Blog for October 30th, 2014- Enter the Crosswhite

This post was put up deliberately late. It’s the best way to guarantee nobody will read it. I mean, if the length didn’t already do that.

James R. Crosswhite- The Rhetoric of Reason, Part One: Philosophy, Rhetoric and Argumentation, Chapter One: The End of Philosophy and the Resurgence of Rhetoric

The more I work on these blogs, the more I realize how much of my blogging in the world of rhetoric focuses on the ideological stances that the authors take. In a way, this is a compliment to the works that are studied. It seems to indicate that, overall, the methodologies and grunt work involved are fundamentally sound. With some authors and works, I find myself (mentally) shouting “No! That is not how data collection works! Your results are entirely meaningless for the conclusions you’re trying to draw. You could have saved everybody so much time by just spouting off your unfounded theories without all the hollow pseudoscience!” The fact that this hasn’t happened this semester is one of the few things keeping me sane.

With that said, I find myself returning to this frame of mind in order to criticize Crosswhite. As I’ve stated/implied at various times, I find no inherent value or meaning in anything. In order to declare that something is imbued with an inherent moral disposition, you have to prove an impossible set of complications, resolving endless questions of the nature of humans and the very universe. And yet, as with other authors, Crosswhite easily dismisses this concern, happily declaring “peace” to be a desirable value and insisting that rhetoric is a peaceful art. Ignoring the questions of desirability of peace, Crosswhite seems to largely gloss over the idea that rhetoric could be used for reasons beyond peaceful agreement. I’m not sure if he’ll ever return to the topic, but I can still envision blood being spilled through argumentation and discussion. On the most blatant level, I see no reason that discussion cannot be motivated by desires that are inwardly beneficial and outwardly destructive. If somebody convinces another that murder will bring about a better world, violence has been perpetrated.

Thoughts on Crosswhite through Facebook-

While reading through Crosswhite’s summaries of the philosophies of Heidegger, Derrida, Nietzsche and other writers, I became somewhat wary of the statements being made. I have not studied any of the authors in question enough to challenge any of Crosswhite’s claims (and I have no real reason to doubt him), but the breadth of his summarization sparked the following thought:

“Summary’ is an inherently insulting or violent action. Whenever anybody attempts to summarize, they are actively rejecting the narrative that the original author has put forth. In any event in which the summarizer does not believe they are misrepresenting the original statement, they are declaring that the original author's work is superfluous.”

I presented this theory to some friends online. Inspired by Gabriela’s stylistically intriguing piece from earlier this month, I decided it might be worthwhile to post the resulting  Facebook conversations*.

Lemon’s commentary is interesting in that it mirrors some of the ideas that Crosswhite presents on the language/cultural barrier between English speakers and the Athabaskan people**. In general, the commentary led me to slightly alter my line of thought, and I have developed a slightly revised maxim:

“Summary’ is an inherently insulting or violent action. Whenever anybody attempts to summarize, they are actively rejecting the narrative that the original author has put forth. In any event in which the summarizer does not believe they are misrepresenting the original statement, they are declaring that the original author's work is superfluous to their current needs. Summarization is essential to modern human communicative needs, but this does not negate the violence being perpetrated.”

Thoughts on Crosswhite, Feminism, Values and Institutions-

Crosswhite pretty convincingly argues the idea that human objectivity is an illusion. I have no quarrel with this assertion. Where Crosswhite and I again part ways is in what the resultant course of action should be. He seems to argue that the divide between different cognitive cultures means that the goal of objectivity should be abandoned, due to the way that it serves as a form of subjugation over whatever culture opposes your own vision of “objective” culture. Although seemingly progressive at first, upon deeper reflection I can’t help but see this assertion as an overwhelmingly cynical and hollow goal. If we go along with this mindset, it seems necessary to follow it to its endpoint- nihilism. If you can no longer agree on the goal of an objectively better world, you are embracing the essential entropy that defines our universe. While this is seemingly the only fundamental truth of our universe- everything fades eventually- it leaves no room or purpose for progress. Of course, all of this is an artificial conceit, because Crosswhite’s proposition is an inherently contradictory joke. If we abandon the idea of objective standards and ideals, where exactly are we getting the idea that respecting other cultures and humans matters?

As we’ve established, striving for objectivity has violent consequences. It is taking an extremely narcissistic stance, declaring “I am willing to destroy a person’s identity in the name of trying to define the universe through a process”. I don’t really care. For whatever it is worth, I have decided on my own set of values and my own personal vision for an ideal world, and that vision necessitates stripping the globe of identity. If culturally entrenched systems and institutional language structures give people the meanings that define their lives, perhaps we shouldn’t be celebrating diversity- perhaps everybody just needs to die. Now, before I get arrested or Section 5150’d here, I’m obviously not referring to any physical acts of violence.

Last week, I condemned the word “feminism”, declaring it unnecessary. This is a hefty topic, and I didn’t really get the opportunity to fully explore everything that comes along with it. So, since I’m already calling for genocide, I might as well clarify that this includes the total destruction of feminists and feminism. And Muslims and Islam. And Christians and Christianity. And Americans and the United States of America. And every single other arbitrarily defined system of cultural values that define people’s cultures and identities. These arbitrary systems provide absolutely nothing of value to the things I hold dear- physical peace, knowledge, laziness, and the pursuit of usefully objective knowledge of the world***. In all of the examples that I listed here, I can find something meaningful or valuable embedded in the core of their ideas. However, there are systems that provide these benefits without the costs associated with them. Returning to the term “feminism”, there is nothing wrong with the feminist idea of egalitarianism. What, exactly, does it offer over egalitarianism? Nothing. It is a gendered word, embedded not for value but for institutions. Should egalitarianism be a legitimate goal, then embracing bigotry due to institutional constraints is immensely distasteful.

As with many of these institutions, I actually fairly strongly agree with what might be labeled as the “non-extremists” of feminism. These feminists are, for all intents and purposes, completely identical to my vision of egalitarianists. Many would say it is insane to create so much friction between myself and these individuals over a “meaningless” word. Yet, as has been demonstrated (also by the very resistance to changing it), institutional words are far from meaningless. They are self-propagating, and they are prone to creating discrimination and violence. Because I choose to not use the term “feminist”, those who do so resent me purely for the sake of rejecting their historically-derived terminology, and this problem persists for all of these otherwise rational individuals and their terms. History holds no value for me- dead people aren’t going to care which words we use. Abandon all loaded terms, strive for a language of neutrality. Of course, any attempt at this will create institutions on its own. People will eventually become bigots in the name of egalitarianism. Maybe, if I’m lucky, they’ll even preach it in my name. At which point, I hope they’re (mentally) killed off in the same way that I want the identities that drive these terms to fade away. Permanent revolution for as long as it is necessary. Lexical Trotskyism, if you will. Except, I’m already beginning to loathe that term, and would prefer it not get attached to the idea.

Some More Thoughts Without a Name-

Since I started this blog, I have accumulated a respectable number of comments. I am averaging more than one comment per 150 page views, which, according to some research that I did, is a phenomenal return on investment for any website****. As a way of giving back to my dedicated fan base, I thought I would take some time to address comments and questions in one of my main posts.

After the blog post on Henry Louis Gates and Co, some people had questions about the meaning and intentions of some of my statements. In particular, Nrgblog asks…

“I’m puzzled by your closing narrative. Do you intend it to illustrate a point? If so, what point? Do you intend to be offensive? Do you intend to claim that you can use multiple layers of irony and not be offensive? Remembering that irony depends on the audience accepting the positions you have laid out, for what audience do you intend this?”

That is an excellent series of questions. So much so that I feel the need to answer each question more specifically than trying to lump it all into a big block of text.

“I’m puzzled by your closing narrative. Do you intend it to illustrate a point? If so, what point?”

I did intend to illustrate a point. Many points, even. The puzzling nature of the text was part of a deliberate attempt to avoid being too forthright. Though, perhaps I erred too far towards indirectness. Every artist intends for their work to signify more than they could explain directly (no reason to bother with art otherwise), so I believe both this explanation and the original story have value. For those of you not aware- the events of my story pretty directly parallel an actual event that occurred to Henry Louis gates in 2010. The Monkey represents Gates, the Lion is Obama, and the Boars are the Police. I chose these pairing-ups for the way that the events mirrored a number of aspects of the traditional Signifying Monkey stories. Gates is an intelligent smart-talker on the fringes of society (he was out of town for a month because he was busy filming a documentary in China). Obama is a boastful character who claims to be the supreme leader, while ultimately capitulating to every force that remotely opposes him. “Boars” is perhaps a too kind term for what police officers actually are, but it was an appropriate enough term for strong-arming enforcers who hold little adherence to any laws and even less respect for the worth of others.

 As I mentioned in the post, I struggled with my feelings towards Gates going into reading “Signifying Monkey” and writing my blog post. On the one hand, I have an immense respect for Gates and his works. I am well aware that he is a far smarter man than I will ever hope to be. However, I also lost a lot of respect for Gates in the wake of the “Beer Summit”. I view/viewed his willingness to go along with the “summit” as a form of capitulation to the wishes of a United States that is still fundamentally beholden to white supremacy and a love of fascism. I can understand and respect the obvious reasons for going along with the action, as I am sure he was concerned with his advanced age, societal pressures, presidential pressures, job security, and so on and so forth. However, such reasons don’t eliminate the fact that such a choice works to delegitimize him as a figure of racial awareness and ethnic resistance. In that moment, Gates made it clear that he was perfectly content to be nothing more than a detached Ivy League academic, quietly doing his research with no concern for the real-world ramifications of his thoughts and statements. Initially, I found myself simply explaining my frustration with this aspect of Gates. I ended up seeing my own explanation and ideas as too juvenile, lacking a certain nuance and respect for what Gates has actually managed to accomplish. Regardless of his failings in living up to my ideals of what a person should be, there is still a wealth of information to be plumbed from the writings and thoughts he has produced for the world.

As a sign of respect to that work, and the piece that I was responding to in particular, I decided to do my best to engage with everything that was presented. The world of Signifyin(g) that Gates presents ended up being a rather rich and engaging field of rhetorical communication. 

“Do you intend to be offensive?”

To a degree, I did intend to be offensive. I believe that being offensive, even in situations where it is being used positively, is an inherent aspect of what Gates identified as Signifyin(g). However, being offensive is not simply a matter of upsetting people- it is an aspect of communication that is still rhetorical, that still hopes to effect change in the audience. This “offense” and desire for change is also tempered by the relative adherence to fact, and the positions of the individuals involved in this signifying presentation. Although I am calling out Gates for his lack of resistance, I am still a small student in the cogs of a bigger system, failing in my own resistances and abilities. At the end of the day, Gates can still call on his list of accomplishments and awards. I have nothing.

“Do you intend to claim that you can use multiple layers of irony and not be offensive?”

I have spent a decent amount of time contemplating this question, and I think I finally found the correct answer: Yes, and no. It is impossible to say something with multiple layers of irony that will avoid offending everybody. Anything of sufficient complexity will inevitably contain content that is offensive to somebody. However, I do believe that it is possible to produce a piece of multilayered irony that is not deliberately or explicitly offensive. Or, perhaps, looking at the question differently, Nrgblog was asking whether I, personally, was capable of such a sophisticated act of composition. In which case, I have to admit that I am probably not skilled enough to pull off such a move. As should be evident from this blog, I am not particularly skilled when it comes to the more commercial and palatable aspects of producing appeals. Despite my best efforts, I am lumbering and crude, stuck in a certain foul baseness that can occasionally be alienating or disruptive. However, ideologically, I feel minimal pull to break away from such a mindset. Presume that one does manage to produce a completely toothless piece of layered irony. What is the purpose? Who benefits from such a piece? 

“Remembering that irony depends on the audience accepting the positions you have laid out, for what audience do you intend this?”

In a way, I never intend my blogs to go out to a real audience. I’m arguing with myself, most of the time. It’s part of why I feel so comfortable making definitive statements and occasionally being very wrong. When I write about a person, I like to imagine that there’s a chance they’ll read it personally, even if it’s completely impossible or implausible. Beyond that, I suppose my target audience is informed consumers- an outsider to the class I am continually referring to is going to have a difficult time following along (despite my numerous efforts to make this blog as independent as it is dependent). Any readers who are unfamiliar with the documents or situations that I am referencing is going to have an even tougher time. I always make sure there’s a way to find (what I see as) necessary context for my statements, but I try to avoid making things too easy. Too much summarizing is pretty violent, you know?

In addition to Nrgblog’s questions, one particular comment that stood out was from user “emily” on the blog post for October 14^th. Emily brought to my attention a pair of TED talks regarding disability and its perceptions. I found both videos to be rather emotionally stirring, and believe they do an excellent job at illustrating some of the tribulations regarding perceptions of mental illnesses.

Bonus Mini-Topic-

Last week in class, we briefly discussed the history of grading and grades. Although I wouldn’t consider it the definitive text, I recommend checking out this article for a pretty interesting overview.

Bonus Blog Statistics-

As of this post, this blog contains nine distinct posts, averaging roughly 1,774 words per post. The shortest post, covering the rhetoric of blogging, weighs in at only 670 words. This post is the longest, being a hefty 3,532 words. Extra-textual links make their first appearance in the second post, and there are over twenty links to other sources and topics scattered throughout these posts. If stitched together (with blog titles discarded), this blog would total at 15,961 words, equaling more than forty pages of printed text. Since the first post of this blog went up, the average American has slept 334 hours. Since the first post of this blog went up, I’ve slept roughly 500 hours. That doesn’t really mean anything. I just sleep a lot, and thought it was moderately interesting.

Corrections-

Last week’s blog contained a fairly large oversight, an oversight that was that was thankfully caught by one astute reader. When searching for a copy of Alternative Rhetorics, I scoured University Bookstores, private booksellers and public libraries. However, it never occurred to me to check university libraries- and SFSU does indeed posses a copy of the book. Our society has devoted a truly astounding amount of infrastructure to the storage and continued presence of printed texts, which is something I find both admirable and utterly insane. 

It seems like we’ve used up all of our time slot, and we will have to bypass responding to any further comments. Thank you, and see you all next week.

*Were this still the section on Jackson and Wallin, I would devote more time to assessing the nature of internet comments. My “Friends” list is obviously a more limited audience than a publicly available Youtube video, but I was somewhat surprised by the fact that real discussion was sparked.

**Interestingly enough, my spellcheck keeps flagging “Crosswhite”, while Athabaskan goes through smoothly. This is mostly an excuse to segue into something that I forgot to cover previously- In this blog post by Gabriela, she noted that the Wordrpress spellcheck service refused to acknowledge Puerto Rico as a proper term. She would probably find it interesting to know that it likely wasn’t Wordpress that was disavowing the existence of our little national colony. I experimented with posting the term into Wordpress across various web browsers, and discovered that “Puerto Rico” being marked as spelled incorrectly was actually a result of the particular spellchecker of said browser. I don’t own any Windows products, but the only major browser that marked “Puerto” as incorrect for me was Firefox- Safari, Opera, and Google Chrome all deemed the term acceptable. I can’t guarantee my theory is correct, but based on the evidence I gathered, it appears that Firefox’s behavior is not derived from any hatred on Brendan Eich’s part, but is instead due to licensing restrictions arising from the fact that Firefox is an open-source program, and the dictionaries involved are therefore also open-license. 

***Should these ideals ever be exposed as having flaws that are incompatible with scientifically-derived objective evidence, I will readily abandon them. I am aware that these ideals are as inherently arbitrary as any other human values, but as far as I can tell, they result in a lot less pain and death than any currently established system. That’s good enough for me.

****Viewer interactivity on websites is often measured in Comments-Per-Mille, indicating how much participation versus passive viewership is occurring. For example, a typical popular Youtube video might receive 5 million views and 5 thousand comments, giving it a comment per mille of 1. My blog is currently averaging nearly six times that volume, indicating a very involved readership. (There is also a CPM that stands for Clicks-Per-Mille, but that refers to advertisements, and this blog has a commitment to remaining independent.)

Blog for October 23rd, 2014: Diving in to the Hornet's Nest

Theresa Enos and Shane Borrowman- “Authority and Credibility: Classical Rhetoric, the Internet, and the Teaching of Techno-Ethos”

I have something of an automated routine when it comes to doing my schoolwork, and this week was no exception. First, I went to my computer, logged into the cloud, and began streaming from my library of instrumental music, which includes thousands of songs from hundreds of composers across time. Then, I turned on my iPad, and logged into my school’s online system, where I proceeded to download the required readings for the week, along with a few of the “elective” pieces I had come across on the JP Leonard Library database. After going through the process of downloading the documents, I sorted them into the appropriate folders, so that they would not get mixed up with the hundreds of other academic papers from various classes and journals that I have stored on my iPad. Finally, I chose an appropriate text, curl up somewhere, and begin reading.

For this class this week, I decided to start my reading chronologically and in order. Therefore, one of the very first sentences I came across was the following: “…Cyberspace is far more transitory in nature than is the printed world of the popular press and professional book/article.” This very true proclamation was made by Enos and Borrowman in the 2001 book Alternative Rhetorics: Challenges to the Rhetorical Tradition. I was able to figure out the particular book by using Google and textual clues to discern the origin. Interested in finding out more about the book, I went to the website for the San Francisco Public Library, and searched their availability catalog for the book. Unfortunately, they did not have the book. Neither did any of the public libraries of the surrounding cities. Although not available for free, I figured I could perhaps purchase a copy of the book somewhere. So, I searched all the university bookstores in the region for a copy of the book. Not a single one had it in stock. Disappointed yet undaunted, I was forced to turn yet again to the transitory internet, and searched Amazon.com for the text. However, unfortunately, the book appeared to not even make it onto the list of the top ten million best-selling books on Amazon, and therefore was not kept in stock. As a last and desperate resort, I turned to the publishers at SUNY press, to see if I could order a copy directly from them. Through them, I was able to discover that I could actually special order a print copy of the book, for only $65 and $8 shipping costs (with only 5-7 business days to arrive)! However, they then immediately suggested that I could save some money and receive the book immediately by just downloading the digital version they had available on the Google Play store for only $16. I scoffed. If every single electronic device I owned was destroyed at once, and then Google stopped existing simultaneously, and all of the cloud-based backup services I subscribe to suddenly lost all their storage, there would be no way to ever get ahold of my transitory data ever again. The permanence of the physical was far more reliable, as nobody has ever managed to lose or get rid of the only physical copy of a textbook within a 100 mile radius.

Realizing I had managed to get a bit distracted by this search (thankfully, it was all digital- had I tried to engage in this search without the aid of the internet, I would still be scouring the landscape and bookstores in my car), I returned to the text, only to be stunned by even greater brilliance in the same paragraph. “…When students do research that involves books and articles, the rules are understood; if something comes into print from a university press or other respectable publisher, it can be afforded a certain amount of credibility.” When a big-name publishing house like Simon & Schuster, Harpercollins, Random House, or a leading academic journal, is willing to publish something, I know I have to inherently afford the author credibility. Being incredulous and critical of everything that I encounter, and only judging individually on merit of ideas presented, would be just plain dumb.

In fact, there are just so many statements of insightful truthiness that I don’t think I can afford to praise them all in such great detail. Instead, I’ll simply highlight and respond to each one briefly.

“The night before an assignment is due, claims to credibility by on-line writers are likely to go unexamined.” This is important to remember, because rushed students cramming through their work otherwise never cut corners.

On student’s negative reaction to an unpopular and likely incorrect line of thought: “We have found [this] a useful example… [because] they intuitively understand its illegitimacy.” This is an important thing to stress in pedagogy. We never want students to question or rethink their immediate intuitive and visceral reactions, so this style of teaching will certainly have no downsides.

There is too much I would have to quote here, but Enos and Borrowman follow this up with a brief explanation of a distinction between the aforementioned intuitively illegitimate idea- those who argue for a blanket mindset, and those who question details and argue for ambiguity. “For our purposes here, all such groups fall under the [same] umbrella.” This is a healthy mindset to take, because all people with intuitively unappealing ideas never have anything meaningful to add to discussions, regardless of how they try to argue.

When exploring the appeals of these intuitively repulsive people, Enos and Borrowman point out that many of the proponents consider, and label, themselves as “concerned with truth”. This is an important detail to focus on, because of all the groups and individuals out there who try to paint their ideas and causes as the works of liars. People often deliberately discredit themselves by accusing themselves of being worthless charlatans, so this is certainly a very important idea and aspect of ethos to focus on.

——————————

Speaking  a little less critically, the article actually does manage to make a small handful of meaningful and salient points regarding the rhetoric of online discourse, and discourse in general. This comes mainly from their discussion of the way that visual style can often outweigh substance in the eyes of viewers. It’s a shame they didn’t bother to explore the concept beyond pointing out that illegitimate arguments can have legitimate-looking fronts.

Brian Jackson and Jon Wallin- “Rediscovering the ‘Back-and-Forthness’ of Rhetoric in the Age of Youtube”

Jackson and Wallin really lucked out on the video they chose for this article- they readily admit in the text that they expected their example to have faded out of the public consciousness, possibly by the time their article was published. However, instead, “Don’t taze me, bro!” has become an enduring catchphrase on the internet. This is perhaps a result of the remarkable levels of police brutality that have continued to plague this nation, but it is still remarkable how memes are almost impossible to predict.

Going beyond that surface observation, I found myself intrigued by the greater discussion of the internet as a dialogic place. I’ve always known that I favor a more “conversational” writing style in general. But, it was only as Jackson and Wallin described the nature of dialogic conversation that I realized how much of my writing is derived from an assumption of a dialogue. In fact, I’d go as far as saying that I have a tendency to distrust any writing style that doesn’t involve the author both responding to something and inviting responses. As the authors described, this distrust is actually fairly reminiscent of Socratic/Platonic ideology. In this way, my attitude has something of a regressive nature, as composition has largely moved past the idea of binary monologic or dialogic writing. I feel this is likely a moment where I will just have to accept my regressive nature- I cannot imagine dedicating a further substantial portion of my life to inert and dead writing styles. I can accept that there is a place for every style of conversation, but that doesn’t mean that every compositionist has to embrace and master every style.

One intriguing/outdated aspect of Jackson and Wallin’s argument is their explanation that Youtube uses anonymity and usernames. There is something of an intuitive assumption that a masking username has an effect on the rhetorical presentation made by people communicating online. However, in 2013, Google decided to merge all of their account services into Google+, meaning that a large number of Youtube comments are now made under people’s real names. It is entirely possible to create a pseudonym for this system, but a large enough number of people don’t bother to. Remarkably, at least to the casual viewer, this seems to have caused absolutely no change in the substance or quality of Youtube comments. I attempted to find the stupidest topic possible, and therefore went with a holocaust denial video and the “Loose Change” video. In both cases, these are topics where the supporters would have a vested interest in maintaining their anonymity, due to the fact that the videos claim to be exposing heavy-handed government conspiracies. In both cases, users commenting with real names was plentiful. I am unsure of the cause behind this phenomenon- are people simply unconcerned with anonymity, or is it that the internet is perceived as inherently anonymous, even when it is not? Regardless, it is a point of rhetorical focus deserving of further exploration.

Bo Wang- “Engaging Nüquanzhuyi: The Making of a Chinese Feminist Rhetoric”

To be completely open and honest- I could probably think of something that I care less about than early 19^th century Chinese Feminist literary rhetoric, but it would be an arduous task. With no disrespect to Ms. Wang or the topic, which I am sure is as rich as the text indicates it is, the issues surrounding it simply mean nothing to me. However, the total irrelevancy of the topic opened up my mind to a broader form of rhetorical analysis. Unburdened from actually trying to determine the worth and relevance of the text, I began to dwell on the rhetoric of rhetorical analysis. As I examined the moves that Wang made, I began to realize how politicized and subjective the topic of rhetorical analysis actually is. When completely disconnected from the topic and language, it becomes painfully obvious how reliant even the most objective rhetorical analysis is on subjectivity and personal experience. What one person chooses to label as “objective” suddenly becomes violently subjective in another person’s eyes. I have no real objection to Wang’s assertions regarding the writings of the Chinese authors that she discusses, but her repeated focus on the translation of the texts from Chinese made me aware of the reality that all of our rhetorical work is just that- translational and heavily subjective. To provide an arbitrary example- one could claim that Chinese writing styles are “repetitive”, and intend it as a purely objective analysis of one of the rhetorical moves made by authors. However, another reader could examine that statement from another angle, and find the concept of labeling something “repetitive” to be a subjective and personal statement, one designed to deride the work. Wang is constantly forced to navigate these sort of situations in her presentation of the text, and it really highlights this ambiguity. Yet again, I find myself lost on where this continues, or whether these problems are ever reconcilable. In a way, I suppose these problems have always been there, and we have always touched on them in these blogs and discussions. But, thanks to Wang, these ideas became just a bit clearer in my mind.

Gesa E. Kirsch and Jacqueline J. Royster- “Feminist Rhetorical Practices: In Search of Excellence”

I have always had an objection to the term “feminism”. In clarifying what they mean by their discussion of feminism, Kirsch and Royster explain that “We chose [] to honor the concept of ‘feminism’ as a variously articulated commitment to justice, equality, empowerment and peace…” If this is the case, what, then, is their definition of the term “masculism”? Is it the exact opposite, a variously articulated commitment to corruption, unfairness, denial, and strife? If somebody is to claim that masculism embodies these negative traits, any sane person would find it their moral obligation to reject such sexism as the puerile and offensive nonsense that it is- labeling one gender as inherently more desirable and superior is the peak of gender bigotry. And, yet, without this distinction, what is the purpose of either word? Assuming that Masculism and Feminism both embody justice, equality, empowerment and peace, it seems unnecessary to produce two different terms for a concept that is 100% identical. In which case, it seems we already have a term that represents a commitment to these notions- it’s called “egalitarianism”. In fact, “egalitarianism” is the term used for literally every other form of this discussion. As far as I am aware, nobody would ever dare to label all support of racial equality as “Blackism”. Even the idea of trying to co-opt the notion of equality and trying to paint it as the purview of a single race is immediately seen as the contradictory and absurd concept that it is.

But, here’s where the real fun of rhetorical debates comes in- by preaching a support of equality and tolerance through non-gender preferential language, I have now, and completely against my will, been placed in alignment with the foulest bigots. For those unaware of what I am referring to, I recommend being wary when doing further research online- the bile flung by sexists feigning egalitarianism is horrifying. However, interestingly enough, the sheer bigotry being exuded by those who claim to be proponents of feminism is equally extreme. These feminists are more than happy to lump me in with the bigots, and espousing the views that I have presented here are enough to garner death threats, harassment, and blacklisting. Which is why I deem it essential to reject Kirsh and Royster’s choice to define feminism as justice and equality, or anything close to these things. If it is the case that the supporters of all terms contain folks who represent the foulest humans, it seems that, at best, the terminology is completely arbitrary. At worst, as I believe is the case with the continued usage of the term “feminism”, it can propagate bigotry.

For the sake of engaging with the paper, however, I will accept the definition that Kirsch and Royster present, and assume that feminism is a commitment to justice, equality, empowerment and peace. So, what do the authors have to say on these topics? Well, actually, not much of anything. The paper is entirely focused on two different topics- 1. Female empowerment, and 2. Recommending and emphasizing specific rhetorical and teaching styles that Kirsch and Royster have decided are feminist. Apparently, male-derived rhetoric has never been interested in paying attention to or respecting subjects, collaborating or considered subjects of race. It is impossible to take the article seriously in the context of the definition that the authors provide- it is only by outright rejecting that notion and focusing on feminism as a female-centric, female-focused genre of study that privileges focusing on a single gender that anything of this article makes sense. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that- there are some interesting ideas about female rhetoric that the authors bring up. But, it ends up getting mired in so much gunk through their attempts to define every single concept as a novel feminine invention that I can’t help but laugh.

Blog for October 14th, 2014: Rhetorical Agency and Footing

Marilyn M. Cooper- “Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted”

I wonder whether I would get along with Marilyn M. Cooper, if we were to meet in person. Reading through this document, I found myself nodding along enthusiastically with the evidence and ideas presented. However, as much as the evidence and documentation impressed me, I found myself vehemently disagreeing with the conclusions that Cooper derived from said evidence. From what I understood, Cooper wants to move past postmodernism, in order to produce an interpretation of rhetorical agency that offers better functional utility. However, I believe it’s impossible to most past postmodernism. I may be wrong, but part of the major appeal of postmodern thought is the way that it represents the end game of rhetorical thought. It is not necessarily the most practical line of thought, but it is difficult to go beyond the complete deconstruction of, well, everything. 

Rather than simply explicitly accepting the necessary regression of thought needed for her interpretation of rhetorical agency, Cooper insists on forging ahead, creating a paradox that can’t be reconciled. Cooper explicitly acknowledges the fact that free will is fundamentally an illusion, in that everything is predetermined by environment and biological predisposition. Explicating this notion is a central half of the argument. However, she then counters this by claiming that rhetorical agency represents the other half of this system, by representing the choices that an actor is capable of making in the moment, based on these influences. The problem with this is in the fact that she fails to explain a way for distancing the corporeal here. She simply brushes away the fact that the agent’s actions are ultimately reliant on the chemicals and elements that currently make up the body of the agent. I can accept ignoring this reality, but I can’t get over the way that Cooper attempts to frame it as evolution, rather than a practical devolution. Her analysis of Obama’s speech and the usefulness of understanding the inter-positionality of these systems is fantastic. The fact that she is able to spin this into a system of educational and rhetorical responsibility is equally enjoyable. And, yet, despite all that, this key premise is still illusory, broken by her own admission of the concrete, relying on what amounts to an ephemeral soul.

Stephanie Kerschbaum- “On Rhetorical Agency and Disclosing Disability in Academic Writing”

I am continually surprised by the variety of topics that I encounter in academia. I often find myself dwelling on ideas that I would have never imagined possible. This Kerschbaum piece sparked one of these moments, when I found myself thinking “Well, she’s only focusing on the sexy disabilities.” Throughout the article, we are treated to deafness, blindness, amputees, individuals in wheelchairs, dyslexia and autism*. All of these are legitimate issues with their own unique concerns and necessary compensations/assistances. However, these are all also disabilities that people generally understand and have a sense of sympathy for. For all the problems and issues that Kerschbaum brings up, being deaf is not something that you have to try to hide or cover up. As she noted herself, people are willing, even excited, to engage with a better understanding of these sorts of disabilities. The worst criticism she leverages against the observers is that they are oblivious to the full extent of the rhetoric involved- such as not understanding the intricacies of paralytic physiology.

However, this completely overlooks all the disabilities that aren’t so neat and easy to process. I don’t wish to make this a “disability contest”, but there’s a lot more stigma in being a malformed or internally diseased individual than there is in the more binary and “sexy” disabilities. While the man in the wheelchair invokes sympathy, the elephant man elicits revulsion. I don’t have enough knowledge to pronounce judgment on the effects of such disabilities on disclosure, but it is a glaring gap in the discussion. This gap is further compounded by the aforementioned internal disabilities. Here, there is some variation between people’s reactions- cancer and autoimmune diseases get a favorable response, viral and bacterial infections can go either way, and congenital organ diseases seem to only cause discomfort and a desire to move away from the topic. The average person wants to know more about the rhetorical situation of a blind person. Nobody wants to hear a word about the person who has to store their fecal matter in a plastic bag taped to their stomach.

But, really, even these disabilities, as unappealing as they are, still tend to elicit a visceral sympathy. Regardless of the distaste, there is a comprehension that the physical is a genuine problem. Mental disabilities of the unappealing nature are basically unspeakable. The openly schizophrenic man is rarely offered a PHD- more often, he’s escorted off campus by multiple officers. Even John Forbes Nash, the famed game theorist, had his life whitewashed and his experiences marginalized- A Beautiful Mind is a fantasy interpretation that has virtually nothing to do with his actual disclosures of his schizophrenic experiences. Experiences that are largely brushed away and hid by his family and university. Then, when it comes to less abrasive disabilities, such as depression, the situation becomes yet another caricature. Disclosing that one suffers from depression is something reserved purely for the creative arts. Talking about it anywhere else gets you painted as a loony. Again, I don’t have an answer as to what any of this means, or what the implications of this sort of disclosure are. If I were to have anything disabling about myself in these categories, I’m certainly not going to ever disclose it to my classmates or fellow academics about it. I value whatever legitimacy is afforded to me too much to ever sabotage that. And, that’s not really something Kerschbaum ever has to worry about with being deaf.

As an aside- I was bit surprised when I dug into this piece. I  had researched Melanie Yergeau earlier this year (for a research project/paper on autism in academia), and I really wasn’t expecting to see references to her in other composition pieces.  If you ever find yourself thinking “Man, I really wish I could read a quality paper on autism and rhetoric right now”, I highly recommend the Heilker, P., & Melanie Yergeau article,  “Autism and Rhetoric”. (College English, 73(5), 485-497.)

*I wonder whether Yergeau would have contentions to being included in this list. A fundamental aspect of her arguments, at least as far as I understood them, is the idea that autism is not inherently a disability, but a variety. This has earned her quite a lot of ire, in fact- if you google her name, I believe one of the first-page links is a scathing criticism of the notion. To so casually lump her into the “disabled” category after reading her work comes off as vaguely disrespectful.

Erving Goffman’s Forms of Talk, Chapter 3- “Footing”

I am truly impressed by Goffman’s ability to pad out this topic into a full chapter of nearly 40 pages. There is always a bit of over-articulation that occurs in academic writing. However, typically speaking, the authors don’t go out of their way to talk down to their audience while using absurd terminology to explain simplistic concepts. A hefty chunk of this text seems to be dedicated to explaining an infantile interpretation of how conversations occur, an interpretation that I find difficult to believe was ever relevant, let alone in the 80’s. Goffman then explains how this interoperation, which is clearly painfully incorrect, is in fact incorrect. The rest of the chapter is then dedicated to explaining all the complicating factors of conversation, centered around the notion of “footing”. Here, he doesn’t really seem to have anything to offer beyond describing various positions of footing that are available to those engaging in conversation and observation. I could see using the document as a reference guide, but Goffman fails to even organize the document in a manner that would make it convenient. I can’t say that reading the piece was a total waste of my time- it is at least nice to have some of these concepts directly laid out. I just can’t ever imagine wanting to go back to it.