Contemporary Rhetoric @ngilesewurhet-blog - Tumblr Blog

Influential Women of Rhetorical Feminism

Cheryl Glenn Rhetorical Feminism and this Thing Called Hope: Theories

I really enjoyed having the opportunity to read and discover several rhetorical feminists who have contributed to the matriarchal aspect of the study of rhetoric. Glenn discussed how the early feminist theoretical goal still remains in the 21st century, “one of expanding the realm of rhetorical possibility and democratizing rhetorical studies” (49). This is done is a way that seeks to expand multivocity within the study, accommodating a “greater representation and inclusivity of everyday rhetors by encouraging misidentification with those elitist and exclusive” (49). This makes me question what the “everyday rhetor” looks like. It quite possibly could include those who have critical perspectives of power regimes of those to which they do not necessarily belong, which corresponds to the idea of disidentification theory. Feminist theory explores beyond the dominant public sphere and adapts the methods of the elite male rhetors of the past to include silence and listening (50) so that “emotion and experience balance logic and reason” (50).

Glenn argues that rhetorical feminist theorizing is an “act of resistance” (50). This is in conversation with Ciroux’s pleading for women to write. In the 1970s, feminism had its second wave and invaded the homes of countless American families. Her plea for women to write felt like a plea for women to regain their power using their own words, their own voices, their power, to gain a sort of consciousness, to awaken the authority within them that might have otherwise been dormant or suppressed by the patriarchal society to which they belonged. She felt that “writing is precisely the very possibility of change, the space that can serve as a springboard for subversive thought, the precursory movement of a transformation of social and cultural structures” (879). The very idea of a woman writing being “subversive” certainly speaks to the times from which she was writing.

And while there have been significant changes in our culture since then, women still have a long way to go and are still possibly considered subversive when they choose to fight to keep the momentum going until there is true equality and equity of not only women but all marginalized groups. The age of listening has blossomed and some of those associated with the dominant power structure have listened, or rather have been infiltrated to some degree by women. The Me Too movement is proof that listening has gained power and some of those who have been wronged have been heard. This is particularly evident with the prosecution of Bill Cosby, Brett Weinstein, Larry Nassar, R Kelly, Catholic clergymen, and many more. This would not have been possible if it weren’t for the empowerment of women speaking out against their oppressors, encouraged by strong feminist leaders of our past and present. Nor, without listening.

Here are a few quotes from the text that I felt the importance to highlight:

“I have not yet unlearned the esoteric bullshit and pseudo-intellectualizing that school brainwashed into my writing” (52) Gloria Anzaldua

“Her [bell hooks] goal is to think critically together with her audience about their context and standpoint, take seriously their rhetorical agency, confront their domination, and thereby, change the world” (58).

“Mystified believers are of course commanded to deny their own intellectual integrity and blindly believe the babbling of men to whom god purportedly has revealed the nonsensical mystery” (61). - Mary Daly

“One transactional goal of Starhawk’s rhetorical feminism is to affirm the unique spirit that resides in each individual, the life force that binds all humans—and all living things—together. With self-conscious, self-aware rhetorical feminism, she advocates for the integrity and rights of every person” (63). “For Trinh, disruption works best; accommodation is outside the realm of possibility” (65).

“Although we believe that persuasion is often necessary, we believe an alternative exists that may be used in instances when changing and controlling others is not the rhetor’s goal; we call this rhetorical invitational rhetoric” (69). - Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin

“Any intent to persuade is an act of violence” (70). - Sally Miller Gearhart

“Insofar as the role of rhetor entails qualities of self-reliance, self-confidence, and independence, its very assumption is a violation of the female role” (72). - Karlyn Kohrs Campbell

“We may dismiss nonviolence hastily because nonviolence does not always fulfill the scientific requirement for perfect replicability, cool cynicism, or the desired degree of detachment in order to prove its success” (76). Ellen. W. Gorsevski

DJ Fortune Cookie

“The scratch is an interruption” (1). Boy, is this a metaphor for the marginalized or what? Banks very eloquently discusses how the scratch “became a purposeful interruption” (1) and how it was crucial to Hip Hop’s “attempt to change the world” (2). He asks, “how can African American rhetorical traditions and practices inform composition’s current endeavors to define, theorize, and practice multimedia writing…What might we learn from the rhetorical practices and traditions of the culture that gave us the remix?” (2). I find this work incredibly important for African American students or students of color who find some identification from the culture of hip hop or similar nondominant publics. I am inspired by Banks’ ability to code switch/mesh traditional compositional structures with the poetry of hip hop. I believe that this ideology could very much bridge the gap between the haves and the have nots within academic culture. It’s important that there be room at the table for cultures to mix and remix in ways that encourage intersectionality and attempt to dismantle the somewhat elitist culture of composition and academia.

Banks discusses the role of the DJ as a “digital griot”, linking traditional African American storytellers, preachers, comedians, and poets to the modern versions (3). He argues for their superb knowledge of their audience, “analyzing … their wants their needs their knowledges their attitudes joys pains fears—in any given situation—at a moment’s notice” (3). By creating this connection to the historical symbolic responsibility of the DJ, he challenges existing relationships between digital communication and more traditional, rhetorical communication. He connects race and technology to modern composition and argues that this reconstruction “can lead to greater participation and even structural change…” (11). Of course, I agree with this as much as I agree with rhetorical feminist theories, both of which seek to expand inclusion of the marginalized, of those who haven’t been considered apart of the dominant culture in America and have been “othered” by white, patriarchal power structures. The same goes for Chinese American culture as addressed by LuMing Mao in The Making of Chinese American Rhetoric.

Mao argues for the term “emergent” rather than the traditional “alternative” to describe rhetorical theories that do not fit within the “traditional” rhetoric studies. He says that “such effort, to a large extent, is in response to a traditional demand for identification, for a stable system of reference that serves as signs of discrimination and distinction” (12). He goes on to discuss the fortune cookie as a symbolic link of Chinese culture and American culture. The fortune cookie is not distinctly Chinese, but a combination of both cultures where “two traditions are allowed to co-exist with each other” (18). He makes the connection of the cookie to rhetoric by stating, “Like the Chinese fortune cookie, the making of Chinese American rhetoric is born of two rhetorical traditions, and made both visible and viable at rhetorical borderlands as a process of becoming” (18). Chinese American rhetoric can only be acknowledged by examining cultures both equally.

Both Banks and Mao are acknowledging the acceptance of intersectionality. As humans, we are the same; it’s our cultural differences that provide the beautiful patchwork of humans around the globe. We do not have to be one thing. We do not have to choose between one or another. However, We can, and often do, choose one or the other for certain audiences if deemed necessary. One of those audiences is academia. For the sake of Barak Obama, the audience was America herself, and he chose the identity of academic intellectual, for if he had not, America would not have seen him capable for the job. Of course, this is just speculation, but my point is this: he was forced to speak a certain way because of what was expected of him. What if he hadn’t played ball? Would he have been elected if he had chosen to speak as himself, both a product of African American culture and a product of Academia? I think that by including emergent rhetorics into the composition classroom, perhaps we’ll one day live in a world where it’s acceptable to live within our intersectionality, not having to choose one or the other, but allowing both to exist together.