"Further, how do we bring such an understanding to bear in an academic domain such as rhetorical history where there is a deeply entrenched habit of standing in one place (that is, in territories deemed Western), shaping inquiries with a particular set of interests in mind (for example, the desires and experiences of elite males), and interestingly disregarding some features even within its own scope (for example, the desires and experiences of women or people from non-elite classes)?" (Disciplinary Landscapes)
Quite honestly, I'm confused at the almost hostile tone Royster takes against 'male' and 'western' rhetoric. On a broad scale, I understand and agree with what Royster is trying to argue--as a general rule, shouldn't any discipline expand its study as far as possible and question what is considered 'standard'? That said, I don't think that it negates the contributions of classical rhetoricians (who yes, by and large, were male).
The problem I have with Royster is that it appears to me that her focus is just as narrow as the traditional rhetorical studies/history that she is denouncing in this article. We touched on Thursday that even feminist rhetoric is mainly focused on 19th century American women's rhetoric. I guess I don't understand why the field has yet to expand to include, say, modern Chinese rhetoric, or 18th century women's writing in Ghana. And at the same time, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to study classical rhetoric.
I understand that a single person can't study everything within a discipline. And Jacqueline Royster's overall argument in 'Disciplinary Landscapes' is to call for a wider focus of study within the field. I just think that there is a happy medium here--we don't have to completely ignore classical or male rhetoricians just because they have been previously studied, and we don't have to never expand beyond them because it is simply the status quo.
I love this post! You definitely say a lot of things that I completely agree with. Especially with the idea of a "hostile" attitude - that's something I always pick up on when reading articles based around feminism. I really dislike the feeling of having to choose a side - that we can either do feminist rhetoric or the "other, outdated, disrespectful" study.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes wonder if we, as new students to FRP, are missing out on something - if there is a whole background of knowledge that we need to consider before actually reading this book. This book definitely seems like it's for the people who do FRP rather than trying to do much including of all the other scholars who have been doing rhetoric for a while.
Maybe I'm just being outlandish. But I don't think we have to apologize for feeling like maybe Royster isn't hitting the mark as much as she should be.
My computer just deleted the whole post that I wrote. So frustratedly, I will start again.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on still wanting to read the "male, western" etc works, but I didn't feel that Jackie was being hostile toward them necessarily. Your post actually made me think of one of the first in-class projects we did at the beginning of the semester: putting together our own anthologies. From what I remember of ours, there was only one woman author and one black author that made it into my groups anthology - what does that say about the canon we were raised in? I don't think Jackie wants to close out the classical rhetors we've been reading from years; I think she just wants to encourage us to expand our knowledge base by including other people who might not necessarily top the list of people we automatically go to - and that can include modern Chinese rhetoric, or 18th century women's writing in Ghana if we so choose it to or pursue it, I think.
I like this post as well. It seems to me that if we are studying the history of rhetoric we want to look at the most influential rhetors of their time. These seemed to be the people that shaped rhetoric after them and pushed the evolution of rhetoric forward. To go against this history is to denounce it, something that I don't think Royster wants to do, saying previously, "the importance of historical study and archival work as part of the bedrock of knowledge creation and knowledge using" (145 FRP). However, when she makes statements like the one that Carla mentioned, I can't help but feel she is pushing feminist rhetoric even farther away, into the stratosphere of the "other' she is trying to get away from. We are forced to choose between one rhetoric or another and instead of a more natural transition and blending that would occur if female rhetoric incorporates positive attributes of 2000+ years of rhetoric, she creates this divide. She acknowledges how communities are created by social discourses, which mainly has come from a rhetoric of power and prestige, but at the same time pushes for a new model, one not defined by relevance but towards acknowledging the "other" and bringing them into the circle. I see the importance of doing this in the present, but when we go back in history to do it, I'm sorry, but it just seems irrelevant.
ReplyDelete