Isn't it Kairotic? Feminism, Digitality, and the (Re)Conceptualization of Rhetorical Terms

For this week’s exploratory, my group designed an art exhibition intended to be a participatory narrative from Hawhee’s concept of “in(ter)vention in the middle” to in(ter)vention in-between using mirrors and allowing viewers to invent/intervene in the space. By disabling any participants in the exhibit from standing in the center by using a multi-layered bridge with multiple entry points, we sought to de-centralize the concept of single identity or a central identity and instead create kairotic opportunities (per Hawhee) in Anzaldúan borderlands-esque locations that exist in-between entry points. The theories we include challenge concepts of invention as belonging to a powerful rhetor (Foss and Griffin 3) and destabilize the traditional binary between audience/rhetor (16; Jarrett also references this in terms of testimonio [69]) by allowing all participants a (non-obligatory) opportunity to participate.

Although our proposal for the exhibition did not incorporate a lot of Campbell’s idea of collaborative knowledge (139), I find that in some ways, the work we did is an embodiment of it. Each of us came to this project with different knowledges and processes, and yet within the space of a Google Doc (and the temporal space of a brief face-to-face meeting), we engaged in invention during which, per Hart-Davidson et al., we “invent[ed], discuss[ed], and negotiate[d]” (138). My traditional notions of collaboration almost always involve a unified time-space simultaneously occupied by the collaborators. Retrospectively, though, I have explored the idea of asynchronous collaboration through online tutoring. Although the theorists this week do not differentiate between the two, I find myself wondering how their definitions would change were they applied to a model of collaboration that did not happen in the same time, or even in the same space. Would “invention” still be “in-the-middle” as Hawhee calls it, or would it instead be more “in-between” as our art installation suggests? And how would Campbell’s idea of “collaborative knowledge” change in digital spaces? Would the epistemologies behind feminism remain unaltered through our use of electronics, as other projects seem to have suggested, or would methodologies, systems, and heuristics for creating knowledge(s) also shift? While some of the digital projects tend to push more for social change (Campbell 142) than the art installation we have proposed, I feel there are other differences to be explored here, challenges to traditional notions of feminist theory and even feminist reconceptualizations of classical rhetorical terms.

For example, I feel that our use of google drive in particular complicates the notion of kairos, which Hawhee defines as “rhetoric’s time” (18). Kairos and logos become similar through Hawhee’s system in that both occur at intersections or encounters (25, 30). Working through this project has demonstrated the application of such principles to not only physical spaces and intersections but also to digital ones. The google doc became a space where, despite being in different locations, we could cast our ideas to interact, intersect, and encounter one another. The logos of our proposal emerged out of these interactions not in an instant but gradually. Thinking of both of these things in digital spaces complicates the idea of how kairos functions in our electronic environment. Is “rhetoric’s time” just a moment, or can it be a series of moments, or is it perhaps a continuum of time that should not be separated by our various pauses or distinctions? Based on our readings for this course, I believe Campbell would see this as yet another oxymoronic quality of feminist rhetoric (142). Still, the idea of a digital iteration or incarnation of kairos seems to complicate our existing notions of the traditional concept, which is rooted in oratory. Although the basic principle behind kairos could be seen as remaining the same, the digital landscapes we work in, as well as the feminist theories presented in this week’s readings, seem to challenge or expand the definitions. This complicates the idea of rhetorical theory in drawing further considerations in to how certain rhetorical principles operate in different environments. The “in-between” within the google drive space grows in terms of time, and while we sometimes occupied the same digital space, our occupation of different physical spaces in some ways complicates the idea of rhetorical “in-between.” While I would argue that this complicates the notion of kairos, it does not detract from the ability of the digital space to be a kairotic environment, and that dependent upon the individuals who meet and interact there, it can be productive to invention in ways that physical spaces cannot be.

In terms of invention and intervention, regardless of the nature of the space, it is important to avoid homogenizing. Foss and Griffin say this related particularly to women (5), but I think that in light of our feminist readings, our postcolonial readings, and invitational rhetoric’s tenants of inclusivity, we should also strive not to homogenize processes or skill sets and could be extended to any group of people collaborating. Because kairos is not forced but recognized and acted upon, the erasure of differences in a working context such as this collaboration, and even the proposed art installation, would inhibit the ability for kairotic moments to arise. Kairos is not compulsory; it is in the context of feminist pedagogies inclusive, available for anyone who seeks to utilize “rhetoric’s time” in the context of any space.

I also see in these theories a sort of seizing of kairos in and of themselves. The exigence of inequality or rhetorical/social oppression or silencing may have been part of what prompted these women to begin revising and (re)envisioning classical rhetorical terms in ways that made them more inclusive. This embodies the principles of invitational rhetoric, which, in its re-purposing and (re)defining of classical rhetorical terms and its privileging of invention, still seeks to include those with backgrounds in classical theory (16). Throughout these readings, there exists an intersection of ideas with the potential to be fertile grounds for new invention to occur, but in order to maximize the productivity of that in(ter)vention, it seems necessary based on these readings to recognize and act on kairos, however it is embodied within the space, within the time, and within all participants involved with the feminist concepts of in(ter)vention and collective knowledge-making.

Works Cited

Campbell, Kaklyn Kohrs. “The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation: An Oxymoron” Revisted.” Communication Studies, vol. 50, no. 2, 2009, pp. 138-142.

Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for Invitational Rhetoric.” Communication Monographs, vol. 62, Mar. 1995, pp. 2-18.

Hart-Davidson, Willim, et al. “On the Formation of Democratic Citizens.” The Viability of the Rhetorical Tradition, edited by Richard Graff, Arthur E. Walzer, and Janet M. Atwill, State University of New York Press, 2005, pp. 125-140.

Hawhee, Debra. “Kairotic Encounters.” Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention, edited by Janet M. Atwill and Janice M. Lauer, vol. 39, The University of Tennessee Press, 2003, pp. 16-35.

Jarrett, Susan C. “Beside Ourselves: Rhetoric and Representation in Postcolonial Feminist Writing.” JAC, vol. 18, no. 1, 1998, pp. 57-75.