CÓDIGO UNIDAD NOMBRE DEL PROCEDIMIENTO

An(other) Rhetoric: Moving Forward

As I reach this conclusion, I find an irony inherent in this study of rhetorical ethics. Here I am asked to draw conclusions, to make my argument. In the minuscule slice of dialogue in the vast universe of our disciplinary discussion that this thesis represents, I must assert my own personal authority and contribute to the “ongoing debate.” I have read, studied, and changed as a result, but my personal journey falls short of disciplinary goals. I must now say others are wrong and I am right. In this I hear Lipari’s lament that that we have passed over listening in favor of speaking and

persuading; we have banished listening to the subservient status of rhetoric’s other. Through the very act of writing this paper, I find something lacking in the disciplinary tradition that “others” me. To be a master of rhetoric, it seems I have lost my ability to say, “I don’t know the answer, but I am listening... infinitely listening.”

For surely the disciplinary debate regarding what represents an ethical encounter with “others” continues, and may always go on. For example, we continue to debate the ethical ways of including the historically excluded within our discipline and canon, as well as the potential for such inclusion and representation. Focusing on issues of feminism and representation, Amy Hinterberger argues that feminist researchers occupy a place of power and authority which by nature requires a commitment to

53

ethically represent “others.” Specifically, in her article on “Feminism and the Politics of Representation,” she addresses feminist concerns of speaking “for others” and

obstacles of representing across differences of race, sexuality, gender, and culture. Feminists, she claims, “cannot transparently know who ‘oppressed people’ are and what will aid them simply because they are concerned with the politics of empowerment” (75- 76). This highlights Spivak’s concern regarding how intellectuals construct the wills of “oppressed people” (76). Hinterberger also considers how hierarchies of oppression and privileged ontological positions are inconsistently represented in feminist discussions, suggesting that differences between “others” are being represented in potentially problematic ways. For instance, through references to binaries such as

“liberation/oppression” or “western/non-western,” feminist theorists can end up

reproducing the same polarizing categories they seek to escape (81). In spite of these challenges and additional ones, we should not abandon the task of working towards an ethical involvement with “others.”

In fact, I would “argue” that the focus on rhetorical ethics could not be timelier. This study began with the assertion that our discipline’s focus has shifted from

confrontational rhetoric to invitational rhetoric (as defined by Foss, Griffin, Bone, and Scholz) over the past 60 years. It is important to note that I do not suggest that

persuasion is always an inappropriate rhetorical tactic. Every situation must respond to the present moment; every response must be situated in its kairos. However, a strict definition of rhetoric as persuasion denies an important connection between ethics and rhetoric that must be explored further, just as a sole disciplinary focus on persuasion is problematic because of those it threatens to exclude. I have suggested that one

54

possible definition of the ethical encounter is an encounter that does not prioritize the needs or will of the self over the other, but rather involves a sense of “thinking

ecologically” about our interactions with others—recognizing that our rhetorical choices are ultimately ethical decisions, always with motive, and always with consequences in the world.

I believe the preceding study of the 20th Century rhetorical tradition and specific analysis of identification, responsibility, listening and acknowledgement, rhetoric as love, and kairos supports such a reading of ethical encounters and leads us to several possible conclusions about the nature of rhetorical ethics. The ethical engagement with others as shaped by the rhetorical theories discussed involves, among many things:  Understanding the role of language and symbol systems in human interaction.  Embracing humility and a sense of humor in rhetorical situations.

 Seeking a “face-to-face” encounter with others.

 Creating a “dwelling space” for difference in ethical encounters.

 Protecting the “ground” of both the self and the other when we communicate.  Listening, acknowledging, and offering time for reflection to encourage the most

ethical response possible.

 Abandoning authoritative positions and puffery, and instead envisioning rhetoric as love.

 Considering that every self/other, and thus every encounter, is different. In the end, we need kairos.

Such goals support a more invitational rhetoric that attends to ethical concerns by seeking to understand rather than convert, support camaraderie and mutuality (if not

55

unity) instead of reinforcing dominant power relationships, challenge the speaker as much as the audience, and privilege listening and invitation over persuasion when appropriate.

Arnett speaks about the notion of satyagraha, the dialogic nonviolent change supported by Mahatma Gandhi, versus duragraha, or stubborn persistence (“A Conversation” 53). I would argue that both are effective strategies. Persuasion,

violence, and “bully tactics” used to have one’s way without concern for the other (which can be literally for the other’s life, but also for the other’s difference) have and continue to be effective rhetorical strategies. Likewise, in situations of extreme violation of basic human rights, such as genocide, action based on satyagraha may be inappropriate. As Martin Buber retorted to Gandhi, nonviolence against the Nazis would have been impossible. Again, kairos is key. But effectiveness is not the only factor in the choice of rhetorical strategy. Instead, rhetoric is the practice of everyday existence; its concern is how we dwell with others in the world. We therefore cannot ignore the wider ethical concerns of rhetoric.

Though their theoretical frameworks vary, Burke, Levinas, Bonhoeffer, and the others studied here all envision a paradigm where ethical concerns do guide our rhetorical choices with others. Significant areas of continued study regarding rhetorical ethics include issues of voice, agency, and marginalization. Invitational rhetoric cannot guarantee that quieter or disadvantaged voices will be heard unless all participants embrace the invitation. In all, an(other) rhetoric is both a ripe topic for continued disciplinary attention, as well as a necessary component of everyday interactions with

56

others that long to display love over hate, listening over silencing, inclusion over exclusion, and acceptance over rejection.

57

REFERENCES

Arnett, Ronald. “A Conversation about Communication Ethics with Ronald C. Arnett.”

Exploring Communication Ethics: Interviews with Influential Scholars in the Field.

Ed. Patricia Arneson. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.

Arnett, Ronald. Dialogic Confession: Bonhoeffer’s Rhetoric of Responsibility. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2005.

Biffle, Christopher. A Guided Tour of Five Works by Plato. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1995.

Bizzell, Patricia. “Editing the Rhetorical Tradition.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 36.2 (2003): 109-118.

Bone, Jennifer Emerling, et al. “Beyond Traditional Conceptualizations of Rhetoric: Invitational Rhetoric and a Move Toward Civility.” Western Journal of

Communication 72.4 (2008): 434-462.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Touchstone, 1995.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. Touchstone, 1997. Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969. Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes Toward History. Berkeley: U of California P, 1959. Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966.

58

Burke, Kenneth. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. Berkeley: U of California P, 1954.

Bygrave, Stephen. Kenneth Burke: Rhetoric and Ideology. New York: Routledge, 1993. Carter, Michael. “Stasis and Kairos: Principles of Social Construction in Classical

Rhetoric.” Rhetorical Review 7.1 (1988): 97-112.

Charland, Maurice. “The Constitution of Rhetoric’s Tradition.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 36.2 (2003):119-134.

Cooper, Johh (ed.). Plato Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.

Corder, Jim. “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love.” Rhetoric Review 4.1 (1985): 16-32.

Crusius, Timothy. Kenneth Burke and the Conversation after Philosophy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999.

Foss, Sonja and Cindy Griffin. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.” Communication Monographs 62 (1995): 2-18.

Hawhee, Debra. “Rhetorics, Bodies, and Everyday Life.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36.2 (2006): 155-64.

Hinterberger, Amy. “Feminism and the Politics of Representation: Towards a Critical and Ethical Encounter with ‘Others.’” Journal of International Women’s Studies 8.2 (2007): 74-83.

Hyde, Michael. The Life-Giving Gift of Acknowledgment. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 2006.

Jarratt, Susan. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

59

Kastely, James. Rethinking the Rhetorical Tradition: From Plato to Postmodernism. New Haven: Yale UP, 1997.

Kennedy, Geroge. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, 2007.

Kraut, Richard. “Aristotle’s Ethics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/aristotle-ethics/>. Levinas, Emmanuel. Ethics and Infinity. Pittsburg: Duquesne UP, 1982.

Lipari, Lisbeth. “Rhetoric’s Other: Levinas, Listening, and the Ethical Response.”

Philosophy and Rhetoric 45.3 (2012): 227-245.

Marsh, Charles. “The Overabundant Self and the Transcendental Tradition: Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the Self-Reflective Subject.” Journal of American Academy of

Religion 60.4 (1992): 659-672.

McComiskey, Bruce. Gorgias and the New Sophistic Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002.

Miller, Carolyn. Rev. of Rethinking the Rhetorical Tradition: From Plato to

Postmodernism. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34.2 (2001): 179-181.

Moran, Michael G. and Michelle Ballif. Introduction. Twentieth–Century Rhetorics and

Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. Ed. Michael G. Moran and Michelle

Ballif. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000. xi-xxxii.

Nehamas, Alexander and Paul Woodruff. Plato Symposium. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989. O’Gorman, Ned. “’Telling the Truth:’ Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Rhetorical Discourse Ethic.”

60

Ratcliffe, Krista. Rhetorical Listening: Identification, Gender, Whiteness. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2005.

Robbins, Jill (ed.). Is it Righteous to Be? Interviews with Emmanuel Levinas. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2001.

Ross, W.D. “Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle.” The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomics, n.d. Web. 17 June 2013.

<http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html>.

Royster, Jacqueline Jones. “Disciplinary Landscaping, or Contemporary Challenges in the History of Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 36.2 (2003): 148-167.

Sheard, Cynthia Miecznikowski. “Kairos and Kenneth Burke’s Psychology of Political and Social Communication.” College English 55.3 (1993): 291-310.

Sprague, Rosamond Kent (ed.). The Older Sophists. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.

Vitanza, Victor. Negation, Subjectivity, and the History of Rhetoric. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Warnock, Tilly. “Kenneth Duva Burke.” Twentieth–Century Rhetorics and Rhetoricians:

Critical Studies and Sources. Ed. Michael G. Moran and Michelle Ballif. Westport:

Greenwood Press, 2000. 75-89.

Welch, Kathleen E. Electric Rhetoric : Classical Rhetoric, Oralism, And A New Literacy. n.p.: MIT Press, 1999. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 7 Apr. 2013.