Bakhtin. The Dialogic Imagination.

Purpose of Rhetoric:

Keywords: Dialogic, discourse, novelistic, heteroglossia

Quick Summary:

Response:

Foss, Foss, and Griffen. Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory

Sonia Johnson:

Burke, Kenneth. Rhetoric of Motives.

Purpose of Rhetoric: For Burke, rhetoric is any communication that is addressed, whether it be written, oral, or visual. The purpose of rhetoric is to persuade, but the key feature of his work is identification, or using rhetoric to make oneself (or, I suppose, one’s subject) consubstantial (identified with instead of divided from) with another. There was some debate in class whether identification is in itself persuasive, and therefore rhetoric, or if it is actually a step in the process of persuading, making the audience more likely to be persuaded, but actual rhetoric itself. However, if Rhetoric is simply communication that is addressed, and not necessarily persuasive, then identification by itself would be considered rhetoric.

Keywords: Identification, mystification, consubstantial, division, “the kill,” hierarchy, ultimate

Quick Summary:  Rhetoric of Motives continues Burke’s earlier arguments about dramatism is that he attempts to show how rhetoric exists within literature that is not purposely intending to persuade.  Instead of simply seeing literature as poetic, it should also be seen as rhetoric, particularly in terms of identification.  By identifying real people with characters in the literature, the story can be said to be an argument about how we can/should understand that person.  Or, it can be a form of actual rhetorical action, such as killing off a character that is identified with the author could represent the author changing something about him/herself.  Identification is fueled off of the fact that as human we are essentially divided.  No one is really the same as others, and we see ourselves as distinct individuals.  However, through identification, through rhetoric, we can see ourselves as being the same as someone else or some group.  It doesn’t matter whether we really are the same as that person/group, all that matters is that we believe (are persuaded) that we are.

Rhetoric’s nature as addressed can either be directed outwards, from one person to another, or directed inwards as self persuasion.  To be continued.

Response:

Modern Rhet – Week 2

Foss, Sonja and Cindy Griffen. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.” Nov. 1993, Miami FL. (need rest of the citation info)

Purpose of Rhetoric: Has always before been seen as method to persuade, but Foss and Griffen argue that there may be an “invitational rhetoric” that does not seek to persuade but merely open a space in which new ideas are possible.

Key Terms: Types of Rhetoric – Conquest, Conversion, Advisory, and Invitation (3 of which deal with persuasion to a different degree, and invitational);re-sourcement; conditions for change

Quick Summary: Foss and Griffen lay out four different types of rhetoric, but suggest that the first three are all concerned with the act of persuasion. They want to consider how rhetoric might be used without the intent to persuade (key word is “intent”). This is influenced heavily by Sally Miller Gearheart’s assertions that any intentional attempt to persuade another person is inherently an act of violence upon that person (which she argues through a persuasive essay). Foss and Griffen describe several scenarios which might count as invitational rhetoric, such as a large group all wearing the same color on a particular day to represent their beliefs, or introducing re-sourcement (suggesting an alternate way of thinking about an issue). The key here is that invitational rhetoric is only attempting to open a space where people may adopt new ideas, but not actually intending to persuade your audience.

Response: I find this article problematic, as I found the Gearheart article that this is based upon. To label any intent to persuade an act of violence seems unproductive to me, as it immediately disregards any argument that includes that intent. Not to mention the fact that it could easily be argued that all Foss and Griffen’s examples are inherently include an intent to persuade.
By wearing a purple shirt to show my support for feminism, I am immediately creating a sense of insiders and outsiders (those wearing purple and those not) – a tactic to encourage others to become insiders with me whether through guilt or sheer number. Furthermore, it is especially problematic to base a theory of rhetoric on the author’s intent, rather than the actual function of the rhetoric. Many a horrible argument had an honorable intent behind them.

Shome, Raka. “Postcolonial Interventions in the Cannon: An ‘Other’ View.”

Purpose of Rhetoric: To deconstruct and/or reexamine the ways that we use language to colonize other voices (including via our own rhetorical disciplinary assumptions).

Key Terms: neocolonialsim; postcolonialism; cultural hybridity; strategic essentialism; diaspora; transnational moment

Quick Summary: Shome argues that there colonialism must not only be examined in terms of technological or cultural power, but also linguistic power. Shome asks us to consider the ways that rhetoric can be used to uncover these discursive colonizations, from a proliferation of English as “the global language” to a continual exclusion of certain types of voices and discourse. Rhetoric’s focus on public address keep us from examining colonized voices, because they have rarely been allowed to speak publicly – the public forum is controlled by those in power. Likewise, the use of essentialized labels limits our ability to hear and understand mestiza or diasporic voices that cross over and between various identities. However, Shome does recognize the need for strategic essentialism in order to make some arguments (if everything is individualized, how do you argue anything). This can only be done, though, if we recognize the ways that this essentialism is being used strategically rather than assuming that it is a definite or “real” understanding of that group of people. Shome wraps up by asking rhetoricians to gather resources from postcolonial theory, critical rhetoric, feminist rhetoric, and others in order to shift our understandings of rhetoric in order to listen more effectively to those voices traditionally classified as “Other.”

Response: This article lays out the ideas of Postcolonial rhetoric in a solid and understandable way, bringing together the arguments of the various “othered” rhetorics under a kind of generic heading. It provides a theoretical lens through which to view any rhetorical project examining voices that have been left out and the structures that are in place to exclude those voices. This will be particularly helpful to my own projects in queer rhetorics. Specifically important in this article, for me, is the idea of strategic essentialism, as I have struggled with how to build something after I have deconstructed the system set in place to exclude. We can call for an examination of queer rhetoric, but how do we actually do that examination if there are no defining boundaries for “queer”? While no boundaries that we set will be true or representative boundaries, there has to be a place to start. However, we must also keep in mind that this strategic essentialism may be taken up as reality by our readers and take care to avoid that if possible, and to continue to combat those issues.

Derrida, Jacques. “Structure Sign and Play.” Writing and Difference.

Purpose of Rhetoric: To put all concepts into “play,” able to be critiqued, even if they have before been seen as essential Truths or the centers of our understanding.

Keywords: Play, center, bricoleur, (post)structuralism, Levi-Strauss, differance

Quick Summary: Derrida is trying to explain the paradox of a center (which stems from structuralism – ie Saussure). He demonstrates examples in which an unquestionable center (absolute sign, absolute signifier) is then outside the realm of what the center designates – therefore the center would be outside the structure, creating a paradox (if you can’t touch it, it doesn’t exist). He suggests examples like Levi-Stauss’ incest example that breaks from the binary by being both nature and culture simultaneously. Would have to change how we do ethnography because the driving framework is now questionable; however, he recognizes that a center must be used in order to question that center, and/or come to the best interpretation (utility). But it should be recognized or strategic when doing so. Levi-Strauss, the running example in this text attempts to reconcile some of these issues (though Derrida would probably say that reconciliation of these issues is impossible, unless it is simply an admittance that everything is play…(?)) by using “old concepts [European epistemology and culture] within the domain of empirical discovery while here and there denouncing their limits, treating them as tools which can still be used. No longer is any truth value attributed to them; there is, a readiness to abandon them, if necessary, should other instruments appear more useful. In the meantime, their relative efficacy is exploited, and they are employed to destroy the old machinery to which they belong and of which they themselves are pieces. This is how the language of the social sciences criticizes itself. Levi-Strauss thinks that in this way he can separate method from truth. the instruments of the method and the objective significations envisaged by it” (284).

Postcolonialism and deconstruction happened at the same time (which is not an accident) “This moment is not first and foremost a moment of philosophical or scientific discourse. It is also a moment which is political, economic, technical, and so forth” pg 282.

Breaking binaries – “something which is simultaneously seems to require the predicates of nature and of culture” (283).

“whether the real center is to be found – and the answer is that it is impossible” (287)
Response: The idea of play and a post-structuralism is essential to current postcolonial and transnational rhetorics. I found it interesting to read this piece alongside the Shome piece, because I became more aware of these connections than I perhaps would have originally – his link to a simultaneous political, economic, technical moment, his assertions about Levi-Strauss’ attempts at separating method from truth – I see as being inextricably linked to the ideas of postcolonialism, and of course to my own projects. By breaking down the idea of a solid discursive structure, one that we can center somewhere (any “where”), Derrida allows for marginal groups to momentarily move to a centered position (though not “The Center”), while at the same time recognizing that their centrality is effectively marginalizing others. I guess that this sounds a bit hopeless when stated like this, suggesting that any gain by any group will necessarily be harmful to other groups, but I guess at least it offers the possibility for more egalitarianism. If every group, individual, idea, etc. where constantly shifting from margin to center and back, this perhaps wouldn’t create the same inescapable hierarchies that we have now. However, it is important to remember that there is a distinction between postcolonialism (political) and postmodernism (apolitical??) (engaging in a deconstructive practice does not necessarily involve decentering power structures and can, in fact, be Eurocentric)

Berlin, James. “Rhetoric and Poetics in the English Department: Our Nineteenth Century Inheritance.”

Purpose of Rhetoric: To compliment poetics in order to form a more complete understanding of language use.

Keywords: Rhetoric, Poetics, English Studies

Quick Summary: Harvard under Eliot –
Until that moment, every Rhet moment had poetic moment, and vice versa
These two ideas have always been defined in relation
Not with Hugh and Blair

“Masks of conquest” English Lit was first tested on Indian subjects and Africa and imported back to England. Tame the foreigners, or working class, or women, etc. to create desirable citizens. Good Lit would produce good colonials and good citizens.

Get lost in the book so you don’t have to look or do anything else. Formalism doesn’t make one consider the socio-political implications of the text.

These issues facilitated the rise of poetics over rhetorics

Rhetoric and epistemology often seen as separate realms (rhet is language, epist is substance or truth). Thus, if you know what you need to know, then all you need is a little style to be a good writer or speaker. Rhetoric has nothing to do with truth (because truth is the realm of philosophy, or science, or classical literature, etc)

Modern Rhet – Week 1

Booth, Wayne. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric.

Booth had to explain his field, but “eighteenth cent. Lit” needs no explanation

Who does it, how is it done, and in what language? (spec. in terms of Comp/Rhet PR, but major Q’s for any rhetorical study [I think])

Rhetoric’s ups and downs – rhet flourished in ancient Greece, but also denounced by “philosophers”

Three appeals – ethos – speaker’s credibility, logos – evidence of the content, pathos – emotions of the audience

Three kinds of rhetoric – deliberative – political, achieve certain goal, about future, epideitic – ceremonial, public occasion, celebrate past but done in present, forensic – legal rhetoric

5 cannons – invention, arrangement/organization, style, memory, delivery

translation in terms of context – what counts as “epideictic” in a modern context? In terms of our new understandings of politics and society
If we’re talking about the rhetoric of Rhetoric, how does Rhetoric fit within the modern society and how do we explain that fit? Rhetoric has bad name, so do we go with rhetorology as Booth suggests? Or go with something like discourse studies or semiotics?

Rhet provides vocabulary or terms to use when talking about writing, joining the conversation, rhet is a long conversation, don’t forget that we are constructing rhetoric from a disciplinary POV.

Booth definition of Rhetoric on p xi – “entire range of resources that human beings share for producing effects on one another” … “primary resource for avoiding violence and building community”

language and reality are separate, traditionalist view
language is used to create reality – structuralist/Sasseure, booth is following in this, community is built (created) by the language, signs, gestures, etc., BUT Booth walks away from this a little by stating that there are some (basically ethical) non-contingent truths.

Rhetoric and ethics have been at contention as long as we know (Sophists just want to make a lie seem true)

Discusses ups and downs, seen as high during Aristotle’s times, then seen as more trivial (trivium), but still taught, then high again during Renaissance, then down again during the enlightenment b/c of positivism or scientism (Francis Bacon), tended to create a strict divide between science (testable or provable) and rhetoric (unsubstantiated), Locke and Rousseau also anti-rhetoric. Need to find true self instead of being corrupted by societal rhetoric. 20th cent. We have structuralist, semiotics, social construction of reality, produces a new kind of rhetoric. Civil rights and women’s rights movements, decolonialization, all grew up in this new era of thought, no room for single truth

Booth concerned about power to rhetoric to bring people together, Aristotle saw this as function of epideictic rhetoric.

Different discourse communities have different truths/realities.  Booth talks about domains of rhetoric. In order to be effective, (Stanley Fish – interpretive community), you have to share the tacit assumptions of the discourse community. (“if you don’t know the answer, you smile – you have nothing to hide”)

How do we create the “unquestionable” truths? How do we change or affect those tacit assumptions?

International Rhetoric Culture project – rhet and cult. Anthropology scholars working together.

Listening Rhetoric – Booths major “addition” with this book (I think thus far). It’s the rhetoric that he is proponenting. Way to reduce understanding and avoid violence.

Chpt 3 – kinds of rhetoric (acc. To booth) and how to “judge” it as good or bad 43-end of chapter
1. win-rhetoric
2. bargain rhetoric
3. listening rhetoric

Manifesto.2

Going back and reading over my manifesto, I’m surprised at how much I still feel this way. Normally any writing that I have done a semester back is dead to me. I hate it and struggle to find use. This manifesto, on the other hand, plays very nicely into the project that I am working on for this class. Therefore, I am going to reprint my manifesto here, unchanged, though extending it to include the work that I have done with On Our Backs.

 

History is often celebrated as a way of bringing the past into the present, as a guiding beacon for future practices, as a way of avoiding old mistakes. It’s also a way to celebrate national identity — we all have a shared history that connects us. It’s a way of spreading national values by teaching the same patriotic mythologies to every school-aged child. Those values inherently become the judge of each newly occurring myth, deciding whether it should take root in our collective social consciousness or fall by the wayside. Only what is selected as “History” becomes a part of our social consciousness. The rest is simply actions, events, ideas. Not really worth paying attention to. Not a part of “Us.” It might have happened in our society, but it’s not what makes our society. It is not Our identity. Not our “History.”

And yet.

The mythologies that are handed down do not suffice for some. Many feel lost even within the “Us” of our cultural history. For these people, the histories that would have made an impact have been cast aside, ignored, invisible. There is no connection to the past and no way of avoiding past mistakes. How do we learn from a history that has been forgotten? And perhaps even more importantly, how do we connect to society knowing that our actions, our ideas, our lives will be systematically excluded because they seem alien rather than familiar? How do we connect to each other if our realities are so erased that there isn’t even a vocabulary with which to articulate it or to write it down? With the death of the individual goes the death of their history, and each new wave of unconnected people are left to relive these silent(ced) cycles.

When the written evidence of sexual slavery forced onto the Japanese Comfort Women was destroyed, all that remained of that history were the individual testimonies of the victims themselves. These testimonies were not believed by friends, family members, and government officials because they seemed to be outlandish, unsupported, and spoken only by “dishonorable” women. To speak about the experience brought further shame and mistreatment upon the women. They were not allowed to write about the experience because it would be slander against the Japanese government. The women could not organize because they did not have a way to connect to each other. Their stories went against the national mythologies. They were cast away and forgotten. It took over fifty years for these women to find a voice and a vocabulary that would allow them to speak of their experience. Now that they have it, they ask that their experience be recorded in text books, in official government documents, in the social consciousness. They ask that others who feel outside the realm of the traditional History can connect to the Comfort Women’s struggles as an aid to their own.

H/histor(ies) are always selective. No single history can ever emcompass the whole of experience. We will always orient ourselves to certain texts over others, and we will always gleam our understandings of those texts based on how we orient ourselves to their contents/contexts. But the writing of social histories gives us the chance to Re-orient. Rather than orienting ourselves to the same traditional texts and/or from the same traditional positions, a Re-orientation allows us to bring to light what might otherwise have been cast aside, to forge connections between people, cultures, and lives that might normally be rejected from the traditional History, to aid those struggling to find a voice and a vocabulary for their own experiences.

In working with the On Our Backs project, I have discovered a whole new world of information about lesbian history. A history that, for me at least, was not passed down as part of a cultural mythology. But I believe that it should be passed down. It’s a hero story in a culture that is definitely in need of heroes. On Our Backs is as important for Lesbian history as the Boston Tea Party is important for American history. On Our Backs has instilled values in the lesbian culture that, whether we admit that as an originating point or not, carry over into the next generation. But it’s more than that at the same time because it’s a story that encourages others to do something about their situation, encourages social action. If you don’t like the way that culture defines you, then define yourself. And by doing this project on social history, I now have this story to share with others in my generation and the generations to come. If I ever teach a course on LGBT history, I now have another aspect of that history to share – one that is not simply about victimization. The Stonewall riots have been etched into the cultural memory. Though the publication of On Our Backs is not as sensational as a riot, they too were struggling to find a voice for their own experience. That voice should not be forgotten just because it was delivered via a pornographic magazine rather than a public speech.  As social historians of rhetoric, we must look for the voices that are not privileged in the academy, whether it is due to the speaker’s identity, their content, or their mode of delivery.  We must find that texts that speak to us regardless.  And we must be brave enough to share those voices with others who wish to hear them.

Lyons – Rhetorical Sovereignty

Lyons argues in this piece that Native Americans have lost their sovereignty as a people, both political and rhetorical.  He uses rhetoric to suggest that Native Americans were once thought of as politically sovereign, but that gradually eroded, despite some people’s best of intentions.  Now, the colonizing force of the United States culture has even taken away their rhetorical sovereignty by choosing which stories get told, and how, in order to “reclaim” their past.  Even though many who are telling these stories have the best of intentions, they still greatly misrepresent the ideologies behind Native sovereignty, such as their focus as a people (explained below) rather than a government.

Definition of rhetorical sovereignty:  “The inherent right and ability of peoples to determine their own communicative needs and desires in [the attempt to revive not their past, but their possibilities], to decide for themselves the goals, modes, styles, and languages of public discourse” (449-450).

Used to see Native Americans as sovereign – the United States once referred to Native Americans as “nations” which they would make treaties with.  This suggests that they saw Native Americans as being on an even playing field when it came to political sovereignty.  Despite the fact that these treaties were exploitative, they still assume that the Native peoples had to right to the land that they lived on and thus were able to give it away.

This vision eroded – Later the Native Americans were referred to as “tribes” (assuming savagery and lack of government, hence lack of political sovereignty) and the treaties became known as “agreements.”  Lyons explains, “the erosion of Indian national sovereignty can be credited in part to a rhetorically imperialist use of writing by white powers, and from that point on, much of the discourse on tribal sovereignty has nit-picked, albeit powerfully, around terms and definitions” (453).

Procedure vs. People – Lyons draws from Kant in defining sovereignty in western “civilized” thought: “sovereignty became essentially procedural, the exercise of reason and public critique generated by the bourgeoisie who as ‘the people’ construct the nation-state through the act of making coercive laws, and subsequently as ‘sovereign’ coerce through them as a nation and are coerced by them as individuals” (454).  To highlight here – for the United States, sovereignty was a system of government that had rule over individuals through a procedure of reason by the group of individuals.  The thing that keeps the system working is this sense of reason and critique, the idea that the nation is always able to change and thus the current system must be making sense until we reason it not to.

With the Native Americans, on the other hand, they saw sovereignty as belonging to peoples – groups that “always conducted out of regard for the survival and flourishing of the people” (454) through “a privileging of its traditions and culture and continuity” (455).

Different than multi-culturalism: Multi-culturalism isn’t enough because it tends to abstract the struggles of real people.  It denies the link between rhetorical sovereignty and self-governance/political sovereignty.

What we can do instead:  Look at the real cases of Native Americans fighting for their rights to sovereignty and the ways that they have reclaimed their stories.  This includes political actions.  The article gives resources for teaching these issues such as the Tribal Law and Government center in Kansas and the Indian Nations at Risk Task Force.

Political Action and Education termed “The New Ghost Dance” – “calls Native and non-Native people to join together and take action” to promote “a basic understanding, respect, and appreciation for American Indian and Alaskan Native cultures… [and would work for] a revival of tribal life and the return of harmony among all relations of creation.”  (464)

African American Rhetoric(s), Chapt. 4 – The Literary Foremother

I think it would be helpful to open this post by quoting the preface’s introduction to this article:

Jacqueline K. Bryant mines the Afrocentric freedom rhetoric of the “Literary Foremother” [a concept taken from Alice Walker]. The rhetorical strategies and power of Black women, whether orators (as explored by Logan), writers, scholars, or astronauts, for that matter, have been woefully undertheorized. As Bryant points out, this is even more so in the case of the everyday Black mother (whether she was blood mother or community mother) who stood up under the weight of the Black and White communities in slavery.

Key Terms: The Literary Foremother - “older Black women [who] were creative despite the constraints of physical and mental abuse, space, and time … pass on creative genius in the forms of storytelling, language style, and creative arts … is unaware that her voice is laden with cultural wisdom, spiritual insight, and generative power … possesses hope so intense that it directs circumstances … guides those who hear her minimal and often inarticulate voice” (74) Foremothers “‘ knew what we must know ithout knowing a page of it themselves” (80, qtd from Walker).

Afrocentric Rhetoric: Rhetoric that centers the Black perspective rather than simply relating it to the dominant white perspective.

Mammy Figure: “the faithful, submissive, hardworking, older Black woman whose language and behavior perpetuate the myth of White superiority” (73).

Why this article is significant to our class discussion: Bryant applies the literary device of “foremother” to Harriet Jacobs’ Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Written by Herself by looking at the way that two older Black women use rhetoric to subvert the traditional “mammy” stereotype and instead act as foremothers (though Bryant tends to complicate/confuse her own article by then focusing on how Aunt Nancy is more of a foremother than Aunt Marthy). This chapter takes on a more “literary studies” bent, focusing on individual character and classification than on the uses and powers of the rhetoric on/towards the reading public. A key link between the two occurs in the following passage:

Jacobs argues that the enslaved Black woman does not live under the same conditions as the White woman, and thus she believes ‘that the slave woman ought not to be judged by the same standard as others’ (p. 56). Jacobs speaks clearly and consistently for all enslaved women. Even though the title of her work, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Written by Herself connotes singularity, Jacobs speaks for women and to women. Hers is a battle against oppression that is consistently communal and gendered. … Jacobs redefines sexual morality for the sake of all enslaved women. She imparts vitality outside the rigid boundaries of marriage, race, and even outside her respect for Aunt Marthy’s inflexible views. (79)

Though Bryant sees the characters within the work individually, she suggests in this passage how the work as a whole may be viewed communally, taking a stand as rhetoric for all Black women.

Why these characters count as “Foremothers”: Both women, Aunt Marthy and Aunt Nancy, resist white superiority in their words and actions, and this resistance/”Elements of this prevailing ideology are ften incorporated in the mulatta’s [heroine's] world view … the mulatta generates specific responses in the forms of language activity, behavior, decisions, and/or actions that can be linked to the generative power of the foremother’s words” (75). They subvert the “mammy” stereotype by seeming to oblige to white superiority in order to survive, but both actively working to resist it in their “private”/real lives.

Bryant contrasts these two women in terms of their voices – Aunt Marthy having a continuously heard voice and Aunt Nancy having a rarely heard but repetitive voice. Ironically, though Aunt Marthy is outspoken, her greatest resistance against white oppression occurs through action rather than words when she steps up onto the auction block in order to make the selling of her into a public, rather than private, affair. Aunt Nancy, however, seems to be most powerful due to her rarely-heard but consistent message of “freedom at any cost.” These two women also have different outlooks on how to obtain freedom. Aunt Marthy believes in working through the system by trying to buy freedom. Aunt Nancy believes that “Oppressed people do not work for freedom or ask for freedom; they take freedom” (79).

Interesting but Undeveloped Aspect:  This article mentions that “Omission and silence are meaningful in language use” (82), but leaves the idea undeveloped.  This would be an interested topic for class discussion if anyone would like to posit on the idea.

Humblest May Stand Forth Chpt. 6 – Rhetoric and Empowerment: The Marginalized Abolitionist and Beyond

This chapter looks at how the rhetorics described in the previous chapters have been taken up by later rhetors for African-American rights, specifically Ida Wells, Archibald Grimke, Malcolm X, and Audre Lorde. The chapter focuses on four key ideas: Self-Help rhetoric, depictions of racial difference, use of patriotic rhetoric, and signifying the “black truth.”

Self-Help Rhetoric: Wells’ rhetoric rejected the idea of self-help in her anti-lynching arguments because “Not only would self-help not protect African Americans, but prosperity could in fact lead to violence” (222). Many hate crimes explicitly targeted prosperous Africa-Americans. This is in contrast to Booker T. Washington’s rhetoric of self-help, who spoke at the same time. “Because rhetoric like Washington’s suggested a polarization between self-help and political rights, rhetors like Wells, who argued for political change, would naturally distance themselves from self-help messages” (223). Malcolm X’s speech ‘The Ballot of the Bullet” and his ideas of Black Nationalism still precedent themes of self-help. Rather than catering to the white perception of Blacks, Malcolm X encouraged an amelioration of African-Americans’ own community image. This is self-help rhetoric, but no longer in the “conservative” sphere of Washington.

Depictions of Racial Difference: “As in the time of the marginalized abolitionists, contemporary white Americans often ignore the racial dimensions of their lives and beliefs, and race continues to be an ‘invisible’ or unnamed factor in discussions that implicitly engage racial issues” (224). Therefore, it continues to be important to foreground racial differences when discussing issues, so that the “colorblindness” trope does not erase the need for social action. Reminiscent of Walker’s physical descriptions of African-Americans, A. Grimke’s speeches physically describe the white man in order to bring to light the normally invisible category of “whiteness” so that it can be engaged into the discussion. “Grimke’s act … demonstrates that race influences the lives of all Americans, not just people of color. … revealing that racial categories are nt only arbitrary, but can be appropriated and redefined by those who are oppressed” (225).

Grimke also appropriates the travel rhetoric of Douglas and Remond, but rather than suggest that travel makes one forget their race, Grimke suggests that it makes racial difference all the more obvious. “African Americans’ experiences in France make them more conscious of racial difference in a way that empowers them to fight oppression… in fact, after one is treated as an equal, one gains racial pride” (225).

Issues of racial differences are often selective in the rhetoric of abolitionists. Audre Lorde takes issue with feminist rhetoric because it tends to favor identification of “women” over alienation of race. She adopts an “ousider-within” viewpoint as described by Patricia Hill Collins, challenging the actions and ideologies of white feminists who engage with feminism on an intellectual level, but then subjugate black women because of racial or class differences.

Patriotic Rhetoric: This section is pretty straightforward, acknowledging ways that rhetors continue to use rhetoric from American documents or highly patriotic figures for the cause of African American rights, though they were not historically associated with African Americans. Examples include Malcolm X’s speech “The Bullet or the Ballet” which is in direct reference to “Give me Liberty or Give me Death.” Wells appropriates the ideology of the Star-Spangled Banner, stating that “every member of this great composite nation will be a living, harmonious illustration of the words, and all can honestly and gladly join in singing” (229). Grimke mocks the words of the Preamble (“We the people”) and suggests writing the words “Sham” and “Hypocrisy” on the Declaration. In this way, “America’s texts are challenged and even altered by the realities of American society” (230)

Signifying:  This concept essentially entails using language to represent a perspective other than the dominant by changing the meanings of the dominant signs/language to those of the oppressed. The image of Thomas Jefferson is quoted as an example – white historians only saw Jefferson in a liberatory sense because his words suggested liberation, but African Americans saw him differently because of his actions.  For generations the “legend” of children from Jefferson and Sally Hemings was passed down through the African American community, signifying the “black truth” of the situation, whereas white historians refused to listen until they had irrefutable evidence.  The “black truth” was not the actual “truth” for these historians – rather it only signified a racial difference.  Similarly, the “black truth” of a particular passage of rhetoric may be different than the “white truth” or assumed truth of the same passage.  “When African Americans engage in dialogue with white America’s texts – a fundamental component of signifying – new truths, “black truths,” are revealed” (234).

The chapter ends with a reflection on the title words – “The Humblest May Stand Forth.”  These words represent that “the marginalized have a particular authority in American society, that the ‘humblest’ emerge as uniquely powerful rhetors precisely because of their position in society …. They also challenge and revise fundamental assumptions bout traditional rhetoric, revealing ways that we must rethink conventional theories to account for the persuasion of those who are marginalized in society” (235).   This last point is essential to our class conversation.  It is a suggested answer to the question, “Why study social histories of rhetoric?”  It’s not only because certain voices have been left out in the traditional study, but because those voices contain theories and methods of persuasion that cannot be seen in traditional accounts, that cannot exist in traditional accounts of rhetoric.  If the only rhetoric we studied was the rhetoric of the already-powerful, we would completely miss the persuasive methods and theories of the oppressed, or of the someday-powerful.  Methods that can grant power rather than simply hold it, or raise us from positions that the already-powerful have never been in.  Not only do we need to acknowledge the voices of those “left out,” but also their unique positionings and uses of rhetoric.

Rhetorical Power in the Victorian Parlor: Godey’s Lady’s Book and the Gendering of Nineteenth-Century Rhetoric

*Please note – this summary contains mostly patchwriting without citation*
This chapter details the way that Sarah Josepha Hale influenced women’s roles in the nineteenth-century through her position as an editor for Godey’s Lady’s Book from 1834-1872. She constructed representational norms that assumed hegemonic functions within a constituency of women who, although not yet enfranchised (because they could not participate in public debate, still could exercise significant sway over political action. Most of Hale’s appeals for an increase in women’s roles and/or status came through the idea of Republican Motherhood (mothers who needed skills in order to teach her sons how to be patriots).  This ideal of RM still kept women in the private or domestic sphere, but allowed them access to education and activities that they would otherwise be excluded from.  This sort of public/private split suggests that politics might have a private dimension and anticipates the more general move of fragmentation (from a collective) and specialization.  Hale’s rhetoric is complicated in this manner.  She tends to write for a collective audience with “collective” rhetoric, yet the issues that she advocates for begin shaping society into an individualize rhetoric.  However, Hale’s collective/consensus is usually one based on gender differentiation (she very much wanted to keep women’s and men’s roles separate) and one of class.  Hale did not seem to want to put women into the public sphere, but merely looked for ways to bring the public sphere into women’s private domain.  the physical dictaes of print encouraged a more private political participation – public discourse taken up in the home via silent writing.  She acknowledged for her readers a guarantee of quality for what would go into the magazine, even explaining her choices for accepting or rejecting pieces in an editorial column so that the practice would be visible to all her readers and could help cultivate them towards better writing in the future.  This guarantee became a hallmark of Godey’s, assuring readers of a certain degree of literary/moral respectability.  The Godey’s reader was as careful a construct as was its editor.  Well-read, entitled to masculine respect, this reader was a woman who had a right, indeed an obligation, to hold political opinions.  She modeled her editorial practice on oral precedent, representing her readership not as private and individual silent readers and writers but as a community of like-minded women.  The format was based on conversation – it would not agonistic but would depend on a common understanding, claiming high purpose without encroaching upon serious political matters.  It would instead claim a womanly perspective on them, emphasizing moral application, subsumed under the ideal of Republican Motherhood.  Because she constructed her readership this way, as a good of like-minded peers, Hale would orchestrate them into concerted political action like joining gender-specific groups in support of an issue or fund-raising for some action (under the guise of RM).  Under this same guise she advocated for women’s education, claiming that a woman’s first right is to such education as will give her the full develpment of all her personal, [not public or political] mental and moral faculties.  She suggested that if women were educated then they could raise their children in an all-around manner without having to send them to school (which she saw as unnecessary within our democratic and industrial society).  She insisted that women’s domestic duties were sciences – cooking involved Chemistry principles, etc. – and they should therefore be taught about these underlying sciences.  In the Godey’s Book, Hale gave reports on the present state of women’s education in Europe and America, the most celebrated women’s seminaries, and literary works as were particularly designed for women (which you could order through the book if you did not live close enough to purchase them otherwise).  She outlined a course of reading that women should do at home, which, while she intended it to solidify the collective through shared experience, also encouraged individualism by asking women to engage with the texts as individuals (re-creating context, responding via mental composition, and keeping a common-place book with comments about thoughts and readings).  Though, this dangerous individualism is allayed somewhat by Hale’s assertion that the thoughtful reader’s decisions would be made “rightly.”  She encouraged women’s employment (granting they were single or widowed), and pushed for the use of gender-specific titles.  For instance, she claimed that “it would be more honorable and respectable for such a lady to claim her own title – ‘Doctoress’ – and ennoble it … by her own merits” (172).  The extent and agitation in this regard marks the connection between language and modes of thought and behavior.  Such an undertaking has the effect of shifting the entire struggle for political power from the level of physical force to the level of language.  Plus, she accounts that women have the best position for studying language acquisition during the raising of children – thus, Hale openly claimed philology to be a profession suited to women.

Closer to the end of her career, though, Hale could feel her presumed collective readership slipping away.  The United States was expanding westward (as were her readers), literacy rates were on the rise in all classes, and class mobility began to be a reality for many.  Hale increasingly devoted coumn space to issues of spoken English (where she felt you could tell the true class of a person), rather than focusing on written English which could hide class identity.  In this she met a paradox.  For her instruction in language, such as the fine points of vulgarity and pronunciation, may be seen to have functioned both as self-instruction for newly bourgeois women and as a system inscribing the undeniable indicators of social class by which upstart women might be identified and identified-against.

Key point: Even as she nurtured revolution, she still held tenaciously on to the old ways of thought, the old patterns of meaning, the old system of exclusion.  Hale and women like her both fueled rhetoric’s transformation and impeded it.