Gates and Holmes: Is Rhetoric Changed?

     In my view, though I cannot say my understanding of rhetoric is completely changed after reading Henry Gates and David Holmes’s articles – Gates pays close attention to language, especially signifying, trying to define a special form “Signifyin(g)” on the basis of African American rhetorical practice while Holmes focuses on an influential black figure Fred Shuttlesworth and analyzes his rhetorical strategies – they (especially Gates) radically revise the definition of rhetoric based on the Western tradition and direct readers’ attention to new cultures and new possibilities about rhetoric as well as the plurality of rhetoric. Though different theoreticians, especially Burke, have changed the scope of rhetoric, to a great extent the rhetoric remains a singular form when all these theories are based on the Western culture and share the same history. Gates and Holmes, on the other hand, reveal a different perspective, a different way to view rhetoric based on their own cultural tradition. Thus, rhetoric is not limited to one culture or a singular form. In this sense, Gates and Holmes’s works make the plurality of rhetoric become more visible, leading to new possibilities about rhetoric. In fact, Gates’ discussion of Black English and the complexity of Signifyin(g) as the trope of tropes points to a new direction for the study of rhetoric. Instead of examining one language, one symbolic system (like what Richards has done), Gates highlights the importance of comparing two languages, two symbolic systems (his case is more complicated and interesting in that these two systems, Standard English and Black English, share many signifiers) and discovering different rhetorical principles in the other system. Compared with all the theories we have read before, his research offers a new method to study rhetoric. When considering rhetorical practice, we can examine the relationship between a dominant language and a dialect and also the relationship between two totally different languages (e.g. English and Korean) in order to discover different rhetorical strategies.

     Gates and Holmes’s contribution also lies in that their works direct readers’ attention to the relationship between language, rhetoric, and power. Though Richards, Weaver, and Burke have talked about language and rhetoric from different perspectives, their theories are more about the relationship between values and language (Weaver and Burke) and meaning-making (Richards and Burke). In addition, they do not realize the complexity of language (though Richards emphasize the role of context in meaning-making). Gates, by redefining and analyzing the key term “signifying,” successfully reveals the complex meanings hidden in this term. In his view, Signifyin(g), “being the language of trickery” (1559), shows that there are different layers of meaning in language and plays with the apparent meaning and the latent meaning. Holmes’s analysis of Shuttlesworth’ replacing KKK with “King, Kennedy and Khrushchev” (812) also indicates the complexity of language and its rhetorical function. Both of their works are linked to black rhetorical strategies generated in a particular context: the tension between the white and the black and the white hegemony. Thus, their discussion is not simply about meaning-making or rhetorical strategies related to language, but also about subversive meaning and cultural resistance. The rhetorical strategies they found in black speech shows how black people respond to oppression through appropriating meanings of words and adapting the dominant language (Standard English) to their own modes of communication. In this sense, both Signifyin(g) and “King, Kennedy and Khrushchev” are actually power struggles – this is probably something other theoreticians do not pay much attention to. This recognition of power struggles behind language also leads to the awareness of a complex audience. When talking about audience, other theoreticians we discussed seem to assume that there is a homogeneous audience while Gates and Holmes’s works (especially Holmes’s work) point out the possible conflict among the audience. Hence, an orator like Kennedy may need to keep the balance in front of people including both the white and the black.