November 17, 2016

Conceptualizing a Movement: The Resistance of Bridging Invitational Rhetoric and the Democratic Citizen

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