Relevance and Revelations

As I started thinking about this post, I couldn't help but thinking that rhetoric is shaped by eliteness and power. This seems inescapable to me and also Royce. She states that "interpretative communities have to be persuaded" if they are going to change current social hierarchies. It is not so much that we show people how something else is important, but we show them why it is important for them specifically. If we  have to persuade a person of a feminist rhetoric, that seems to automatically imply that this rhetoric has to have a level of power in order to be accepted. I can't remember who said it but some rhetor said something like, "Rhetoric is not about making people understand a concept, it is about making that person accept that concept." This where persuasion comes in. Now the question I have is whether or not society is framing the rhetoric or if rhetoric is framing the society? Royce says that "traditional habits develop from social agreements and continuities" (164). This seems to imply that we learn our rhetoric and way of being through the society and through its influences. What she then wants to change is the society's core structure itself, currently one that has been dominated by a white, male, Western rhetoric. However, I have an opinion that rhetoric is shaped by the actions themselves, not the transfer of thought that occurs after this action. For example, the stand of Rosa Parks started a movement and spurred the rhetoric of civil rights movement. There was an undercurrent of thought and ideas that had moved underground throughout this time, but it was the action itself that spurred the movement. Just the same with digital rhetoric. It was the advent of the internet that brought about the necessity for globalization and the push towards a more dynamic rhetoric. This rhetoric had lain underground throughout this time, with the ideas of feminists and kairotic rhetors but it needed the push from a physical action in order for them to be realized. What I'm trying to get at here is that rhetoric is still determined by what has current societal power. What we accept is based off of what we need as individuals to relate in a society, stay relevant and have a certain amount of societal standing. I just started using the change from he-to-she in my own writing and the reason I did this was because I just found out that this is what is now socially acceptable. Previously I had always considered that since I am a male writer, the third person subject would be in the male voice. Not so now. I see the importance of shaping my writing in both a male and female voice, mainly because this is the new value. Nowadays even this notion of he and she is being considered outdated with issues of gender relation and transgender. It's hard to keep up, but in order for our rhetoric to be considered, it is becoming more and more important that it is also socially relevant.

As I wrote this first paragraph I realized that I kind of disproved my original statement saying that the society precedes the rhetor. Rosa Parks was a part of a minority rhetoric and this rhetoric influenced her thought into saying that she wouldn't move her place. At the same time, the popularity of minority rhetoric was expanded outside of that minority when she did do the action. What we value then seems to be a result of the action itself, the physical activity that shapes our conception and affects us through experience. This experience seems to be the important part and the main focus behind Royce's idea of persuasion. Going back to the original idea of elitism, I still can't help but feel that what is valued and will always be valued is what is currently meaningful to society as a whole. Meanwhile, our current rhetoric is becoming outdated by the second and what will be valued tomorrow is what is being talked about today. There are a variety of ideas floating around out there, but it seems to take a general consensus to make that push and that push comes from personal relevance and experience. After all this, I think I am more confused than before.

Hope and Care... and Confusion

It is clear that Rhetorics is a changing discipline. Royster and Kirsch want to infuse hope and care along with those changes -- infusing them into a field not formerly known to take care or seek hope. It doesn't seem to be only Rhetorics experiencing this change. Though I have no valid sources at this point, I do hear hints. My mom is studying for her LAC and tells me all the time of how the world of Psychology is beginning to look to new and different ways to understand mental illness, emotions, and the individual. I hear whispers of viewing the Universe as "alive" in Quantum Physics. Hope and Care.... and confusion.

I think whenever any discipline changes the way it performs, especially when the very behaviors being changed are now set in the cold granite of longstanding tradition, the result can feel too much akin to chaos. First, there are those within the changing landscape that struggle in fear of losing their validity (in Rhetorics, ethos is essential). Then, there are those emerging prodigies initiating the change that find themselves suddenly overwhelmed with the responsibilities of a budding new way of doing things, and the undeserved disdain of their elder peers. And more, there are those fledglings barely finding their ways into the discipline that wonder if they are the rope for some political tug-of-war they had no desire to partake in. Most of this occurs in whispers in private correspondences or the darkened shadows of office water coolers or other such places normally unoccupied by all the players, where whispers are allowed to go unnoticed. This, though it sucks, is natural. It is part of the process of change.

The prize, when the pendulum slows, will be a discipline that actively seeks the comfort of hope and care. A discipline that will offer the Rhetor opportunities to “take the time… to think consciously about [their] work in its wholeness…” (139). A discipline that engages the practitioner to see how “knowledge is fluid” when we “pay attention to the ways that ideas travel in order for us to become more consciously aware of patterns of intellectual and social engagement” (138). A discipline that seeks “to broaden and deepen our sense of what constitutes […] rhetorical performance […] to add texture and vibrancy to the methodologies that we are using in the field…” (138). A discipline that strives “to stretch the boundaries of our thinking and our capacity to see more, to see differently, and to be better positioned to interpret more adequately…” (137).

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.

Some Thoughts on "Disciplinary Landscapes"

"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.

Who gets to Decide what Rhetoric is?

I am semi-puzzled between the discussion that we had in class on Thursday, and Jackie's article "Disciplinary Landscaping, or Contemporary Challenges in the History of Rhetoric." As I understand now, Jackie and Gesa are looking to include women in the rhetorical tradition by recovering lost texts. They seek to discover these women's rhetorical theories in order to enhance the field of rhetoric. They want to not only include western women, but they want to globalize this project to include women's texts around the world.

I asked this question in class on Thursday: "Are they finding a goldmine of rhetoricians globally?"

Kate answered: "It depends on your definition of rhetoric."

Does it? Does it really? I feel like that was a very short answer to a really important question.

Throughout the semester, we have been studying these texts that mostly argued about the same things: eloquence, the cannons, ethos, logos, pathos. I was led to believe that this is what rhetoric is, because that is what we studied the vast majority of the semester in a Rhetorical Theory class.

Then we studied a few people who did not write about rhetorical issues. They wrote about slavery, women's rights, etc. So I tried to examine how these people were using eloquence, cannons, ethos, logos, and pathos, because I thought that was the purpose of reading it for this class. But when does this stuff stop being rhetoric? Is t when the author is no longer trying to persuade someone? Is it when the subject matter is not about cannons or eloquence? It seems to me like Jackie and Gesa want rhetoric to be an extremely inclusive field, possibly to the point where absolutely any words ever written or spoken are rhetoric. Maybe even body language?

I'm struggling with this concept.

Jackie and Gesa

I would like to comment on: “we take note that women are indeed being more systematically included as a normal part of the rhetorical-studies landscape.” (131) I guess I have a question before I make the point I was originally going to: the writer here says “being more” and it makes me wonder is Jackie and Gesa are implying that studies in woman’s rhetoric are now being given the proper attention. Whereas in the past women were seldom associated with rhetorical practices. And I tend to think that is correct based on what we have discussed in class.

But back to the original quote, which goes on to define where women are receiving recognition: textually and contextually.  The term textually refers to the range of texts being produced that are considered worth recognition. I feel that the types of texts women were allowed or able to produces were very limited. Thus making it easier to systematically include them in rhetorical studies. From the texts we have read in class I have found than women generally did not write, and if they did it much of their text revolved around religion. Contextually refers to the context of the women who wrote the piece; the social circle they operate in, or how they practice discourse. Take for example Aspasia, whom was not of true Greek decent, rumored to be a prostitute, and none of her works has survived to provide proof of her rhetorical abilities. Many people have been skeptical of Aspasia’s work and thus not placed a high level of significance on her work. However more significance should be awarded. It is noted several times that Aspasia helped teach Socrates what is now know as the Socratic method. I believe that more or equal significance should be placed on Aspasia’s work, since we heavily rely on Socrates for understanding rhetorical practices.

Later on Jackie and Gesa are discussing the evidence-rich approach and something interesting is said: “Thus, we make rhetoric, rather than just women’s rhetorics, visible as a multisensible, multidimensional action affected by sociopersonal decision making within sociopolitical context.” (135) I agree that Jackie and Gesa strongly care about women’s rhetoric, however I believe that Jackie and Gesa love and care about all rhetoric. Also after reading this sentence I felt that male rhetoric, but lets just call that rhetoric, enhances feminist rhetorical practices. By having rhetoric it allows for a standard to be based off of. Women’s rhetoric is now, more than ever, being held up and compared to traditional rhetoric. I could be wrong but I feel as if less significance is being placed on the gender of the writer than the actual written document.

Rhetoric: for the masses?

Something written in today's readings caught my attention more than the rest. In "A call to action", Royster speaks to her experience as an editor at SAGE journal. She highlights the importance and personal gratification arising from striving to publish a journal which was "accessible to women from all walks of life."

This brought to my mind an important issue--well, perhaps not an issue, but certainly something worth pondering: how does rhetoric relate to the masses, to those not from the academic world? It does apply, this we know. But the texts and rhetoricians we have studied so far have certainly not concerned themselves with the masses. It was good to see Royster make a point about this in an otherwise very academically oriented piece of work.

This was especially interesting to me because it is an issue I hope to explore in my own project, both for myself and for anyone bored enough to peruse it. We do indeed see rhetoric all around us in our everyday lives--indeed, it is hard to go far without encountering some form of persuasive communication. But how does this "everyday rhetoric" compare with the formal theories and astute rhetoricians we've encountered in our academic lives, in this class?

I really want to explore this relationship, so as to find the importance of rhetorical studies. it's really been a struggle for me so far. This probably sounds weird, but I'd really like to speak with Royster on the subject. From her work, and from what others have written on the blog, it seems like something she too holds to be important.