Amazon has yet to deliver the book we were to have read for this post; however, I improvised and blogged about Duffy:
I was confused by this article, but I was also inspired. It's nothing new for some Americans to be prejudiced and racist, but I was surprised to see that there was this public outrage against a minority group in Wisconsin. A lot of the American, anti-Hmong rhetoric was similar to that of what gets voiced about African-American communities. It seems that people want to blame crime, exploitation of government systems and use of resources on minorities. I have always found this idea flawed: Sure, statistically, minority groups may use more government assistance and such, but it is the system that has disenfranchised them that is the root of the problem. I think the government likes giving minority groups stipends for being unemployed and also making it difficult for them to get jobs. This may be for another discussion, though.
As far as the Hmong people, this is where the inspiration came. It was expressed in Duffy's paper that freedom of speech only applies to those that can use it. This means that our freedom of press can be used against a non-English speaking group and that seemed to be the case for the Hmong people. However, those people used their freedom of expression to take the offensive and use the very means that were keeping them condemned as an agent of liberation: This is the constitution at its best. It also shows how rhetoric can engage and encourage literacy. As Duffy addressed in his paper, there are several different rhetorics going on at once: “For example, the languages of governments, schools, and media I think of as offering diverse rhetorics” (226).
This made me think of the rhetorics I am studying or just exposed to on a daily basis. Everything has a rhetoric: The media, pop music, government, the English department, etc. I know this is nothing new to this class, but it made me think of how all rhetorics and what they have in common. I'm not sure as to where all the connections are, but there are plenty. I think my own conscious has a distinct rhetoric that is a creation of all the things I've heard, read and been exposed to throughout my years. I'm curious as to what each person's individual rhetoric is and how that applies to the separate rhetorics in which we are all exposed. Is my internal rhetoric different than each person's in class? Could you classify a rhetoric as biology classifies kingdoms and species? I know that is the aim of the rhetoric/composition discipline, but do we adhere to a rhetoric that blinds us and keeps us from being able to discern certain truths from not? (I swear I'm not high) I just got these thoughts all the sudden and thought I may as well document them. Sorry if this post took a tangent. What a curious notion: Rhetoric.
I wonder what you mean by internal rhetoric, because it sounds similar to narratives, a topic that we've discussed throughout the semester, that steer or ways of thinking and identifying with the world at large.
ReplyDeleteIf you exist, you have to buy into some rhetoric, find some argument reliable or at least appealing. And some rhetoric lies beneath a story, one that we accept or reject, internalize or discard.
A few weeks ago, Dr. Serviss talked about dismissing Foucault's ideas of power--that is, no matter what, we play a part in an oppressive power structure. I would agree with her. It's stifling to think that no matter what happens, you're always being controlled. In this way, I reject one narrative and put another in its place based on whatever rhetoric I find more desirable.
It seems like different narratives and rhetorics are in outward competition. When we look internally at our own narratives and rhetorics, it's a messy place. Maybe it would be clearer if we were high, right J.P.?
Tsk. What is this "high”' of which you speak? It must be the high of learning. Both post and comment are enjoyable and thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking of rhetoric as strategy within that internal story--kind of a means to get what I want/need by using language. It would make sense, then, that the narrative or story that is the individual identity would determine one's use of rhetoric. And it makes sense that, as identity can change, rhetoric can change or accrue. Clearly the Hmong speakers had internal narratives, but they added to those narratives ways to use language--rhetoric--to get what they wanted with some success and certainly in ways that are admirable. So the rhetoric was the strategy described by Duffy and included using and revising tropes, putting out challenging rhetorical questions, using pronouns to invite readers to identify with them, and dismissing the more ridiculous accusations with brief response. And rhetoric did not belong to either group; each group used rhetoric for their own means to their own ends. So is rhetoric a literacy? Or is literacy (or are some literacies) rhetorical?
As for the Foucauldian power trap, you are right that it would be discouraging to always be part of an oppressive power structure. I probably don’t understand Foucault—there is a safe bet for you. However, for me the idea that we are all inside and there is no outside to the power structure doesn’t trouble me. It explains my failures and much larger failures for agency and justice as well as the repetitions of forms of power down though time in spite of human claims to learn from history or to bring civilization to humanity. Somehow I find it more comforting to believe that there is no answer to power, no way that humanity can speak “no” to power, than to believe that humanity could and has not done so. But—and this is why one rises from the bed each morning—being inside, being in the trap may mean a big answer is not possible, but a lot of little, screaming, sneaky, and nosy questions ARE possible—are essential. Maybe that is not Foucault; now that I write it, it sounds more like the idea of fate among the ancients.
Anyhow, the Wausau Daily Herald is still in operation. I halfway expected it to be closed down. Of course, it may be owned by some conglomerate with a philosophy of using “news” stories to sell soap, cars, and ideology. However, today’s headlines show protesters resisting the move by that state’s government to strip collective bargaining rights from teachers and other state employees. Their signs use rhetoric. AND it has a main tab on the opinion page linked to a page devoted entirely to issues of immigration. The big stories there mention Arizona and a left-wing extremist (AP award-winning) journalist. Opinion items call for crack-downs and lawsuits. On the left is a column of links called Immigration Resources (Pew Hispanic Center on immigration research, National Council of State Legislators report on proposed immigration laws, county-by-county maps of diversity). A rhetorical analysis would be in order.