Glenn, Cheryl. “Remapping Rhetorical Territory.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 13, no. 2, Spring 1995, pp. 287-303. JSTOR. Sept. 14, 2016. 

Glenn calls for a remapping of the traditional, male-dominated rhetorical history and canon to include marginalized rhetors diverse in gender, race, and class. Using Bizzell’s suggested methodologies, Glenn covers three angles for mapping consideration: historiography, feminism, and gender studies (288). Historiography, etymologically defined as writing history, calls into question the biases of any interpretation relayed through historical narrative. Ultimately, the job of this methodology is to connect the real and discourse, which often creates a type of myth: “historiographic rhetorical maps never reflect a neutral reality…they subtly shape our perceptions of a rhetoric englobed” (291). In approaching historiography angularly rather than linearly, it allows one to “make the unfamiliar familiar and the familiar unfamiliar,” which can help avoid “‘female tokenism’” (292; 293). Feminism and feminist studies brings women rhetors who have been overlooked for decades, or centuries even, to light through revisionary histories. Aspasia, Glenn’s main female example, has been considered a  second class rhetor at best because all that is documented from her is from secondary sources. Socrates, on the other hand, is canonized even though his rhetorical work is also only documented in secondary sources. The only significant difference is sex. Glenn calls for doing more than “merely compensatory or additive histories of women rhetoricians…any remapping must locate female rhetorical accomplishments within the male-dominated and male-documented rhetorical tradition that it interrogates” (293-294). Lastly, gender studies reveals the power hierarchy inherent in the rhetorical canon, largely beginning with Aristotle. While feminist research and gender studies are similar in scope, they bring differences in inquiry and methodology to rhetorical historiography. Gender studies is more about the culturally-constructed performative acts whereas feminist studies largely relies on sex as means for distinction. This multidisciplinary approach to mapping our rhetorical history provides a means for professionalizing more members of our field through “shared historical experiences” and new “ways to connect our current rhetorical inquiries, histories, and mappings with our contemporary academic and social concerns” (300; 299).

Glenn’s multidisciplinary approach aligns with much of our course discussion and readings so far. For example, Nugent and Ostergaard’s distinction between preservation and transformation is a different aspect of the same conversation. The very nature of English studies is rooted in an ever-changing history with dynamic boundaries that span disciplines from communication and linguistics to the pragmatic sub-fields of composition and pedagogy. McComiskey talks directly about the topic of identification in calling for integration within the field of English studies. Miller discusses the four disciplinary corners that make up the ambiguous field of English studies. Glenn’s discussion falls right in line with these concepts. To point to a static history would be a mistake as undoubtedly, there are still aspects, or angles to borrow Glenn’s terminology, yet veiled to our current modes of inquiry and research methodologies as they are fluid and even undefined in some sub-fields.

While this article is dated (1995), I selected it because of the focus on the gap in rhetorical history, which points to my chosen topic of rhetoric of identity. Gender studies, queer theories, and feminist studies all overlap with rhetoric of identity in some way. I do intend to focus more on a traditional Burkean notion of rhetoric of identity for my primary point for my research throughout the semester (mainly because it is more beneficial to my end research goals), but I would be replicating the very problem addressed within Glenn’s article if I did not look to include the marginalized aspects of rhetorical history.