(Re)Defining Sisterhood: Invitational Rhetoric and Digital Communities

In considering Foss and Griffin’s definition of invitational rhetoric, we were drawn to its inclusive nature: “its communicative modes are the offering of perspectives and the creation of the external conditions of safety, value, and freedom” (2). Although the article was published in 1995, we immediately linked it to a digital community. We believed that a properly structured Tumblr page and digital archive could act in accordance with invitational rhetoric, particularly during a time when many of the internet’s avenues have become divisive, partisan spaces or echo chambers for specific views. In this regard, many online messages have become patriarchical in nature, where “communicative encounter[s]” are “an attempt at persuasion or influence, or as a struggle over power” (Foss and Griffin 2). Our intention was to create an online environment where people—the majority would likely include women but it is not strictly limited to this population, as feminism “implies an understanding of inclusion with interests beyond women”—could discuss, write, create, and work through major cultural events (Foss and Griffin 5).


Our project’s overarching theme is the (re)defining and (re)claiming of sisterhood, which Campbell notes “infused the beginnings of second wave discourse” and “has been attacked by those who felt excluded from much of its talk, action, and organization” (141). Campbell recognized that women could not be “homogenized under the rubric of sisterhood” (142), and we shaped our understanding of sisterhood to reflect invitational rhetoric’s “nonhierarchical, nonjudgmental, nonadversarial framework” (Foss and Griffin 5). “The Sisterhood of Invitational Rhetoric” is based on productive interaction, which allows participants to respond to and convey their opinions/perspectives in a safe environment. It recognizes diverse ideologies and hopes that, in light of this, we can understand that sisterhood does not represent a single identity just as feminism does not represent a single gender.

Referring to Hawhee, "The Sisterhood of Invitational Rhetoric" is kairotic in the sense that it “trust[s] to the moment” for content and responses (18). Drawing from the recent presidential election, it is a place where participants are encouraged to discuss their views. That said, like other social media platforms such as Reddit, we recognize that not everyone will abide by the guidelines of invitational rhetoric, which is why staff moderators will monitor (not censor) content to ensure the Tumblr page remains a safe space for the productive exchange of ideas.

Foss and Griffin ground their definition of invitational rhetoric on three feminist principles: “equality, immanent value, and self-determination.” On page 4, Foss and Griffin define those principles as follows:

Equality: efforts to replace dominance and persuasion with mutual understanding and camaraderie

Immanent value: all living beings have unique, valuable perspectives; worth is not hierarchically determined

Self-determination: individuals are capable of making their own decisions about their lives and we must respect “‘others’ capacity and right to constitute their worlds as they choose”

In accordance with these principles, “The Sisterhood of Invitational Rhetoric” serves as a space to respectfully discuss and preserve multiple voices. As our proposal states, the project is an attempt at “re-sourcement” where the message and the response is given equal value (Foss and Griffin 9). Although our inspiration for the project was the 2016 presidential election, we hope the project develops a life beyond this particular event. Our digital archive logs the conversations and compositions participants choose to include, and we would like those conversations to extend to other major cultural occurrences and its possible implications on (re)definitions of sisterhood.

Like Katelyn, this project helped me envision a theoretical approach through a modern, practical application. Our digital archive, coupled with these readings and our newfound understanding of invitational rhetoric, feels kairotic. As Katelyn mentioned, the recent election has created a need for this sort of discourse. I respect our project because it is socially relevant and inclusive. I respect our project because it reflects a place for productive conversation. I respect our project because invitational rhetoric seems like such an important concept right now, and our hope is that this digital space remains relevant, lending itself “to the moment” as the “moment” changes with time (Hawhee 18).