I am thoroughly impressed with the dedication that Jackie and Gesa have demonstrated for a cause so close to their hearts. And what a task! Not only finding the right place for women's contributions in the field of rhetoric, but doing so in a way that accurately represents these women and their intentions.
"Strategic contemplation involves engaging in a dialogue, in an exchange, with the women who are our rhetorical subjects, even if only imaginatively, to understand their words, their visions, their priorities whether and perhaps especially when they differ from our own." (21)
Any idiot could give a synopsis of a dead woman's work on rhetoric in his/her opinion. But Gesa and Jackie go as far as to have imaginative conversations with them. Gesa and Jackie have formed a template for which to study women rhetors, that will probably represent these women accurately while contributing to the field of rhetoric as a whole.
It is obvious that women are capable of making groundbreaking contributions to any field, but for most of human history, women have been oppressed, and their accomplishments minimized. It will be fascinating to learn how women's contributions have and are continuing to change the shape of rhetoric.
I am imagining rhetoric now, as a piece of Swiss cheese, the gaping holes to be filled with the works of women rhetors and rhetoricians. Only this piece of cheese is not meant to be Swiss, and the holes are serving no purpose. Instead, the holes are taking away from the overall flavor of the cheese. Jackie and Gesa intend to give rhetoric its much deserved, rich, whole flavor.
For a topic to be as dry as rhetoric typically is, you have made a wonderful comparison of exploding flavors. The idea that rhetoric is a piece of swiss cheese, and that woman's rhetoric fills the gaping holes is perfectly put, it really helped me visualize the ideas that are being discussed. I like your comparison because it shows the amount of credit (or swiss cheese) men receive, which is significantly larger (aka the block of swiss) than what woman are being credited for.
ReplyDeleteHow accurate do you believe the "conversations" are with the woman rhetorics? I guess my issue with this part of Jackie and Gesa's book is: how did they actually know that synopsis of what these woman were talking about? I understand that looking through a historical eye at the time period as well as with rhetoric in mind, can give indications but nothing is for certain.
That is a great question. I don't think it is possible to know the answer because the only women who could tell us how accurate we are, are now dead. However, by studying the different aspects of these women's lives, (such as that described in the Social Circulation section)I think we can get as close as anyone is ever going to get.
ReplyDeleteThis problem of trying to study dead people's work is obviously not a new one. Scholars have been trying to decipher the inner meanings of dead writers for a loooong time. My favorite example is William Blake. Although nobody can claim that he/she fully understands everything that Blake was getting at, many techniques (study of point of view, separating poetry from painting) have arisen out of the joint effort to understand him.
You make an excellent point. Those of us who are alive have a hard enough time understanding each other, especially those of us in different disciplines. But we have to try. And I think we have made much progress in breaking through the walls that language builds between us. I am confident in the human ability to understand one another, so long as we approach each other with honesty and open-mindedness, casting aside all other motives. This is an ethos that Gesa and Jackie indirectly expressed in part one of the book.
I like your metaphor. I'll take it a step further and suggest that perhaps with the works of people like Jackie and Gesa and further works yet to be considered (what about the rhetorics of children's drawings? there certainly is a psychology involved there.) to open the field even further in the future, that maybe we're building a fat juicy, flavor filled ham and cheddar (because nothing is better than cheddar, right?) sandwich with all the fixings. Now I'm hungry...
ReplyDelete