The rhetorical theory we have read about in class thus far
has only partially examined the connection between rhetoric and power. Almost
every era we have studied has recognized rhetoric’s role in social mobility,
but has not taken the consideration as far as the creation of a society with
ideal rhetorical practices. For example, rhetoric began as the practice of
defending one’s rights to what they considered theirs; thus, someone more
convincing or given a better opportunity for persuasive action would be able to
gain more than those without such affordances. Eventually, people of the
renaissance era sought the study of rhetoric because it allowed them to gain
power within their social circle and within politics. Centuries later, the
study of rhetoric was utilized as a tool against class mobility at Harvard University;
by expecting students to adhere to certain communicative guidelines, people of
lower classes who had received different education from the society’s elites
could be barred from progressing in the academic sphere. Thus, the study of rhetoric
has always been about power; however, what these ideas lack is a focus on how
rhetoric can upset the balance of power for entire classes of people; they explain
how one gains power, but they do not expose the way in which others’ rhetoric
takes power away from those already disenfranchised. Many thinkers of contemporary
rhetoric sought to fill in these gaps in understanding.
One such scholar is Jürgen Habermas. Born in 1929, he is one
of the scholars Herrick credits as being one of the influential rhetorical thinkers
of the 20th century—despite not writing explicitly about rhetoric. He
was one of the many scholars who questioned the trend of using hard science
alone as a tool for understanding human nature and society. Habermas asserts
that a rational society is built upon well-equipped individuals communicating
under the assumption that they are equal in value and power; in other words,
for society to function in a healthy and logical manner, all people must be able
to experience the same amount of liberty and opportunity in speech, while also
being educated on civil discourse and, I assume, the topics which they want to
discuss.
This idea represents a utopia in many senses—for people to
have these kinds of freedoms in all situations at all times, inequality must be
extinguished, and many people regard a society of these conditions as being idealistic
and the material of fiction. In many ways, I agree that this represents an
unreachable utopia. A perfectly equitable society is probably impossible—I
think there will always be some kind of inequality somewhere. However, that
doesn’t mean it’s bad or unreasonable to fight for a future built on justice
and equality. Even if the goal is never fully realized, any improvement to the
treatment of human beings on systemic and individual levels is valuable and
worthwhile. Thus, though the perfect society built by Habermas may never be brought
fully into reality, it is a worthwhile use of time to make efforts towards
building such a society. Ideal rhetoric from this framework, then, cannot be
disconnected from activism, social change, and power. One cannot fight for the
implementation of ideal rhetoric without also fighting for the rights of the
less privileged.
I think the reason this is important right now is the
balance between protecting the masses and allowing individuals’ freedom of
speech. Censorship is dangerous—the people who enforce censorship are those already
in power, and they use their abilities to pursue their agendas, and often,
these agendas are not purposed to alleviate suffering, but rather, to procure
more power for the elites. It is important, then, to give the individual the
right to say what they want when they want. However, this comes at a price.
This price in the 21st century is the mass spread of misinformation
and the toleration of prejudice. Because people are expected to be able to
speak their minds, no matter how hateful, they are given the ability to
discriminate in words and in writing against others, and frequently, these “others”
are those who already suffer because of preexisting inequalities. The problem
with this idea—that hateful speech is okay—is that people’s words don’t live in
a vacuum. When people communicate ideas, they influence others, and deepen
their own beliefs. By saying some group of people is lesser than another, the
speaker is necessarily saying it is okay to discriminate against them—and encouraging
this exact thing.
So, what’s the answer here? Do we allow some censorship to
keep people safe? Do we allow inequality to continue to be reinforced by people’s
words?
I don’t think we can settle for either end of that spectrum—in
the long run, what we need is tangible, foundational societal change. Just like
Habermas proposed, rational society is built upon people having equal access to
speaking their minds. However, what rational society also entails is the
baseline understanding that all people are equal. If it is assumed by all that
everyone is the same in worth, then there wouldn’t be a need to censor anyone—if
the norm is a lack of hate, then there is no hate to cover up or disallow. Thus,
I think that by creating a society which is predisposed to speak in a way which
values equity, many of the questions surrounding ideal rhetoric are answered. Of
course, that raises the question of how we make such a society…
Thus, here is a question for you: how does rhetoric need to
function to shape society into such a utopia? How does our current public discourse
need to change to foster such a future?
This is such an interest post and a very difficult question to address in such a brief way, but you've put some real nuanced thought into a solution. It is true that rhetoric had always had a relationship with power, and it seems that much of this can be seen in our studies in this course without being blatantly stated. Our studies in the history of rhetoric often focus on individuals or organizations that held power utilizing rhetoric, such as trusted philosophers or orators, religious leaders and the church, so on and so forth. Explorations of rhetoric used by those who did not hold power also show that these attempts were made as an effort to shift power more into their favor (female rhetoricians such as Maria Edgeworth, Black rhetoricians such as Fredrick Douglas and Ida B. Wells, etc.).
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly something to be examined in the way those in power utilize rhetoric to maintain their power in our current culture. Politicians and other leaders often focus on reducing the power of their opponents.
This is a very thoughtful post. I think a lot of times we like to envision a utopian society where everyone is equal, everyone is heard, and everyone lives happily. But, as you said, this utopia is very hard to achieve. Rhetoric is associated with power, and those who hold great influence do not need to try as hard to gain a following whereas those who are working their way to the top struggle more in using their rhetoric to gain a following. It is unfair that some people are born with a natural right of passage and others have to actually work for their living. It is as if rhetoric needs to be shaped as an art for the needy, not a skill for the privileged. Right now, our current rhetorical system creates a gap between the privileged and the needy which poses an issue since the needy are the ones who are often times left out in the decisions that matter to them the most. We should revise how politicians and other leaders train in their area of expertise. For example, if someone wants to make rules about education, then they should actually have a knowledgeable background in education. Rhetoric would then be more credible, influential, and effective if the people actually trained in the area they are covering.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about rhetoric currently serving as a way to deepen the gap between the classes--I mean what we read about Harvard kind of confirms this to be true. I think that teaching all people, especially people with less privilege, about rhetoric, and by extension critical thinking skills and communication skills, could be one way to help people out within this capitalist dystopia we live in. Hopefully, someday we will move closer to a utopia, but perhaps a good basis in rhetorical studies for all people could be a band-aid on the wound.
DeleteI don't really wish to be that guy, but we get enough walls of text to read in this class. Perhaps consider the ways a multimodal platform (like a blog post) can be used to enhance your message.
ReplyDeleteComplaints aside, I wanna focus on a point you brought up at the end:
If it is assumed by all that everyone is the same in worth, then there wouldn’t be a need to censor anyone—if the norm is a lack of hate, then there is no hate to cover up or disallow.
On top of being a spicy quote, it is something I think of often. There are many things that are ok or acceptable by themselves, but are problematic in a world here hate is the norm. For example, there has been some controversy over the last several years about white voice actors voicing POC. Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with that. In practice, it perpetuates, among other things, the exclusion of POC in the voice acting industry. There exist many things that would be acceptable in a vacuum, that are made problematic when built on a foundation of hate. These ideas that you write about are applicable in many situations and with many subjects beyond rhetoric. So, I might posit an (at least partial) answer to the question you posed at the end of your post. To build a more utopic future, rhetoric will need to work together with many subjects and disciplines.
P.S. I hope the formatting on this is ok, because I can't seem to get the preview button to work, so I have only a loose idea of what this will look like.
This post really gets to the bread and butter of why learning about the history of rhetoric is important. As for your question at the end: I don't believe we could ever reach a state of Utopia; and if we did, I doubt we would either recognize it or consider it ethical by today's standards. There are always going to be power imbalances so long as we have a structured, hierarchal system of government and especially as long as our society is founded on capitalist ideals. You talked about this in Friday's class and I completely agree with you that many of our modern problems can be traced back to capitalism/ consumerism. However, just because this status is unlikely it doesn't mean that we can't still strive for it and get benefits for our efforts. One of the biggest things holding us back from progressing is our unwillingness to change; we see that a lot today in politics. Being resistant to things changing means that our "victories," or our steps towards a Utopian society, are hard-fought and slowly won.
ReplyDeleteElaine! This is so eloquent and well-put. I was floored by this summary: "Rhetoric began as the practice of defending one’s rights to what they considered theirs; thus, someone more convincing or given a better opportunity for persuasive action would be able to gain more than those without such affordances." You managed to put such a complex idea so simply and accessibly.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your saying in class that it is our capitalist culture and values that produce our public discourse. Capitalism assumes that, if you pit several ideas together, that the "best" idea (or business/product/what have you) will naturally emerge the victor. But that ignores the race, class, and gender privilege that almost always has a hand in the idea which prevails. Really excellent post.
Now that we have read more about Burke, I think it would be interesting to work his theories into this conversation. For example, we might think about identification vs. division as tools for answering the questions I posed to you all. One way we might instill a respect for all people in every individual is to promote identification between people of different backgrounds. I'll say this though--it needs to come from the top down. We have asked far too much from people who are already oppressed--asking the oppressed parties to find identification with their oppressors is... stinky. I don't think that's really pragmatic, either; the oppressed people aren't the ones bringing about oppression, so any kindness they show to their oppressors will be taken as weakness and they'll be exploited further. Fighting hatred with love or peace or whatever, in my opinion, simply does not work. Thus, we have to find a way to get those in power to... stop misusing their power. And we're back to square one in terms of understanding how to solve the problem! lol
ReplyDeleteIn terms of how our public discourse needs to change to create this kind of society, I think first and foremost, we need to expect more from our public servants. We cannot allow politicians to make us afraid of people who aren't maliciously doing anything, and we need them to denounce hateful groups, not disavow them. You above comment about change coming from the top down is absolutely correct. We cannot put up with hateful comments coming down from the top. We have the power, and we need to exercise it. I think you also have a point where you say that one potential way is to promote identification among different groups. I recently read something for another class about the British colonization of Antigua, and the author, Jamaica Kincaid, writes about how difficult it is to speak the language of the criminal, with no tongue of your own; the criminal is hearing of their crimes in their language, and so they can defend themselves, and they cannot fully understand the horrors and the impact of what they're doing. So would promoting identification be effective? I'm not sure. Besides the points that you mention, which are all valid points, oppressed people are stuck trying to use the language of the criminal, of the oppressor, to explain to them why what they did was wrong, and often times, the oppressor just doesn't get it.
ReplyDeleteWhat is also unfortunate is the need for oppressed people to work within the system to change the system. For example, many abolitionists still called for the conviction of Breonna Taylor's murderers--which sounds kind of like hypocrisy (not the best word for what I mean but it's the only one coming to mind currently) on first glance, since the whole point of abolition is to abolish prisons and police. However, if you look deeper, you can quickly realize this is really the only form of justice we can seek within the current system. There's no other way to make sure these people don't have the option to hurt more people. The only other solution that works within the system is to fire them and make sure they're never in a job like that again. But even so, there's no accountability, and there isn't a way to ensure they won't have access to vulnerable people in the future. So it's a situation that feels like cognitive dissonance; one one hand, we seek structural change, but in the mean time, we have to use the current system to reduce harm as best we can.
Delete