Foss and Griffin
note that, in how rhetoric is usually framed as being a process of
persuasion, it demonstrates a “manifestation of the patriarchal
bias” (2). Their intention is to frame feminist rhetorics into an
alternative to this kind of discourse; they want to establish an
“invitational rhetoric” that allows for more open and invited
discussion framed against this “rhetoric of patriarchy [that
reflects] its values of change, competition, and domination” (4).
Hart-Davidson, et al argue for a consideration of Berlin’s shift
away from rhetorical studies to that of a cultural studies focus so
that we can better comprehend the “historically contingent power
hierarchies” (126). The intersection of these two texts is both
call for a more socially aware and accepting means of approaching (or
perhaps distancing) rhetorical discourse. In imagining a hybrid of
these two takes, an intersecting and interesting conceptualization of
rhetoric can emerge, but because of the nature of these two
approaches, it would be a strange one.
I mention both of
these because of the art instillation that our group worked on calls
for a physical formalization of feminist rhetoric, and we used Foss
and Griffin alongside Hawhee to begin this process. During the
initial stages of the project, these two worked together well in
attempting to make the abstract “concrete.” Jessi originally came
up with the idea of utilizing mirrors to demonstrate the invitational
rhetoric of Foss and Griffin (where the metaphor of a mirror and the
distancing from persuasion still existed in the concept of the rhetor
creating change), and this easily carried into Hawhee’s
“Invention-in-the-middle” where invention involves a reposition
of subject where “the emergent subject [itself] becomes a force in
the emerging discourse” (17). Beyond those two as a starting point,
conceptually linking Hart-Davidson, et al became much more
difficult—first, because their work was not categorically feminist,
and second, because their approach was implementing some of the same
concepts Foss and Griffin were opposed to. Hart-Davidson et al are
still dealing with persuasion even as they move out of the
established rhetorical tradition. Even their essay was framed as a
movement of persuading the audience. When we moved to the design
stage of an interlocking bridge, we again attempted to reconnect
Hart-Davidson et al into the project but quickly moved away from that
because of their approach.
Still, we felt that
there was a connection between all three of these articulations
despite not being able to have them converge in our project. One of
the reoccurring moments that has arisen in our readings has been
writers struggling with how to frame feminism; this usually manifests
itself as an argument against perceived feminist framework (or
understanding of the framework of others) as Condit, Asante,
Anzaldua, Trinh, and Jarratt have all worked to expand and create (or
disengage and break) new inclusions into the banner of feminist
thought. Foss and Griffin, more so than any other reading we have
approached this semester, give the best working definition of how
they see the tenants of feminism: “equality, immanent value, and
self-determination” (5). So in connecting Hart-Davidson et al with
Foss and Griffin, that also represents an initial link in the
community formulation Hart-Davidson et al discuss with “the process
of negotiation” within the Connected Kids project (137). We see,
at the very least, a community striving for those values (and framed
within the constraints of an idealized concept of democratic
citizens) where they represent the ultimate goal of the process, a
community that breaks away from the notion of “a powerful
reinscription of the predominant white, male, upper-class subject
position, to whose authoritative genius women and the middling
classes [are] supposed to defer” (138). But even in advancing this
ideology, we see the conflict and persuasion that Foss and Griffin
oppose within Invitational Rhetoric (and the heart of why
Harts-Davidson et al were excluded from our project). Hart-Davision’s
active concept cannot function in reaching the goal of democratic
citizens within the confines of cultural studies without persuasive
action within the confines of a class structure. So how do these two
ideologies intervene? Is Invitational Rhetoric only achievable within
Hart-Davidson et al’s model at moments of stasis or once the
(unreachable?) moment of idealized democratic citizen is attained?
Within two frameworks that both seem to be reaching the same goals
with very similar principles, these concepts are surprisingly at odds
within the same moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment