Since it is the beginning of the semester, I thought it might be nice to start my post off with some humor before digging into more serious stuff. So, the title of this blog post is based upon the iconic Billy on the Street moment in which Billy Eichner asks a random person to name a woman—any woman—for a dollar, and they hilariously struggle to respond. This moment, though not necessarily meant to have a bigger meaning, can nonetheless be used to symbolize the way women have been forgotten all throughout academia’s history, leading to the present day in which women still fight to be heard. This is of course true in the field of rhetoric, just as we read in Herrick’s book. As such, I made a low-quality meme just for our class. Enjoy:
That being said, it is of course not just women as a broad
category who have had their voices silenced—people of color (and, especially
the intersection of these identities, women of color) have also not been given
an equal spot light. Additionally, people with disabilities, working class
people, people without access to higher education, and a hundred other types and
combinations of identities have been hindered in participating in academic
spaces because of the pervasive patriarchal, capitalist, and white-centered
culture. So many opinions and theories are missing simply because only very few
people have the privilege of contributing to the conversations which build up
our widely-accepted theories of rhetoric.
Thus, it is nice to begin this semester by highlighting some
of the knowledge produced by such people. So far, we have briefly touched on
feminist rhetoric and rhetoric from countries such as ancient Egypt. These views
on rhetoric differ from the commonly accepted theory of western rhetoric by
placing emphasis on qualities such as co-creation, respect, and a lack of aggressive
persuasion. I think that modern rhetoric could benefit from considering such
concepts.
As I understand it, rhetoric, at least as is commonly used
in the US, is heavily based in the act of persuasion. When asked what rhetoric
is, the students in my intro to rhetoric course in 2018 responded, “the study
of persuasion.” Similarly, when I took a communications class on persuasion in
2019, rhetoric was something we discussed frequently, assuming the two always
went hand in hand. Not everyone agrees that rhetoric is or should be inherently
persuasive, however; Sally Miller Gearhart wrote in 1979 that persuasion, and
by extension everyday rhetoric, is an act of violence, as it forces the viewpoints
of the speaker onto the listener. The alternative rhetoric which should be studied
and practiced, then, is one which values and nurtures both parties in a
co-creation process (Herrik 278-279).
Ancient Egyptian rhetoric took a similar approach. This
conceptualization of rhetoric was not focused solely on the merit of the ideas
in the argument, but rather, the speaker’s character and the process by which
they shared their thoughts. To them, ethos was “not an adjunct to proof, as it
is in Aristotle, but is itself a form of proof” (Fox 16). So, without trustworthiness,
a rhetor could not persuade another no matter how great their other forms of
proof. This led people to pursue “good timing, restraint, fluency of expression
and above all truthfulness” (16).
Though these two views of rhetoric are from different places
and times, they both bring valuable considerations to modern rhetoric. For
example, from feminists such as Gearhart, speakers can learn better how to communicate
in ways which are more welcoming and respectful. This could be beneficial for
the masses because a greater culture of empathy (which Gearhart may call a
culture of femininity—I personally don’t want to gender characteristics like
empathy here, though) could form. In such a culture, the shouting matches we
see on TV in the news could become calm discussions focused on finding a compromise rather than picking a side. This could completely
change many people’s perceptions of politics and debate, and in doing so, change how every day people communicate with one another.
From the ancient Egyptian thinkers, we can learn more about
our own responsibilities as speakers; for example, how we might build up our
characters first, and attempt to persuade others only once we are confident
that we are wise enough to responsibly do so? If more people turned inward before
speaking, perhaps there would be less fake news and other modern-day problems
which cause conflict in our collective pursuit of identifying right and wrong. Thus,
both of these forms of rhetoric could, at least in my opinion, can greatly
improve how we operate as communicators today, both in the media and in
personal conversations.
What other ways might modern rhetoric be improved by viewing
opinions outside widely accepted theories? I did not really mention any of the
other countries we read about, so does anyone have any thoughts of how they
might apply those theories of rhetoric?
References:
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: an Introduction. Routledge, 2018.
Fox, Michael V. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric , Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 1983), pp. 9-22
First of all, your Billy on the Street reference is hilarious and rings very true to how even high-achieving/pioneering women are ignored in their academic fields.
ReplyDeleteI like your connection between Egyptian ideas of ethos and "responsibility" for rhetoric. In our current political/media climate there is a massive lack of accountability for spreading fake news, propaganda, and so on. For example, I particularly think of how Twitter has historically verified alt-right figureheads like Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler--though they are longer verified now. (For those who don't use Twitter, verified accounts have a blue check on their profile denoting the official account of a politician, celebrity, or otherwise influential/visible person.) I also think the wide availability of news in incomplete forms (like "clickbaity" article headlines, etc.) contribute to our general lack of education on certain topics, and we are often too afraid too say that we aren't educated enough to form an opinion. All in all, I also think that modern rhetoric would also benefit from the Egyptian emphasis on truthfulness!
ReplyDeleteI agree that many schools of thought regarding rhetoric could improve our approach to contemporary communication! Especially the Ancient Egyptian's highlight on truthfulness. It seems that our modern world does not seems to value this virtue nearly as much, especially in public communication. In the same vein, it's very enriching to look at other rhetorical practices as you have done here. I find it most interesting that, oftentimes, these views are not inherently contradictory to what we consider to be rhetoric. Sometimes it's difficult for people to notice the similarities between schools of thought because they are so stuck in their own language regarding the topic.
Finally, I love the choice to use a skit that "not necessarily meant to have a bigger meaning," and read a little deeper into it! I guess that's just rhetoric for you!
I've been doing alot of thinking about mainstream modern rhetoric being violence. Although I do have a much to say about this, I'm going to keep this comment concise by agreeing with the sentiment and talking about how it seems to perpetuate itself.
ReplyDeleteIn a world in which acts of violence are common, the only way to survive for any length of time is to defend yourself. As long as the act of defending oneself is also an act of violence, the system cannot be broken. As long as there are people forcing their viewpoints on others, you must force your views on them to maintain your own views. To do otherwise would be to have another's views forced on yourself. Only once there is no one who would force their views on another could there be a rhetoric that aids both parties in a co-creation process.
Anyway, I like your post. I'm not sure why that woman in the video couldn't just give her own name, but I suppose that's why it's funny.
Billy on the street is my fave; we did an exercise like this in my cultural rhetorics class w/ dr. hitt, she asked us to write all the male authors we knew and then all the female authors we knew; in the end, we could name about 5x more male authors than female authors, not because women don't write but because we prioritize the "classics," often written by men and chosen as important by men, and women were pushed aside if they didn't say something other than "i hate men, i am a radical" because those examples were used to show how crazy women writers were loved the post; it is so funny how she couldn't come up with a woman lol
ReplyDelete