Mo' Foss: Invitational Rhetoric

I really enjoy Foss's straightforward style, but this time her idea is a little more extreme (but logical). She claims that we should all practice Invitational Rhetoric, where you engage in conversation seeking a greater understanding. Unlike some other rhetoric, IR does not aim to change your mind or convert you to a cause, but simply to explore and expand your knowledge.

Because we've already discussed this piece in class, I thought it would be good to start with some of the discussion points we hit on that day. Most notably, is the community vs. self issue. Conquest rhetoric usually works for the good of the community, while invitational rhetoric looks at the self for change. I can see how this idea plays out in "real life" in that togetherness and cohesion are often beneficial frameworks to work for community improvement.

Personally, I really enjoy invitational rhetoric, and for the most part see it as a large part of class discussions I have in most of my courses. Sometimes, though I see a need for advisory rhetoric, when I just want to listen and consider an "expert's" opinion. Perhaps the large reason I find this beneficial is my introversion, but on a more practical level, advisory rhetoric has its education benefits as well. Sometimes, I want to hear a PhD holding professor's opinion without the conversation being clouded by my classmates' points of view. Sometimes, I find that total inclusion of all voices can cause the discussion to get stuck. For instance, in some 400/500 classes at Marshall, I'm in an English class with non-majors who have little previous knowledge for literature. While these individuals have every right to learn, their input (sometimes) hinders me from learning or exploring. To be honest that really gets on my nerves. But, to be a bit more academic about things, I think that invitational rhetoric is a great way to conduct conversations, but sometimes advisory rhetoric can be just as beneficial.

On a few readings by Cheris Kramarae

So my usual scholarly tactic is reject everything until I'm converted. That way, in order to be genuinely persuasive, an argument has to be very strong to win me over. I have to say that Kramarae has answered a lot of my lingering questions about feminist rhetoric, and I'm looking forward to reading more of her stuff.

Kramarae's focus is language and how patriarchy in particular controls language, effectively subordinating or silencing people (including women, blacks, etc.). I have to admit that I've never been able to fully understand the feminist fight with language. I've always found that there's a way to express myself in English. But as Kramarae explores the history of women's opression, namely her analysis of "the problem with no name" and "Women's liberation," I'm coming around.

Obviously, gender roles are largely a construction of opposites. What is a woman? A woman is the opposite of man. So, being a woman, can be summed up as being "not a man"? So, the very definition of our sex is based on masculinity. (And this is detrimental to men as well, who now have the converse of being "not a woman" to deal with).

One of the things Kramarae touches on repeatedly, though rather passingly is that patriarchy dictates that women can't have a sense of humor. I suppose, it would be rather indelicate if Jane Cleaver started making raunchy jokes at a cocktail party, but this notion is more significant. Since we're studying pop culture this semester, I find that exploring women's humor is important.

My Dad's family are notorious jokers. He grew up with lots of cousins (most of them male) and two brothers, all of whom are riots at family reunions. I remember being a kid, around 7 or so, myself with two younger brothers, and that my older cousins (Dad's childhood friends), favored joking with my brothers more than me. I don't remember how, but in some way I inserted myself into these funny situations and was eventually accepted as a jokester, and this still applies today. Now, I don't think that my cousins were particularly sexist, but I do think that they had expectations of me simply because I was a girl. It's something that subtle, so that even as a child I've questioned and explored why I was treated differently. It's no wonder that I became a sort of a tomboy through most of my childhood.

I still think humor is important, though. Humor, as far as pop culture and entertain is concerned is widely used for pure hilarity as well as social change. From John Stewart's broad strokes of semi-sophisticated satire, to MadTV's slapstick-driven parodies. Despite women and minorites' incorporation beyond tired stereotypes, there are still expectations on how women and men should be funny.

So, as luck would have it I was musing on most of these things today, when I found this post by Linda Holmes over at NPR. Holmes usually uses her blog space to subtly comment and chide silly occurrences in pop culture, namely TV, but occasionally, she has a killer post that goes beyond the entertainment realm and examines our culture. In this particular post, she questions the coverage of Saturday Night Live's decision to fire Michaela Watkins and Casey Wilson. Holmes refers to this piece by Tom Shales:

Two new women who will have the status of featured players -- Jenny Slate and Iranian-born Nasim Pedrad -- will join the cast, not as replacements for anybody, Michaels says, although cute Casey Wilson and glamorous Michaela Watkins have concurrently left. Watkins may have been just too classically pretty to be hilarious. Anyway, the absences of Fey and Poehler will be felt.

If you ever wonder why it's particularly difficult for women to succeed on SNL, consider just the assumptions found in this one paragraph. The explanation from Lorne Michaels that there is no connection between losing two women and gaining two women (which contributes to the vague sense that there are only a couple of places for them in the cast) is accepted apparently without question, while the two women leaving are referred to as "cute," "glamorous," and "classically pretty." In fact, Watkins learns from Shales that she may have been "too classically pretty" to be funny.

Holmes goes further in her post, but I'll let you look at that yourself without ruining the punchline for you. I don't know, maybe examining some aspect of humor will be a great project. I'm reminded particularly of Step Brothers. I'm a sucker for horrible gross slapstick, I'll admit. Will Ferrell usually manages such a feat under the guise of a child-like man idiot. In this film, however, there is a nearly equally raunchy part played by Kathryn Hahn, who jumps John C. Reilly's character, Dale, at every meeting. She is foul-mouthed and dirty, going so far as to tell Dale, "I want to take your curly head and stick it up my vagina." I absolutely love that Hahn's character is so gut-wrenchingly graphic, but in a unique way. Her performance and character fit in so well with that of Ferrell and Reilly that I forget to decide whether or not she's pretty enough to be in a movie ;).

Reading selections from Sonja Foss's Rhetorical Criticism Exploration & Practice

I like the way Foss lays out her first chapter. It is easy to understand and follow, explaining a specific method while still leaving room for creativity on the part of the analyst. Because I am new to rhetoric this introduction is beneficial to me because it gives me a sound structure to start from. I usually find it advantageous to work from the ground up, using established methods to begin an endeavor, then moving on to my own methods.

I also understand why feminist rhetoric is important and looks at artifacts in entirely new ways. I am thrilled to finally have a method for deconstructing those ridiculously sexists ads I see everywhere. I also think that Foss's method begins with a concrete strategy that can enable us to explore the more abstract issues of gender, class, sexuality, religion, etc. I can finally tell my family that I'm not the only person who deconstructs Swiffer ads and toy commercials.

The close examination of feminist rhetoric in pop culture has also shown me what kind of expectations are placed on men. I think that studying both feminism and masculinism in texts simultaneously would be greatly beneficial. Like we were discussing in class Tuesday, very few people fit into the "Norm," and everyone must feel slighted, rejected, or ostracized in comparison with the way we are "supposed" to perform our respective genders, classes, races, etc.

In fact, every concept in this class reminds me of the show Mad Men, which is probably the most though-provoking and explorative show regarding sex and gender that I've ever seen. For every blatant sexist remark towards women, there is a slightly more hidden slight against men. While nearly every regular character in the series performs male, nearly none of them portray their true personalities.

So, I see feminist rhetoric as a way of charting a path for exploration into gender studies for all variations of chromosomes. Not only looking at the dichotomy of man/woman but at the continuum of sex and gender. I'm excited, but at this point still feel ill-equipped to put these newfound rhetorical tools to use.