Starhawk Patriarchy

1121 Words3 Pages

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

Open Document