Not only is the title the name of one of my favorite bands (which I'm now currently dwelling on their choice of title in light of this), but it seems to fit what I've been thinking about this week.
"Consequently, although we might have chosen to introduce this analysis in more-traditional ways, we have chosen instead to begin with our own stories of commitment and connection." (3)
I think that the most important thing these two women have done in this book - so far - is at the very beginning: the sharing of their own stories. Both Jackie and Gesa (I love that both of them make themselves so much more accessible to the reader by referring to each other by their first names) reinforce their identity in connection to the the topic of feminist studies in rhetoric not only through the accountability of schooling and their research, but their own life stories, something I think - after having read this opening - that more researchers and rhetoricians should do when writing texts like these.
Because the first two chapters of this book are mainly focused on introducing the terms and goals of their research, I found it important to note something else that I don't often see when reading professional texts. While this may be inaccurate because of the lack of what I haven't read yet in my life, I find it important to talk about especially in reference to a conversational quote between a woman and a man from Margaret Fuller's "The Great Lawsuit" that is still fresh in my mind:
" 'Am I not the head of my house?'
'You are are not the head of your wife. God has given her a mind of her own.'
'I am the head and she the heart.'
' God grant you play true to one another then. If the head represses no natural pulse of the heart, there can be no question as to your giving your consent. Both will be of one accord...' " (Buell, 304 "The American Transcendentalists: Essential Writings").
And that tied directly into something Jackie and Gesa mention under the section about Strategic Contemplation:
"How do we imagine, connect with, and open up a space for the women - and others - we study? ... How does their work speak to our minds, our hearts and our ethos?" (22)
Women are referred to as the "heart" and men the "head." However sexist that might be, aren't both needed for research? Both are present in the text; the authors' passion for the subject matter is referenced to several times, as is understanding the passion and the knowledge that the women they study had for their cause.
Which is where I arrive at this question: if rhetoric is the art of persuasion, which is a form of argument, and if arguments are supposed to devoid of emotion, (as Plato and them argue), where is the room for the heart and the passion behind research? Or has that been the largest divide between feminist rhetoric studies and rhetoric studies in general? I'm interested to see.
I agree entirely. As a man, I prefer the pursuit of my passions when putting things down on (the proverbial) paper. When reading professional texts I ask myself the same question, but in a different way. Is my method of communication so limited? In some ways I do see the benefit of structure and (self-)discipline in composition, but once, I'd like to read a document on rhetoric written entirely in txt, or ebonics or in a series of villanelles. I want Plato to tell me a bedtime story that makes him weep with unshed emotion. How can we have walked through history asking (and attempting to answer) enormous ontological questions so coldly, so isolated and alone, and not asking the biggest question of all, "Is this all there is? Is there nothing more?" (a paraphrasing from V'ger... Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and probably other sources as well)
ReplyDeleteThat was refreshing, thank you. :)
Your last comment on where emotion comes into rhetorical studies and research really grabbed me. I find it hard to fit into the 'persuasive and argumentative' definition of rhetoric too. I think the heart and passion is the motivator behind an argument meant to persuade. We wouldn't have a reason to communicate or persuade if it wasn't a subject that had personal meaning to us, that we were passionate about and feel the need to share. Honestly, I'm not sure how much logic really comes into any of our arguments—some of the most effective speeches and arguments are based on emotional appeal.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, I understand the need for logic, especially within academic disciplines. Although I admire Jackie and Gesa's passion for the subject, it makes me leery of any claims they make, because of the emotional connection they have to their study. I don't think it is purposeful on the part of the researcher, but I do think that emotion and wanting a certain outcome (even subconsciously) can hurt academic study.
I do not believe someone can remove emotion from the equation. I don't know if you or anyone else who might read this post has seen the alien invasion remake "V," but one of the invaders' main goals was to remove the human soul, thus, emotion in an effort for them to comply. They, as anyone would, failed. There can be no drive behind an argument if the arguer doesn't care about the discussion. Even those who cling to sense and reasoning as a means of argument cannot do so without emotion. I enjoyed reading these women's stories because it is our history that founds who we are now and what we believe. It was a great way to introduce any form of rhetorical analysis. I don't believe men and women are so divided. I think we need to take into account the time period of these rhetorical origins and see how we can apply some twenty first century knowledge and create an even better discussion of rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI think it is funny that you start out saying that you liked that the authors used their first names in order to be approachable in text because I felt confused by that, leading to not knowing what to call them. As someone who identifies with issues of authority it is intimidating, even when invited, to refer to superiors casually. Yet does this approach create more ethos or less? And as women are they playing into culturally created roles by demanding less authority from the audience? By establishing different roles in the body (the head and the heart) there is an immediate binary that creates misidentification. As part of the rhetorical tradition it seems paramount to grasp some sort of recognition, yet where do women fall into that when everything they could identify with is contradictory to their cultural perception of identifying with being a women? It is all just so confusing, and as women in rhetorical studies I am curious as to the implications it lays out for us.
ReplyDelete