As I was reading my last post about Duffy, I noticed a phrase that I used: “Internal Rhetoric.” At the time of the post, I didn't know what it was and I actually just used it as a catch phrase to best describe what I was discussing about the reading. Well, upon investigation of the phrase, I discovered it had already been used and there was actually a book written on the subject: Internal Rhetorics: Toward a History and Theory of Self-Persuasion ( Neinkamp, 2001). The notions expressed in Neinkamp's book focus on “self-persuasion” and how something as such will produce the “rhetorical self.” She explains that the rhetorical self develops rhetoric to "maintain a fragile equilibrium of personal identity and to resolve ambiguous or conflicting imperatives for attitude, decision, and action" (128).
Based on this, one can see how the rhetorical self relates to the Hmong . The fact that Hmong language is not an exact one, but is created by different forces ( governments, missionaries, other races), one can see how personal identity became paramount during the conflict that occurred in Wausau. I guess I am trying to make the connection between the internal rhetoric of peoples, like the Hmong, and how it worked with other literary forces to inspire literacy and social change. My definition of “literate,” in this context, means being aware of something and how to manipulate and utilize it to some advantage, e.g., letter writing:
Some of the Hmong who wrote letters as a form of self-defense and self-preservation were becoming literate of a form of public discourse. Duffy explained how they became literate of how to construct arguments, effectively use diction and how to concisely express their thoughts. Now, how did all of this occur? How did a race of people looked down upon and against great odds come to define themselves and develop something that could be called “Hmong Rhetoric?” My opinion is that the rhetorical self, traditional rhetoric (learned, erudite persuasion) and literacy were all interwoven to create this phenomenon. Again, this is one isolated case that was studied, but similar occurrences can show how internal rhetoric, traditional rhetoric and literacy frame how people learn and make change. For example: The internal rhetoric of Egyptians, coupled with the traditional rhetoric of what ignited all the writing about their revolution and the literacy many of them had toward technology (facebook), created another interwoven phenomenon similar to that of the Hmong.
A lot of these ideas are borderline cultural studies, psychology, anthropology...etc, but within the lens of the internal rhetoric connection, one can understand the value and gravity rhetoric has. This is also not meant to be taken too seriously, as I would have to do much research to refine and make clearer examples of what I mean by internal rhetoric, but I hope this post sufficed as a jumping off point for conversation.
JP -
ReplyDeleteI want to hear more about this notion that you've read a little about. I'm wondering if what you are calling internal rhetoric might be called cultural rhetoric? Or Burke's idea of the terministic screen? I do think you are highlighting an important tension here - between the kind of rhetorics we use to create social action and influence our peers to the kinds of rhetoric we might use to make meaning/create values for ourselves. Aristotle brings the two together often, suggesting that who we are individually - our ethics or credibility - comes from the ways we interact/influence others. In that way it was one fluid stance in ancient Greek thought. But this is NOT the case in many other cultural rhetorics... Interesting ideas here, JP. Share them in class tomorrow!!
TS
JP-
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed that I lost my entire comment to you, but I'll do my best to reconceptualize it. Really, I just wanted to say two things:
1. I really appreciate this term that you use to describe the ways that the Hmong in Wausau created a space for themselves in the literate discourse of their community.
2. I also really enjoyed reading yours and others' blogs this week as many discussed Duffy's treatment of rhetoric. I have to completely agree that what you describe as the internal rhetoric of the Hmong involved a literacy informed by our traditional conceptions of rhetoric as the art of persuasion.
- ES
JP, I also really enjoyed your blog this week! I love your explanation of the idea of internal rhetoric. Also, the way you conceptualize literacy (as driven by the Hmong people) has helped me realize that my idea about Duffy's text needs work. You say that the literacy of the Hmong allowed them to "being aware of something and how to manipulate and utilize it to some advantage, e.g., letter writing." The idea that literacy is about the functionality of the thing itself, the usefulness-to-our-advantage power of words, is very interesting. While everyone else is trying to pull the Hmong away from their cultural identity and internal rhetoric, as you state, why should they not use the power of it as a weapon against other cultures. Well, maybe weapon is not the best term to use, but you get the point. People are using its power against them, so why not use it against other peoples?
ReplyDeleteI'm also juggling this idea of internal rhetoric. Last week, I posted something to JP's previous thoughts about internal rhetoric, and I was trying to work out ideas about how internal rhetoric is produced by ideology--basically, we're sort of persuaded into buying into a way of thinking about ourselves and our lives.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Maribeth's comment makes me think about how the Hmong have appropriated the power discourse, and--if you agree with Duffy's thesis--they use that discourse with its rhetoric and form better than those who allegedly have mastered it.
The idea of "weapon against other cultures" is somewhat frightening but accurate. In my post this week, I talk about how racist discourse has "power" insomuch as it can influence people to do dangerous things. However, reflecting on some staple literary texts, there are many moments where a minority has used the power discourse with lethal finesse. Like Frederick Douglass.
It's odd to see literacy (and rhetoric, no doubt) as a weapon for both liberation and oppression.
JP--
ReplyDeleteYour post and the comments that followed reminded me of Arnove and Graff's literacy campaigns. It seems to me that they needed to manipulate this internal rhetoric/cultural rhetoric/terministic screen in such as way as to create a sense of literacy that would advocate for their governments. Just as the Egyptian internal rhetoric combined with technology to create a new language and understandng, so too could the cultural values of a nation combine with politically motivated literacy pedagogies to create this new knowledge informed by the dominant (oppressive) government.
At any rate, I hope we discuss the idea of internal rhetoric in class, as I think it could inform treatments of both Brandt and Duffy.