some enjoy capturing far-off radio waves, DXers, and some enjoy communicating with others via the radio (Nevradakis 69). Some DXers also enjoy communicating with others from far-off areas and those people enjoy being a part of both subgroups. The focus of this study was on the hams who enjoy catching far-off radio waves operated by others and who also enjoy sending and receiving QSL cards. The community-at-large is defined by such; one must be a ham operator who sends and collects QSL cards. Specifically, the study was focused on a collection of cards by one operator from approximately 90 years ago. These cards exhibit the signs of a discourse community according to the definitions set forth by Patricia Bizzell and John Swales.

​

Using these definitions, I was able to answer my second research question, "How do the cards assist in forming a discourse community and community-at-large?" The cards themselves are a vehicle for the discourse and according to Bizzell, the language used by the operators is used to “regulate social interactions both within the group and in its dealing with outsiders (Bizzell 222). The Q code language and technical jargon used by hams in their spoken discourse and on their QSL cards is particular to their group, therefore, a discourse community is established by their shared language. In addition, the hams' language is part of their social behavior, their discourse helps to define their group and is a passage of learning for newcomers, and their language represents their knowledge. Therefore, not only are the cards themselves a sign of being a part of the community, the text and images on the cards assist in defining the discourse community. Participating in the sending, receiving, and collecting also assist in forming the community.

​

John Swales is more specific in his definition of a discourse community, and the definition also fits the QSL community. Swales writes that a discourse community has

     1. a communality of interest

     2. participatory mechanisms

     3. information exchange

     4. genre-specific discoursal expectations

     5. a dynamic towards specialized language

     6. a critical mass of expertize (13).

All of these criteria can be applied to the community of ham radio operators and specifically to those who exchange QSL cards, therefore, the cards in this study represent the formation of a discourse community and also represent the original collector's membership into the community-at-large. I stress the original collector's membership because at the time of this writing, I am the owner of the cards. I don't have membership into the community-at-large or the discourse community even though I may understand how the community works.

​

Further proof of the cards representation of a community is additionally answered in the third research question, "What is the significance and meaning of how the cards are designed with their text and image?" The theories of Gunther Kress and Lester Faigley et al were used to analyze the cards' images, text, and use of common language. The cards were examined for their rhetorical meaning and for signs of community within the QSL cards based upon the use of a common language and upon the text, images and the relationship between the two. The meaning on the cards helped to establish the sender's ethos and openness to further participation in relationship or friendship. The Japanese QSL card for instance, establishes a pride in country by printing out the musical notes for the Japanese National Anthem, and the Belfast card indicates a strong desire for establishing friendship. Meaning can be established on the cards but sometimes, the meaning is different. 

 

As written previously, social semiotics, per Kress, is the “theory that deals with meaning in all its appearances, in all social occasions, and in all cultural sites” (Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication 2). Therefore, I approached the cards noticing the interaction among the images, colors, fonts, borders, symbols, and text to analyze the meaning exhibited. I also applied the concepts of working with text and images of Faigley et al. The concepts I used for analyzing the QSLs, of the eleven concepts originally introduced, are balance, classification, description, emphasis, and proportion (Faigley et al. 26, 28, 32, 34, 44). 

​

​Research into the aspects of the privacy of postcards did leave me with a question regarding some of the "taboo" discourse on QSL cards. While both Nevradakis and Haring both claim that religion and politics are discouraged topics of conversation amongst hams, religious references seem to be present in some of the cards (Nevradakis 80, Haring xii). Cards number 1 and 7 both have the PSE and QSL in the form of a cross in addition to card number 1 referencing the Golden Rule. Card number 6 mentions the Roman God Jupiter in curse form and card number 8 shows images of two demons. Therefore, sometimes the hams do discuss religion just not in a pious manner. Could some members of the QSL and ham community use secret codes or images to show their religious or political preferences? Perhaps crossing the PSE and QSL as seen on the first card in the Analysis chapter was a code to other Christians? This would open up additional avenues of discourse amongst like-minded individuals. It may be a stretch of the imagination, but the question of secret codes or discourse about discouraged topics could be further studied.