"We use critical imagination as a tool to
engage, as it were, in hypothesizing, in what might be called 'educated guessing'
as a means for searching methodically, not so much for immutable truth but
instead for what is likely or possible, given the facts in hand" (Royster
71).
While this quote is right at the beginning of the
readings for today it is one that strongly resonated with me as I continued to
read the rest of the chapter. Critical imagination, by Royster and Kirsch’s
definitions, is what both limits and assists feminist rhetorical practices. As
stated in the text; “My desire was to help the students to create a narrative
and descriptive database from which they might think more viscerally about
Ellis and his associates…. I fashioned writing activities designed to help them
push their imaginations, to contemplate various details of the experience, to
speculate about possibilities” (Royster 82). The use of critical imagination
creates this idea of truth by utilizing narrative to create individuals that a
class can relate to in an effort to formulate papers and discussions based on
what can be perceived at the time.
Considering my paper is dealing with the entire
idea of truth, critical imagination feels like a concept that deals exactly
with what I wish to talk about. While it
can have elements of truth to it, it is not trying to define truth.
Instead, it can utilize various methods of discussion—such as narrative—to depict
someone’s idea of what could be truth. Through doing this it creates a
semblance of reality and makes us perceive truth. Yet it is not—as they define
in the text—truth. It is simply a lens with which we can view everything. I
will be keeping this idea as I go about writing my paper and expanding on it a
bit further.
I didn't realize the elements of truth involved with critical imagination until you brought this up but now its really interesting. The truth that Royster and Kirsch seem to be leaning towards is a subjective truth. What is true for a person is true for them only. So with critical imagination, the only way we can examine their idea of truth is to imagine ourselves in their bodies, with that society's values, structure, and class restrictions. This is obviously hard to do--taking ourselves completely out of the equation, and not framing another's perspective as the "Other," but it gives some hints as to the theory of truth that these two feminist rhetors seem to believe. One, that truth is subjective, and two, that our subjectiveness, while necessary and essential for our own personal rhetoric, is transmutable. This idea of transmutation, putting ourselves in another's body is a lens as you said, but it also seems to imply that truth is not completely subjective and unique to an individual.
ReplyDeleteFor them to push this theory of critical imagination, I'd imagine that they are not looking for a half-lens or a fragment of an image ideally, but rather the whole image and perspective. If this ideal is the goal, then they seem to think that it can be possible to understand another's rhetoric, in part from intuition and in part from the social and cultural values that were necessary at the time.
How this relates to your paper, I'm not sure haha.