Scholars working from a feminist perspective suggest that most theories of rhetoric are inadequate and misleading because they contain a patriarchal bias – they embody the experiences and concerns of the white male as standard, thereby distorting or omitting the experiences and concerns of women. One theory that clearly embodies a feminist perspective is that of Feminist Transformation. It is a system that values and highlights women-centered communicative practices, and its roots lie in “the woman-valuing, matristic, Goddess-centered cultures that underlie the beginnings of civilization.” Starhawk’s rhetorical theory describes two types of rhetorical systems – a rhetoric of inherent value and a rhetoric of domination. Starhawk’s rhetoric …show more content…
Critical to the functioning of a patriarchy is a hierarchical structure that controls and oppresses the sacred life of all beings. Hierarchy is rooted in the belief in the need to acquire and maintain separation from and mastery over individuals and nature, a belief manifest in the rhetoric in the notion that “some people are less valuable than others.” In a patriarchal system, where the worth of the self is not a given, it must be earned, achieved, or granted. The devaluation of the rhetor in a system of domination occurs regardless of the nature of the particular hierarchy and the inspirations, teachings, or values on which it is based. “The structure of hierarchy itself reinforces the idea that some people are inherently more worthy than …show more content…
Change does not occur in isolation, Starhawk explains; to resist domination, “refuse isolation.” To “connect,” to “build bonds of caring and community,” and to “create structures of support that can nurture us and renew our strength, are powerful acts of resistance.” Starhawk would agree with Burke that, in a rhetoric of domination, rhetoric is used primarily to attempt to change others’ perspectives – to persuade. The distinguishing feature of a rhetoric of inherent value, however, is not its persuasive capability but its affirmation of immanent value. Instead, rhetoric is designed to affirm and bring recognition to what is already shared. Once individuals are aware of their power, they are held responsible for using it for transformation of a rhetoric of domination. Individuals are responsible for engaging in the acts necessary to restore immanent value to all beings; that burden cannot be transferred elsewhere and, even if it could, its transference would not bring release from responsibility. Starhawk offers little assistance to rhetors who seek to communicate with those who may not have a similar commitment to inherent value. She ignores the potential of “evil” or “heresy” in her rhetoric of inherent value, failing to suggest strategies for dealing with their presence in such a
...o engage in destructive rhetoric are held to task, rhetoric cannot simply be attributed to some state of affairs, while the rhetorician from whose lips the rhetoric emerges is held to no ethical standard. Certainly it is conceivable that rhetoric can have destructive consequences. Rhetoric seems to have played a central role in the deterioration of people’s faith in their systems of government, or the electoral process by which they choose their representatives. A view of rhetoric in which the rhetorician is accountable for the effects of the change they inflict upon the world could lead to less destructive rhetoric and a society which operates on the solid ground of personal responsibility.
Deborah Tannen’s, “Fighting For Our Lives,” explores the ideas and concepts behind human sociology. She delves into the sociolinguistic relationship between women and men in conversation. Tannen amplifies the importance between language and gender and how they affect interpersonal relationships. Tannen showcases her analytical thinking processes by using rhetorical strategies to support her claim on conflicted communication within the argument culture. Specifically, focusing on politics, the law, education, spousal relationships, the media and within work environments. She gives many examples to support her claim by using figurative language and literary devices such as metaphors and logic and reasoning to accurately convey her message.
Jarratt, Susan C. “Rhetoric and Feminism: Together Again.” College English. Vol. 62. 3rd ed. National Council of Teachers of English, 2000. 390-393. Jstor. Web.
The question of what is rhetoric and what does it do has been a question since stories were even being recorded. However, now there are multiply different scholars who believe that they understand what rhetoric is and how to use it. For someone to use rhetoric correctly they must first have a definition of rhetoric that either they have made to fit themselves or they find a previous definition that suits them. In order for me to become an improved rhetor and be able to rhetorical discuss and evaluate pieces of literature or speeches like General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell address, I must first define rhetoric in how I understand it. Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking aimed to sway your audience in a direction that has been chosen by the rhetor. The way in which a citizen uses rhetoric can change over time. The need to argue the same problem is invalid so the need to use the same rhetorical situations is invalid. You can use rhetoric in a multitude of different areas within our life however; we must choose to use it for good or for evil. In order for rhetoric to still be used in speech today one of two things must be true. There must either be a Truth in life and rhetoric or the more likely choice, that rhetoric changes throughout time and situations. You are not trying to change someone’s mind about something however; you are trying to convince them that you are also correct. I will be using multiple pieces of works that are defining rhetoric to support my definition and finish by evaluating General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell Address using my definition of rhetoric.
Gender Matters is a collection of various essays on feminist linguistic texts analysis, by Sara Mills. Mills develops methods of analyzing literary and non-literary texts, in addition to conversational analysis based on a feminist approach. The author draws on data from her collection of essays gathered over the last two decades on feminism during the 1990s. The essays focus on gender issues, the representation of gender in reading, writing, and in public speaking. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of feminists’ analysis of sexism in literature and the relation between gender and politeness. The article is informative for my research paper, as my topic is going to cover language analysis of the text and who women reading and writing differs according to the discourse analysis within linguistic, psychology, case studies audiences and surveys. The book would be helpful, particularly the last three essays that discusses gender, public speaking, the question of politeness and impoliteness in public speaking. Mills’ analysis is not complete without including the idea of global notions of both women and men, to see whether women and men write and read in the same way globally. Therefore, an update would enrich the book’s discussion section. Although, Mills addresses the class and race theme in language and public speaking, I will only look into the role of language that plays a part in doing or reducing gender in literary, non-literary texts and in conversation.
Rhetoric may refer to the practice of argumentation that aims to influence or modify the perspectives of the target audience (Herrick, 2005, p. 3). Critically analysing the rhetoric context of an article could help us better apprehend the writer’s rhetoric moves as analytical readers, and attain useful techniques to improve as proficient writers. This essay will be evaluating and comparing the following sentences, which both successfully delivered powerful messages within the gender equality arena yet vary in terms of their rhetorical situation, rhetorical appeals, tone, structure and style.
However, to reach such a stage of reconstruction, it is not only necessary to destroy the past but also to understand the value of power, freedom and one's inevitable social and political responsibility. This understanding is crucial as a defensive mechanism, since oppressive regimes can only take power from those willing to give it up.
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, in which there are three forms. Ethos the credibility of the author, Pathos the emotion you create, and logos the logical side of an argument. Many articles and papers use these terms of persuasion to see their side one such document is The Declaration of Independence. The purpose for said document was for the 13 original colonies to declare freedom from the oppressive rule of England.
Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, and its uses the figures of speech and other compositional techniques. It’s designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience.
In that light, it is interesting to analyse what it is that made these artistic words such a difference. A difference that persuaded people to change their behavior. Thankfully, human history has created a term to define these great speeches. It is called rhetoric. In this essay we will try to determine whether rhetoric is an art, or merely a
Our culture has created a social system that allows the driving forces of patriarchy to flourish. Although many people may not be purposefully attempting to continue this system of patriarchy, we each play a role in its survival. For many the problem is not that they are promoting patriarchy but that they are not challenging the system. In Johnson’s article “Patriarchy”, he is not examining whether a patriarchal system exists in our culture but what factors are driving this system to continue. The articles analyzed demonstrate Johnson’s theory of patriarchy by exemplifying his three facets of the patriarchal system and by recognizing the notion of the path of least resistance.
In the story, What is Rhetoric by William Covino and David Jolliffe, there are a wide variety of topics discussed that are inextricably interwoven with the concept “rhetoric.” Rhetoric, as defined by the authors, is “the study and practice of shaping content.” Consequently, my first thought was: Ok, this is a rather broad and opaque description; my successive thought, however, was one of astonishment, inasmuch as the authors went on to further elucidated this jargon. In doing so, the authors distilled the most crucial elements of what is rhetoric— the prevalence of discourse community, and how appealing language is often a precursor to persuasion.
...rms of power and source of pride in society. Emphasizing sexism in language and rising the concern with words can be a vital feminist strategy to provoke social change (Weatherall, 2002). Language can produce a false imagination and represents women and men unequally, as if members of one sex were somehow less wholly human, less complex, and has fewer rights than members of the other sex. Sexist language also characterizes serotypes of women and men, sometimes to the disadvantage of both, but more often to the disadvantage of women. (Wareing & Thomas, 2012). As a result, it is necessary that individuals have the right to define, and to redefine as their lives unfold, their own gender identities, without regard to genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role. Language about women is not a nonaligned or an insignificant issue but profoundly a political one.
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power of relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection. By this very fact, the external power may throw off its physical weight; it tends to be non-corporal; and, the more it approaches this limit, the more constant, profound, and permanent are its effects; it is a perpetual victory that avoids any physical confrontation and which is always decided in advance.