The canons of Egyptian rhetoric have really stuck with me this semester, and I wanted to think about them some more as I wrote my final paper for this class. Silence, the first canon, is especially interesting. My final paper looks at how racism is implicitly passed through our laws, court decisions, and other legislation, but part of that is rhetorical silence. It's something that we see a lot in political discussions, as well as day-to-day discussions of policies, programs, and productions. Who is being included, and who is being excluded?
While the Fox reading on Egyptian rhetoric claims that this "moral posture" is excluded in classical rhetoric, as it is better for handling individuals rather than arguments, I would argue that silence can, and does, act as an argument. In my paper, I use the example of the Social Security Act back in the 1930s. There was a purposeful silence in that: agricultural and domestic service jobs were excluded from the act, which disproportionately affected black Americans, who primarily held those jobs.
We see more modern examples of silence on behalf of politicians, on both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump is metaphorically silent when it comes to denouncing and condemning white supremacist groups. In one of the Presidential debates, when asked, he avoided the question at first, claiming that most of the destruction he saw came from the left side. Then, he demands a specific group to condemn, and after naming the Proud Boys, he said "Stand by." You can rewatch the video from the debate.
His silence on these kinds of hateful, racist groups, speaks to the explicit racist, hateful things he has said.
He's not the only one using rhetorical silences, though. While Joe Biden released a video earlier this year asserting the fact that Black Lives Matter, the Instagram page for BLM recently called him and Kamala Harris out for not responding to their requests for a meeting.
They are both making arguments by not addressing the issues being asked. We see it from more than politicians, too. Think about when you read about a scandal or a crime that has occurred, and someone chooses not to comment to a news outlet. The immediate assumption is guilt: if they aren't guilty, then why are they refusing to say anything? Why are they not proclaiming their innocence? We're given this Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate ourselves, but sometimes the silence can be more telling than an actual relaying of events.
We hear about silences in terms of civil rights, too. Desmond Tutu has the famous quote stating that, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." We hear it when people point out that "White silence is violence." Silence is again and again seen as a purposeful, political choice.
So how do we balance our silences with our voices? Are we looking for purposeful silences and their meanings when we elect new public servants? How can we better pick up on the silences from public figures, when the point of silence is to stay out of the limelight?
I really enjoyed learning about Egyptian rhetoric as well during this class. It is something I had never heard of and I have come to like reading about the Egyptian canons of rhetoric over our principles of rhetoric. Silence is a super powerful tool in rhetoric. Saying nothing is sometimes louder than saying anything. I think back on Emma Gonzalez's speech in 2018 where she paused for 6 minutes and 20 seconds, the amount of time that the shooter was in Majory Stoneman Douglas High School. It was an extremely powerful time period because the silence was deafening. When politicians, governments, and leaders don't say anything on important issues it shows their priorities and values. have a great break and good luck on finals!
ReplyDeleteExcellent, excellent post Mary. You reminded me of Timothy Dougherty's "Knowing (Y)Our Story: Practicing Decolonial Rhetorical History", in which he states, "we know that even our silence is a rhetorical act, and that it speaks volumes about where someone stands", which also speaks to the idea that when white people refuse to acknowledge that we are complicit in white supremacy, we side with white supremacists. You ask really difficult questions about silence and political figures that will definitely keep me thinking!
ReplyDelete