An interesting theme that existed in both Powell and Villanueva's words was the idea of how the scholars who study the ideas and rhetoricians of Western rhetoric, even though they might have the best of intentions, seem to try to swallow up or ignore non-Western rhetoric/non-White rhetoricians, or, as Powell phrases it, as if they (non-Western rhetoricians) "need to be rescued by the pale extended hand of empire, as if they need our sympathetic civilizing influence" (Powell 402).
When Villanueva referenced the words of Frantz Fanon in a paper, the "resurrection" was seen as questionable by the rejecting editor, though the usage of the far more ancient Aristotle and Cicero went unquestioned (Villanueva 655). And Villanueva's rhetorical example of the credibility of a French philosopher vs. a Mexican philosopher comes to life in one of the stories told during Powell's performance speech, for a student was lectured by a scholar for not referencing the words of a French philosopher and theorist Focault in her studies of Chicana theory, for apparently their words were close enough where it seemed wrong to not cite Focault, even though the student simply didn't see him as relevant, despite the likely coincidental closeness of ideas (Powell 395).
We have all been guilty of this within our class, linking the rhetoric of the Aztecs and the Incas to Aristotle and Plato, even though it is not for sure that there is even any linear link between the two. On one hand it makes sense, since similarities can be easily pointed out, and the Greek rhetoricians form the majority of what we have been studying this semester.
However, the problem with this though is that we are unwittingly, with the best of intentions, contributing to the mindset that Greece and Europe in general is the home of rhetoric, even though there is enough evidence of other cultures forming their own rules of rhetoric with little to no influence from the Greeks. There are specific rules in Aztec, Chinese, and Native American rhetoric, to just take the examples, that have rules and patterns that are built specifically off of their own cultures, and thus can't really be linked to Greece at all. The higher use of poetic and flowery language in Aztec rhetoric, How ranking and hierarchy affects Chinese argumentation, to the use of story in Native American rhetoric, while you can conceivably still make links to the Western rhetoricians we've already discussed, it is clear that these conventions are built from rules and traditions of their own societies.
The problem with questioning these rhetoricians or feeling the necessity to link them back to Western rhetoricians is the implications that these rhetoricians are not strong enough, right enough, credible enough to stand on their own, even though their rhetorical strategies are certainly sound and have a long enough history and backing in their own cultures where you can't dismiss instances of academic argumentation within these cultures as purely accidental. Yet many of these rhetorics haven't received nearly the same amount of study as Western rhetoric.
The reasoning behind the title of this post is we've discussed of hegemony in class and how the greater power tends to swallow up smaller factions, until they are no longer seen as having really any credit or influence. Again, while I doubt scholars are intentionally doing this, by constantly trying to link the rhetoric of non-Western cultures to Western rhetoric, non-Western rhetoric is under risk of being swallowed up by the currently greater influence that is Western rhetoric, rather than the place it deserves alongside it as an equal. Though at least we have scholars such as Villanueva and Powell who are bringing up this topic, and will hopefully help to slowly, carefully, pry away non-White, non-Western rhetoric from the unintentionally consuming blob of Western rhetoric, and give it its own place in academic discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment