Perhaps it is simply because I
just read Walter R. Fisher's Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of
Public Moral Argument for another class, but one line in the text for this class really jumped out
at me. Jackie (I'll use first names since the tone was set by Bizzell and
carried on by the authors) has put the narrative paradigm to another level by
pointing out "that dynamic, rather than static, analyses add value"(10).
What I find fascinating about the comparison is how Fisher set out to induce a
sizable change within the discipline that further enabled Jackie and Gesa to
initiate the changes necessary for RCL to begin
being truly inclusive of all Rhetors.
The question was asked early in
the class, how studying feminist rhetorical studies would matter to a white
man. In honesty, I knew that the study should, but I didn't have a clear answer
besides the obvious: your history is
incorrect. For me, Jackie answers that question by defining “analyses that
have a more multidimensional scope and more-generative power in accounting for
a deeper and fuller range of human endeavors and accomplishments”(10). It seems
that RCL (R and C more than L?) has been behind the all-inclusive forward
charge, but slowly, we are getting there and to me it feels like an exciting
time to study. Now, thanks to hard working rhetoricians like Gesa and Jackie, I,
as a white man, have more freedom as a Rhetor to use language in a way more deeply
and more fully personal to me. Also, that poetry I wrote in high school is valid as the rhetoric of a seventeen year old boy, and there might be a great need to understand those types of beasts.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were wrong in
assuming that intellect was a right and privilege of the few. The city won’t
fall, Plato, if we all converse openly as equals. We can work the mills and
make our own decisions for the good of the many. We’ll teach each other and
learn from each other and the only thing we’ll lose in doing so is the walls
that separate us, creating space.
What I think is interesting, Kelly, and this is meant to be an agreement with your post, is that when we eliminate an entire scope of writers, we lose valuable insight and information in ANY argument. This is using the term "argument" as we defined it during the first days as a persuasive argument.
ReplyDeleteAs a Sociology major, one of the things that I am constantly searching for is the greater truth, the deeper truth. While two interviews may give me a great scope of a project, three is better, four is excellent and five is invaluable.
By studying a feminist perspective, I think, many people often feel as if we are removing a masculine process of thought from an argument. I think that this is wrong because the more opinions we can add, the more resources we can tap, the more ways we can see a particular issue, the more credibility we can lend to our arguments.
We've all had discussions with those people who disagree with us and when we ask "Why?" a generic answer of "Because..." is shoveled right back at us. These arguments are neither productive nor are they informative, which I think we can all agree are the basis for a "good conversation."
To tie into your post, Kelly, I think your final statement is perfect; "The only thing we lose are the walls that separate us." When we realize that there is more to any one person, place or thing than we originally thought, and grant those persons, places or things acceptance, we gain valuable insights into our own abilities, as well.
--P. Hill