Inclusion

Like Amy P., I have to start here: this rhetoric is about finding voice and power. In Gates' work, voice and power is gained by positioning a rich definition of signifyin (the rhetorical practice; the trope of tropes) within taxonomies of western|white rhetoric and positioning a practice unique to black rhetoric within rhetorical studies. In Holmes' work, voice and power is shown to have been gained by Shuttlesworth through his use of tropes for the purposes of advocacy and activism (for power, voice, and social justice).

Like David, I was surprised by how much these rhetorical practices are about style. And moreover, I was surprised by how much style is foregrounded in signifyin and the amount of power that comes with style. In the case of signifyin, being able to perform the trope of tropes gets the speaker a lot of traction in terms of being able to move around in the discoursive universe and participate in that universe (1554). Shuttlesworth's redress of KKK gives him a way to do some of the work of identification, work that challenges the status quo, getting him a way to meet his purpose (815). Because Gates and Holmes are studying practices that are bound to a history of social injustice, and the rhetorics they're studying were developed/practiced within that history, some of this echoed Astell (in a very general way). Here are a couple of comparisons: Astell points to conversation as a time/place/occasion for the practice of rhetoric || signifyin is practiced in conversation; parenting and parenthood are activities where rhetoric (performance and instruction) occurs || Gates discusses parenting/instruction [schooling] in signifyin -- linking it to a right of passage for the child.

Otherwise, because of Burke, vernacular situations are a domain of rhetorical performance/practice. Richards, Weaver, and Burke got us interpretation. Because of Richards, we've dealt with semantics. Because of Astell, we've seen a little bit of the body as the available means. Ramus got us tropes. Plato, Astell, and Weaver have dealt with religious. Aristotle and Bitzer got us formal occasional rhetoric/situational rhetoric like the mass meetings in Holmes.

For me, what is really different is that this is a more international rhetoric, a rhetoric that is learned implicitly and through practice, and a rhetoric that advocates/subverts. Gates' study if signifying crosses continents, and an important part of the way that he defines signifyin is through the trinary forces of the monkey, elephant, and lion. In the section on schooling, Gates describes the development of a child's ability to signify/rhetorical instruction as being implicit, through listening as opposed to more direct action (Astell & Aristotle). Moreover, as a practice, Gates indicates that only the practice must be known in order for a speaker to perform. And as tropes (fire & vision in Holmes; signifyin in Gates), they are deployed for a number of reasons, but most generally, they seem to be used to get a voice, strike contrast, and in the case of Holmes, subvert political groups with racist agendas/ideologies.