I had a rather strange response to this
reading. The question of why we are studying feminist rhetoric was
asked the first day of class, and it was a question that I was
thinking myself, but was too shy to ask. I understand the simple
answer: women have been left out of written history/literary canons,
are still a minority group in many academic and political spheres. I
also understand the deeper answer that it provides a new lens to view
and study rhetoric through. That said, I'm having some trouble
completely agreeing with the idea.
I am not a big fan of canons. As
Patrica Bizzell described in 'Editing the Rhetorical Tradition'
article, canons are a selection, just a few sample drops from a very
wide ocean. I completely agree that women and other minorities have
been left out of the literary and rhetorical canons, and this lack
has been only (relatively) recently addressed. However, I find myself
going a little deeper—why do we care about canons and what they
include anyway? Take the canon away, and everyone's work is a
candidate for study, and can be judged for its own merit.
The very existence of this discipline
is unfortunate—in a perfect world a person's work would be
considered only on the merit of the work itself, not the person
behind it (although this brings up other issues, such as how much
your experiences/morals contribute, and are imperative to, the
creation of your writing/work). My biggest question throughout while
I was reading the reading was thus: by defining and segmenting the
academic community into male or female (or any other political,
social, or racial label you like), are we ensuring that these labels
continue to exist and matter?
Hey Carla, I really like the points you are making here. They fall along the same lines as what I've been thinking about - mainly how it can seem so odd in general of the feminist tradition to want equality, inclusion, etc, and yet still separate themselves by the very labels and words they choose to use.
ReplyDeleteYour final point - focusing on labels continuing to exist and to matter - is very interesting. For me personally, I feel that labels are important (just as any socially constructed term is) because it allows for us to speak a form of truth that is considered to be "right" by a majority of the group. That's what generalizations and stereotypes do for us, they allow us to talk about issues which may not effect everyone but effect a large portion enough to be true, but they don't exactly tell the truth. It's just a process of simplifying, to me.
I think the more essential point in your blog though, is if these labels "matter." Sure, as I just said they help us discuss things a little easier, but do these issues really need to be discussed? Are these issues real?
And I think the same thing can be applied to literature that is outside of the canon - are these texts relevant, crucial to a larger understanding? Now that I've said that everybody probably hates me - but its a serious question that needs to be considered in order to fully define and study writing and rhetoric.