Questioning Rhetoric

The last chapter and the Royster article were very directed toward questions; questions about how to expand rhetoric, in which places to look, about how to reexamine our methodology of studying rhetorical situations, etc. The obvious question that Royster and Kirsch are trying to overcome is “What’s wrong with rhetorical practices as they are now? Why does it need to be changed?” And the main answer for skeptics (other than the fact that there is a major problem with the male, white, elite paradigm of rhetorical theory) is the last line of the book: “The inevitable conclusion is that the work continues” (151). This quote kind of has a dualistic meaning: Rhetorical theory must be changed because scholars are trying to defend their jobs and create security, and also that scholars must continue to tackle the challenging fact that there is an infinite amount of sources for rhetorical study, and so there is always work to be done. 

The biggest problem for me about these last chapters is that very conclusion: it opens the definition of rhetoric and its objects of study so much that we can consider anything studyable, everything is game. When this happens, how do we determine what is best to study? How do we determine what is the right thing to study over another thing? Why is it better to do study the rhetoric of women rather than the rhetoric of ethnic-minority speakers or the rhetoric of the Internet? What should matter to us?

I do like that feminist rhetoric attempts to expand our knowledge of rhetoric, and challenge it in new ways, however, with the idea of “inclusion” I believe that you can still fall into a trap of excluding different groups. Basically, trying to include certain members is not only broadening the canon, but redefinining it to a specific set of people. By only focusing on women, you exclude the idea that many male contemporaries may be using feminist styles, or exclude underdeveloped theory within more diverse parts of the world.

I guess my problem with “feminist rhetorical practices” is the idea that it is separate from any other kind of rhetorical study. By doing feminist rhetoric, it almost makes it seem as if you are taking a side – focusing more on giving blame on a specific group rather than working as hard as you can to make those big changes that will benefit women and the greater society as a whole, and letting go of the fact that rhetoric has been dominated by the male elite. For some reason, it feels like feminist rhetoric wants to disown all the work that has been done by those male scholars in order to further rhetorical theory. That’s probably just my reading of it. I do, however, realize that the main thing this book is trying to do (which probably differs from studies done using feminist rhetorical practices) is make that general assertion that it is time for change, and that it is time to focus on new territories rather than the same old male dominated public speaking sphere.