Tag: rhetoric of identity

Paper #6: “On Being a Scholar of Rhetoric of Identity”

Leave a comment

What does it take to be a scholar of…well, anything? I don’t know that I have ever truly paused to think this through before as I am a person who is always pushing towards the next thing, whether that is the next paper, class, degree, or even just the next weekend. Yet, this course of study has made it is clear that to be a scholar of anything requires a foundational knowledge of the history. For speaking-wellmy chosen research topic of rhetoric of identity, Quintilian and Cicero represent just a few of the males who dominated the rhetorical tradition early on. Both rhetors stressed the character of the speaker: Quintilian with his mantra of “A Good Man Speaking Well” and Cicero with his emphasis on the importance of “integrity and supreme wisdom” (Bizzell & Herzberg 359; qtd. in Katz 255). It wasn’t until the last half a century that women began to emerge from the patriarchal structure of rhetoric’s past. Key scholars like Glenn and Gale gave Aspasia a voice, and others such as Showalter and Butler have furthered the push to restore marginalized voices to the canon.

But it isn’t the history alone that defines rhetoric of identity. While rhetorical scholars are still asking similar major questions about the identity of the rhetor and the audience (Depew), the objects of study have expanded to include both human and non-human texts. From online identity constructions to the physical body, nearly anything can be rhetorically crafted and therefore analyzed. Through my research this semester, I surprisingly found my own epistemological alignment somewhere near the camp of the Marxists. Althusser, for example, claims that ideologies are ever-present and are constantly acting upon us, molding and making us who we are (1335-1360). Why not rhetorically analyze who we are then in an effort to unveil some of these ideological implications upon our own identity constructs?

This is the root reason for my research interest. My own upbringing in a Christian identityschool was volatile in many ways as worldviews clashed around me and much was determined for me. I am grateful for many reasons for the protective environment in which I was raised and in which I now find myself as a faculty member. However, my role as teacher now affords me a different perspective on these ideological forces, and I feel a responsibility to my students to act as a catalyst for them, to expose them to ideas beyond the horizon of the tension-filled ideologies of religion and education. For in these types of institutions, much as Foucault claims, their identities have been largely determined for them through the language of the mission statement, daily procedures, schedules, curriculum objectives, etc.

These reflections, on both my own identity and those largely pre-determined identities of my students, keeps me coming back to these rhetorical theories of identification. Kenneth Burke’s theories of consubstantiality, of being both joined with yet separate from, seems to be a potential key to guiding my students to self-discovery through the ways in which I design my own course assignments and frame my discourse communities, into which I invite my students (1325). Student identity constructs are my object of study, primarily because students are my passion. Knowledge and a clashing of worldviews, ideologies, and theories has been transformative for me, and it is that transformation that I hope for my students.

The pedagogical implications of rhetoric of identity are never-ending. From Karen Kopelson’s move away from identity-based pedagogical approaches to Erin Gruwell’s less-than-formalized rhetorical choices to connect with her student audience, teachers posses a great power and responsibility to create an atmosphere where students are comfortable to explore and to create their own identities (Kopelson 17-35). For some, this will be major as they question their sexuality and gender associations. For others, it might mean they process the familiar identity constructs of their close friends and family members and decide that is exactly where they fit with their own identity. Wherever each student may fall, this is my civic rhetoric: my rhetorically-designed classroom for identity construction.

This brings me to my final point on what it takes to be a scholar of rhetoric of identity: reflection and ownership. To be a scholar of anything requires a reflectiondedication to metacognitive reflection, rhetorical identification perhaps moreso because of the uniquely personal nature of identity research. These times of reflection should lead to a sense of ownership that moves one to civic engagement of some capacity. Ivory towers and academic silos are not where English Studies belong, much have we have discussed this semester; and any scholar of rhetoric of identity should show ownership of this move to engage the public with ideas, theories, and findings. Everyone has an innate desire to belong; identification rhetoric can provide a means for engaging this desire to be “both joined together, yet separate from” a community (Burke 1325). For me, in this phase of my life, being a scholar of rhetoric of identity means that I make myself consubstantial with my students, with my academic classmates and colleagues, and with my diverse community groups.

Works Cited

Althusser, Louis. “From Ideology and State Apparatuses.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 1335-1360.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. “Quintilian.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001, 359-364.

Burke, Kenneth. “From A Rhetoric of Motives.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001, 1324-1340.

Butler, Judith. “From Gender Trouble.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 2540-2552.

Depew, Kevin. Personal interview. 5 October 2016.

Foucault, Michel. “From The Order of Discourse.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 1460-1470.

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

Katz, S. B. “The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the Holocaust.” College English, vol. 54, no. 3, 1992, pp.255-275. JSTOR. Oct. 4, 2008.

Kopelson, Karen. “Dis/Integrating the Gay/Queer Binary: ‘Reconstructed Identity Politics’ for a Performative Pedagogy.” College English, vol. 65, no. 1, pp.17-35, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250728. Accessed 12 Oct. 2016.

Showalter, Elaine. “Introduction and Chapter 1.” A Literature of their Own: British Women Novelists from Bronte to Lessing. Expanded Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1999. p. xi-36. Print.

Paper #5: Objects of Study-Rhetoric of Identity

1 Comment

As is true for the field of English Studies in general, the objects of study for rhetoric of identity are vast and interdisciplinary. Texts, both human and not, of all kinds become points of analysis under a rhetorical lens. Traditional objects of study are written (books and the like) and oral (speeches predominantly) with attention to addressing the major questions surrounding the rhetor and the audience.

  1. What are the rhetor’s intentions and how does he/she want to be perceived?
  2. How much of the rhetor’s identity is determined by the audience? (Depew).

Phillip Sipiora, for example, analyzed Darwin’s book Origin of the Species with attention to the identity Darwin as author/rhetor created because he knew his largely religious audience would not readily accept his scientific ideas. Ryan Lee Teten demonstrates analysis of oral texts in looking at State of the Union Addresses from the founding fathers to the current presidents to look at identification rhetoric usage in addressing dual audiences of Congress and the general public.

identity-map1

Example of Multiple Identity Constructions via Social Media

The texts that dominate objects of study within the rapidly evolving twentieth and twenty-first centuries have expanded to include visual arguments, social media presences, and physical bodies just to name a few. Social media particularly has prompted much identity research as, in many ways, online identity has become a type of simulacrum slipping from a reflection of basic reality to little or no relation to the reality of the original identity (Baudrillard 1560). The ideal identity presence via digital platforms can be rhetorically crafted for any number of audiences.

Twenty-first century conversations are largely building on the latter object of study, physical bodies, by exploring issues of gender and cultural impact on identity. Judith Butler is maintaining a dominant voice in the conversation for both professional and personal reasons. By challenging the norm and claiming all gender as performative, she effectively undermines many identity labels that promote a binary of the Other.

 

Karen Kopelson is another voice in this discussion. The pedagogical nature of some of her work is of interest to me as I hope to find a niche in researching student identity constructs as one of my primary objects of study. Her queer pedagogical approach evolves from her claim that

“any aspect of identity, or any intersection of aspects of identity, can be ‘queered’” (25).

 

Her complete rejection of identity-based pedagogical approaches left me questioning the ethical implications of a queer pedagogical approach that has “the express intention of disrupting students’ identity-based expectations” or that attempts to keep “them [students] ‘off balance’ by deliberately shifting among and between positions of provocative skepticism and fervent belief” (20, 25). As one instructor within Kopelson’s example stated, some students need an essentialist identity for a time of transition into a more unstable mindset. This argument is just one of many examples connecting rhetoric of identity to the classroom.

These snapshot examples of current conversations and objects of study stem from a longstanding rhetorical history dating back to the Sophists and Socrates. While objects of study were largely limited to oral texts at this time, written texts became just as dominant in research once the printing press evolved and rhetoric was re-birthed in the late 1800s. The establishment of the canon gave boundaries for accepted and respected objects of study until the feminist movements of the twentieth century. The canon then became an object of study for different purposes: highlighting its many gaps. Marginalized groups were not, and still are not equally, represented. Those lost and missing voices became a dominant area aspasiafrom which to pull objects of study. Aspasia, as Dr. VanHaitsma stressed through her article selections earlier this semester, was one of the first objects of feminist study. This attempt to balance the voices of the canon has led the field to current conversations of queering objects of study. These feminist and queer theoretical lens inherently build upon the tradition of rhetoric of identity.

A common thread of most of our course readings and discussions this semester has been the volatile boundaries and border crossings of the multidisciplinary field of English studies. My research of rhetorical conversations of identity connect in many ways to this crisis as English majors often find themselves in careers not entirely relatable to the core subdiscplines of English Studies. Even teaching is outside the scope of some English programs of study. For these reasons, some scholars, such as Matthew T. Pifer, argue for a reconceptualization of professional identity for English majors as generalists or teacher-scholars. This new professional identity would alter several aspects, from scholarship to epistemology, of the field (188-190). Perhaps the generalist can become a new object of study for rhetoric of identity research. How does the label of teacher-scholar affect identity construction for graduates?

Works Cited

Baudrillard, Jean. “From The Precession of Simulacra.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd. Ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 1553-1566.  

Depew, Kevin. Personal interview. 5 October 2016.

Pifer, Matthew T. “On the Border: Theorizing the Generalist.” Transforming English Studies: New Voices in an Emerging Genre, edited by Lori Ostergaard, Jeff Ludwig, and Jim Nugent, Parlor Press, 2009, 179-194.

Sipiora, Phillip. “Ethical Argumentation in Darwin’s Origin of the Species.” Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, edited by James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, Southern Methodist University Press, 1995, 265-292.

Teten, Ryan Lee. “‘We the People’: The ‘Modern’ Rhetorical Popular Address of the Presidents during the Founding Period.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 4, Dec. 2007, pp. 669-682. Ebscohost, doi: 10.1177/1065912907304495. Accessed 27 Oct. 2016.

Rhetoric of Identity: Epistemological Alignment

2 Comments

I suppose the guiding questions for this paper would firstly prompt a confession of my true identityintentions behind my research interests in rhetoric of identity: I am largely still trying to figure out my own identity. I don’t entirely know what I want to be when I grow up and there are many layers within my thirty-one years of life that have played a part in who I am as a scholar and truth-seeker, an educator, a student, a wife, a friend, a daughter, etc. Behind each aspect of my identity lies questions of how that construction came to be.

What rhetorical elements were and are still at play in my own identity formation and what role do I play in the identity constructions, both actively and passively, of my students and those whom I interact with consistently? What role does society play on my identity and the identities of my students?

 

As we have firmly established already this semester, English is a multidisciplinary field. If we can not agree on any other definition, that fact is evident. This fact is precisely what led me to English and has continued to lure me back into the English classroom, both as student and teacher. Rhetoric is of particular interest to me because it seems to be the intersection of so many aspects of each subdiscipline. The texts of study and contexts of consideration of each subfield require attention to unique rhetorical situations, and the resulting identities are fascinating to me. Language, society and culture, power structures, ideologies–all of these converge through rhetoric and impact identity construction in multifarious ways. How are we ultimately defined by the ideologies embedded within each of the above listed aspects? And how are these ideologies translated to us as members of a myriad of communities at any given stage of our lives? It is for all of these reasons that I have narrowed my research energy this semester to rhetoric of identity.

Althusser: Subjectivity and Ideology

In considering my own epistemological alignment, I find myself returning to Kenneth Burke’s term consubstantiality. Burke uses this term to describe someone who is both joined with and separate from another person or group. In our postmodern society, this seems to be how most people prefer to think of themselves in relation to any discourse community; we want to be part of a community but also maintain some level of independence and individuality. I also find myself more readily drawn to discussions of subjectivity, as Louis Althusser uses the term  when describing the identity construct one assumes within an ideological framework. We are capable, to some extent, of role-playing or assuming some level of expected identity portrayal when functioning within an ideological framework, but are we also able to resist the identity constructions being placed upon us?

From my own personal experience as both a student and a teacher within religious school settings, the overlapping ideologies of religion and education demand a certain identity. When applying a Burkean lens to one K-12 school’s vision statement, these two ideologies converge into a specific identity construct that is expected of students: “to become godly warriors.” Rhetoric helps to maintain the constant tension between the two ideologies and enables the subjectivity of each student and faculty member who is consubstantial with the institution.

In looking through sources for this paper, I discovered quite a spectrum in relation to this conversation of rhetoric of identity. From Freud to Burke to Butler, the topic dips into multidisciplinarity quickly. Burke, a follower of Freud in many regards, believed that “the most fundamental human desire is social rather than sexual” as Freud often claimed (124). Another point of divergent thought in Burke and Freud is in Burke’s insistence that “there is no essential identity” (Davis 127). The identifying “I” becomes essentially an actor assuming the mores of a group as a means of identification. The underlying premise here is that there is “an ‘individual’ who is individuated by nature itself”; this estrangement between self and other Burke explains as biological (128). Overcoming this biological estrangement becomes the rhetorical job of identification.

This of course relates to the Hegelian concept of the Other as well as Judith Butler’s inclusion of otherness in queer theory. Karen Kopelson, utilizing Butler’s theories, seems to be on the other end of the spectrum from either Freud or Burke: no intrinsic identity or self. Freud, claiming there is an intrinsic sexual self, forms one end of the spectrum; Burke, believing in an estranged biological self that is influenced socially, plots another point, perhaps near the middle of the spectrum, while Butler and Kopelson are on the other end of this identity spectrum: identity is performative.

This provides quite the array to consider when seeking my own epistemological alignment. Because my learning outcomes are often connected, at least partially, to my own identity as an educator, my Objects of Study are often students themselves and connecting artifacts, such as school handbooks and vision and mission statements. The pedagogical basis of Kopelson’s argument caught my attention for that reason. However, I was left questioning the ethical implications of a queer pedagogical approach that has “the express intention of disrupting students’ identity-based expectations” or that attempts to keep “them [students] ‘off balance’ by deliberately shifting among and between positions of provocative skepticism and fervent belief” (20, 25). As one instructor within Kopelson’s example stated, some students need an essentialist identity for a time of transition into a more unstable mindset. Are teenagers cognitively and emotionally able to deal with this level of instability?  

These residual questions imply that I do not align in all regards with queer theory approaches. I do, however, believe that Burke was onto something with his discussion of identity being largely molded by society and Althusser’s notions of ideological implications in identity construction. Butler also speaks to gender being a social construct, so in that regard I do agree with her theories. I believe that I align somewhere within this Marxist camp in its emphasis of power structures and ideological influence, although I obviously do not subscribe to all Marxist tenets.

Ultimately, I am fascinated in language’s power, no matter the theoretical lens, to impact identity construction in ways of which an individual is not even aware. I hope to find a niche in researching student identity constructs as one of my primary objects of study. Perhaps, through my research process, I will start to understand my own identity…here’s to hoping!

who-am-i

Works Cited

Althusser, Louis. “From Ideology and State Apparatuses.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 1335-1360.

Burke, Kenneth. “From A Rhetoric of Motives.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001, 1324-1340.

Davis, Diane. “Identification: Burke and Freud on Who You Are.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 2, 2008, pp. 123-147, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02773940701779785. Accessed 12 Oct. 2016.

Kopelson, Karen. “Dis/Integrating the Gay/Queer Binary: ‘Reconstructed Identity Politics’ for a Performative Pedagogy.” College English, vol. 65, no. 1, pp.17-35, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250728. Accessed 12 Oct. 2016.

 

PAB #3 (Epistemological Alignment)

1 Comment

Davis, Diane. “Identification: Burke and Freud on Who You Are.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 2, 2008, pp. 123-147, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02773940701779785. Accessed 12 Oct. 2016.

Davis highlights some distinctions between Burke’s theories of identity, largely centered upon symbolic acts that result in consubstantiality, and Freud’s psychoanalytic connections of the narcissist self and the other. Burke was heavily influenced by Freud, yet does move decisively away from Freudian notions at a couple points. These points of divergence largely center on Burke’s insistence that “Identification is compensatory to division” (123). Furthermore, Burke believes that “the most fundamental human desire is social rather than sexual,” as Freud often claimed (124).

Burke, the father of modern rhetoric, was well-versed in Aristotelian foundations of rhetoric being primarily an act of persuasion. Burke took that foundation and went further, claiming “that any persuasive act is first of all an identifying act” (125). This is where his term consubstantial is introduced, for one is both joined with and separate from another in most instances of identification. It is important to Burke that complete unity is not established as this unity would negate the need for any rhetorical/symbolic act. The ability to resist complete unity comes through human capability for critique and logic and rests in “the productive tension between fusion and division” (126).

Where one can find a point of divergent thought in Burke and Freud is in Burke’s insistence that “there is no essential identity” (127). The identifying “I” becomes essentially an actor assuming the mores of a group as a means of identification. The underlying premise here is that there is “an ‘individual’ who is individuated by nature itself”; this estrangement between self and other Burke explains as biological (128). Overcoming this biological estrangement becomes the rhetorical job of identification.

Davis briefly turns to the neuroscience behind much of these theories; mirror neurons in the brain actually do not make a distinction when I pick up a pencil or when I see someone else pick up a pencil. The same neurons fire. This unravels some of Burke’s presumptions. Another point of Burkean divergence rests upon Freud’s argument that identity constructs, perhaps better qualified as dis-identifications as they are identity constructs formed through disassociations, formed in the oral stage largely stick. Yet, one can see Burke and Freud converging once again in Freud’s second stage, that is largely social in nature, and in their theoretical bases on an ontological self with desires:

“So although Burke challenges psychoanalytical criticism for reducing the desire for social intercourse to a sexual desire, he is very much with the ‘official’ Freud in his refusal to question the ontological priority of desire itself, which, despite it all, presumes a subject who has desires, be they conscious or unconscious” (130).

 

Freud introduced Hypnosis and claimed that suggestion was magically powerful usage of language

Through an explanation of hypnosis and the power of language used throughout the  hypnotic process, Davis highlights the fact that Burke only briefly and without true explanation deals with the “rhetoric of hysteria.” This points to yet another point of divergence, albeit minor, in that Freud champions the “magic” of language’s power through suggestion, the rhetorical process of hypnotizing someone, which becomes a “fundamental problem” for rhetorical theory (142). Burke maintains “an almost absolute faith in the power of reason” in spite of one’s capacity for hysteria or ability to be manipulated through the power of suggestion. Davis concludes that, ultimately, “the[ir] disagreement is in the details” (125).

This article fits the context of our course outcomes in that it highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the field. Burke’s rhetorical theories are largely rooted in the field of psychology with their overt nod to Freud. Throughout Davis’s discussion, she references Heidegger, Lacan, and Butler, pointing to the interconnectivity of not only our field but theories within the field. This article also gives me some context for my own learning goals of re-familiarizing myself with rhetoric of identity and the key players and terms within that conversation.

Paper #2: Major Questions

3 Comments

Aristotle’s Rhetorical Situation

        While the major questions utilized by rhetoricians of identity have largely branched out into various directions, the common foundation does harken back to the classical concept of the rhetorical situation. The rhetor and the audience are the dominant points of connectivity when it comes to analyzing identity portrayal and perceptions. These two focal points highlight two of the major questions:

  1. What are the rhetor’s intentions and how does he/she want to be perceived?
  2. How much of the rhetor’s identity is determined by the audience? (Depew).

Each of these inquiries yields a series of sub-questions.

        When analyzing a rhetor’s intentions and identity portrayal, Aristotelian questions arise: what rhetorical tools are available to the rhetor and to what extent is he/she using those tools to persuade an audience? What challenges does the rhetor face in establishing the identity construct necessary to successfully persuade an audience (Depew)? For example, a white, young female teacher may have a difficult time in teaching a largely black/minority high school class because these audience members might associate with a certain people group. Take the nonfiction story of Freedom Writers. Erin Gruwell, the highlighted teacher, struggles to gain the trust of her “audience,” in this case a classroom full of students, because she does not look like them and is in an authority position of which they have come to be leery. Her rhetorical tools revolve around reaching into her students’ culture and pulling out artifacts to which they can relate and from which they can learn through familiar out-of-school literacies. freedomwritersstillcap2

        Sub-questions surrounding the analysis of the audiences’ perceptions of any given rhetor involve an audience’s awareness of social context. Does the audience see the rhetor’s identity as enacted through the social context? Does the audience see the rhetor’s identity as monolithic or fragmented, meaning reliant upon the rhetorical situation at hand (Depew)? This second question can also be inverted and applied back to the rhetor as well.

        These issues stemming from the rhetorical situation also point to questions of terminology. One term used in these conversations is consubstantiality, popularized by Kenneth Burke through his rhetorical theories of identity. Burke uses this term to describe someone who is both joined with and separate from another person or group. Louis Althusser uses subjectivity when describing the identity construct one assumes within an ideological framework. These more recent terms were preceded by Aristotle’s concept of ethos, which has probably changed and evolved the most over the past 2,000+ years. While Aristotle originally used the term as a site of persuasion, scholars and theorists have tailored the definition to modern culture and individual research projects. Susan C. Jarratt and Nedra Reynolds, for example, trace various uses of the term ethos etymologically. They “reread classical ethos through feminist history,” which reveals that while older definitions of ethos point to customs or habits, newer notions point to character (40). Ultimately, their rereading allows for a classical notion of ethos that will acknowledge difference and therefore give voice to feminism (50). Experience and difference become integral to an understanding of the feminist rhetor.

        With a slightly different angle on the term ethos, Marshall W. Alcorn Jr. argues for a definition of “ethos as a relationship existing between the discourse structures of selves and the discourse structures of ‘texts’” (6). Aristotle’s ethos implies that an audience, always passive, can be persuaded by the mere character of the speaker. His primary claim is that the self is ultimately a rhetorical entity as the two act upon one another: “The self is stable enough to resist change and changeable enough to admit to rhetorical manipulation but not so changeable as to constantly respond, chameleonlike, to each and every social force” (17). These changes require effective rhetoric with stylistic devices tailored to an audience well-researched. Alcorn deals with not only the question of terms and definitions, but also with the sub-question relating to rhetor’s identity as reliant upon social and rhetorical context and fragmented rather than monolithic.

        Feminist scholars and queer theorists have also recently taken up the conversation and given the research questions related to rhetorical identity constructs a gender focus. Judith Butler, for example, asks how identity is ultimately established through performative acts. Jacques Lacan questions society’s role in identity construction. Ultimately, while major

Barthes’ “The Death of the Author”

questions connected to identity constructs do still point to the foundational rhetorical situation, there has been a significant postmodern shift away from the rhetor’s intention and intended identity portrayal. Roland Barthes, for example, in “The Death of the Author” puts all the interpretive power in the hands of the audience. These might be the most significant historical shifts in major questions from Aristotle to current theorists: agency now lies with the audience and society.

My personal learning outcomes are always connected in part to how I can apply theory to my own pedagogy to improve practice in my classroom. Jarratt and Reynolds’ reread ethos has pedagogical implications in that it can move student writing past the general audience and “Everyman” voice that students are accustomed to and comfortable with. With a framing of difference and multiplicity, teachers can encourage student writers to “split and resuture textual selves” through their writing (57). To me, this is dangerous territory as student identity constructs are largely unstable to begin with. There are ethical considerations for all theories we expose students to and encourage them to explore. Is it then unethical to potentially shake their identities in such a way? Or do we as instructors have an ethical obligation to expose them to a myriad of identity theories as they are seeking their writing voice? This might be a landscape for rhetorical analysis of identity.

Works Cited

Alcorn, Marshall W. Jr. “Self-Structure as a Rhetorical Device: Modern Ethos and the   Divisiveness of the Self.” Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, edited by James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, Southern Methodist University Press, 1995, 3-35.

Althusser, Louis. “From Ideology and State Apparatuses.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 1335-1360.

Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 1322-1326.

Burke, Kenneth. “From A Rhetoric of Motives.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001, 1324-1340.

Butler, Judith. “From Gender Trouble.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 2540-2552.

Depew, Kevin. Personal interview. 5 October 2016.

Jarratt, Susan C., and Nedra Reynolds. “The Splitting Image: Contemporary Feminisms and the Ethics of ethos.” Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, edited by James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, Southern Methodist University Press, 1995, 37-63.

Lacan, Jacques. “From The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 1169-1180.

PAB Entry #2 (Major Questions)

Leave a comment

Alcorn, Marshall W. Jr. “Self-Structure as a Rhetorical Device: Modern Ethos and the   Divisiveness of the Self.” Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, edited by James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, Southern Methodist University Press, 1995, 3-35.

Alcorn argues for a reconception of ethos in both building upon and moving away from traditional (Aristotelian) definitions of ethos and poststructuralist (Rorty) definitions of the self. He argues for a definition of “ethos as a relationship existing between the discourse structures of selves and the discourse structures of ‘texts’” (6). The ancient Greek understanding of the self was conceptualized more as a character, defined and enacted by society. ethos_pathos_logosAristotle’s ethos implies that an audience, always passive, can be persuaded by the mere character of the speaker. Rorty goes further in defining the components of any self-structure as an evolution of four entities: character, person, self, and individual. It is not until the final stage, the individual, that one is free to select his or her identity construct. Alcorn agrees with the notion that “history shapes selves,” but the self is not passively shaped as it “can dialectically engage and resist…social interaction (12, 14). His main claim is that the self is ultimately a rhetorical entity as the two act upon one another: “The self is stable enough to resist change and changeable enough to admit to rhetorical manipulation but not so changeable as to constantly respond, chameleonlike, to each and every social force” (17). These changes require effective rhetoric with stylistic devices tailored to an audience well-researched.

The above theoretical considerations carry implications for a revision to the signified associated with the signifier ethos. While Alcorn isn’t claiming that either approach (Aristotelian or poststructuralist) is outdated, he is saying they are restrictive in light of the “prodigious diversity, plurality, and multiplicity” of our modern culture (18). These cultural characteristics have yielded a society full of divided, conflicted, and anxious selves. In utilizing a multidisciplinary approach, Alcorn taps into psychoanalysis through Freud’s ego freudmodeltheories. It is precisely these “inner voices” that a rhetor needs to tap into in order to rhetorically impact the self-structure. Alcorn also looks to sociological theories of leadership in the charismatic leader; it is the charismatic leader who is a “master of ethos” as he or she can communicate self (24). All of these discussions ultimately point to a modern ethos that is an “aesthetic manipulation of self-division” (28).

Literature and critical theory also reflect this modern concept of the divided self. In fact, Alcorn dedicates several pages to an analysis of Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant” to highlight the potential available to an author (or speaker) with a modern ethos. Lastly, Alcorn discusses the pedagogical implications of such a revision to the concept of ethos. If teachers can facilitate class discussions so as to tap into the self-structures of our modern culture’s divided student identities, rhetoric can impact change to these learning selves.

Alcorn’s argument is in response to some of the basic research questions surrounding the topic of rhetoric of identity: How does rhetoric connect to and affect/impact identity? He personalizes this question to seek out a relationship between the self and language that leads him to a conclusion that the two (rhetoric and identity) are co-dependent: one yields the other and vice versa.

Paper #1: History

3 Comments

A Historical Snapshot of Rhetoric of Identity: From Male-Dominated to Feminist-Focused

Trying to find a starting point for rhetorical discussion dedicated to identity has proven to be somewhat problematic as it is not actually a sub-discipline or a topic that scholars have solely dedicated their research to. Most embed or imply rhetoric of identity in larger studies and conversations. In fact, over time, schisms have arisen that assume a specific rhetorical identity stance through which to claim ethos and enter an ongoing conversation. Take feminist studies for example: Elaine Showalter, Barbara Smith, Judith Butler, and many more have established an identity construct that allows a rhetorical stance to be assumed and analysis to be done within the discourse community associated with that particular identity. Yet while the history is spotty and one must pull back layers, there is a rich history there.

      I would think it remiss if one did not include Quintilian and Cicero somewhere close to 05-01quintiliancicerobeginning of this movement. Of course the earliest moments of recorded rhetorical history are male-dominated, much like the traditional rhetorical canon. Many of these earliest rhetoricians dedicated their lives to education in the rhetorical tradition. Quintilian is one such rhetor. His infamous mantra of “A good man speaking well” is clear in its underlaid emphasis on the identity construct required of any good rhetorician (Bizzell and Herzberg 359-363). Cicero is another such rhetorician. He speaks to the importance of “integrity and supreme wisdom, and if we bestow fluency of speech on persons devoid of those virtues, we shall not have made orators of them, but shall have put weapons into the hands of madmen” (qtd. in Katz 255). The identity of the rhetorician was rarely divorced from the character of the speaker as the quality of skill was often associated with the integrity of a man.

      While this tradition lasted for quite some time, recently feminist scholars have challenged most if not all of the notions established by the males of our canon. Tita French Baulmin declares “a good woman speaking well” should also be granted a voice in this conversation of identity. With a specific research focus on the Renaissance era, not ironically known for the “Renaissance man” rather than woman, she claims that the phrase would be considered a contradiction. In calling on the rhetorical identity term ethos, she claims that “Ethos as the site of ideological battle will always show traces of capitulations to, and exploitations of, both authority and Other” (253). Using Elizabeth I, she argues that to identity her as an “honorary male” based on her rhetoric would be an eradication of identity.

      Baulmin’s conversation brings together two historically significant aspects to the rhetoric of identity conversation: the variants in terminology and the concept of the Other. Ethos, while most commonly associated with Aristotle’s appeals, can be ascribed to “personal or collective identity” (Zulick 20). Kenneth Burke, my personal point of interest in this historical burkeconversation, uses the term consubstantial to describe someone who is both joined with and separate from another person or group. This, he claims, is “the source of dedications and enslavements” (qtd. in Bizzell and Herzberg 1325). Hegel introduced the concept of the Other, in which one can only truly understand one’s self through interactions with and comparisons to another (541). This has been carried over into more current conversation of gender and sex in the fields of feminist and queer studies.

      For feminist scholars such as Cheryl Glenn, historiography cannot be accurately accomplished without the joint perspectives of gender studies and feminism, two sub-disciplines vital today to any rhetorical discussion of identity (288). Most relevant discussions will most likely adopt a multidisciplinary approach to identity, making rhetoric one of several angles. In fact, Zarefsky, in mapping out four senses of rhetorical history, also speaks to the multidisciplinary nature of most methodologies and modes of inquiry. My approach to this research on rhetoric of identity seems to best fit within his sense of the rhetoric of history because of the ideological implications of identity constructs (27-28).

      Most aspects to any identity are going to be largely constituted through language. From Quintilian to Burke to more recent contributions to the conversation, like Lacan (identity as being a social construct) and Butler (identity as a series of performative actions), the conversations of rhetoric of identity are still finding the right words through which to discuss this interdisciplinary topic. The university system as a whole employs rhetoric of identity continuously as faculty members, students, and sports fans alike make themselves consubstantial with the ideals of their chosen institution. Our current political season has encouraged attention once again to the topic of rhetoric of identity as citizens seek out a place in which to have a voice that is heard through a candidate to whom they might identity. In these ways, rhetoric of identity goes beyond the walls of any university.

Works Cited

Baulmin, Tita French. “‘A Good (Wo)Man Skilled in Speaking’: Ethos, Self-Fashioning, and   Gender in Renaissance England.” Ethos: New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, edited by James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, Southern Methodist University Press, 1994, 229-263.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. “Quintilian.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001, 359-364.

Burke, Kenneth. “From A Rhetoric of Motives.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001, 1324-1340.

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

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. “From Phenomenology of Spirit.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed., edited by Vincent B. Leitch, et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2010, 541-547.

Katz, S. B. “The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the Holocaust.” College English, vol. 54, no. 3, 1992, pp.255-275. JSTOR. Oct. 4, 2008.

Zarefsky, David. “Four Senses of Rhetorical History.” Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases. Ed. Kathleen J. Turner. University of Alabama Press, 1998, 19-32.

Zulick, Margaret D. “The Ethos of Invention: The Dialogue of Ethics and Aesthetics in Kenneth Burke and Mikhail Bakhtin.” The Ethos of Rhetoric, edited by Michael J. Hyde, University of South Carolina Press, 2004, 20-33.

PAB Entry #1 (history paper)

Leave a comment

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 englishso 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.