Anzaldua and Campbell: Connections, Divergences

Reading through Anzaldua and Campbell, I see some connections with previous theorists, but also some notable divergences that contribute to our understanding of rhetoric and meaning making. Since I loved Bahktin so much, I'm going to begin with the similarities I saw between Mikhail and Gloria. First and foremost, I don't think I've ever read a text as heteroglossic as Borderlands; Anzaldua's numerous cultural influences are translated into her writing style, incorporating multiple languages (I'm assuming they are multiple, as I know very little Standard Spanish/Standard Mexican Spanish/North Mexican Spanish Dialect/Chicano Spanish/Tex-Mex/Pachuco), cultural idioms, and poetry from her cultural antecedents, whether Mexican, Chicano, or Aztec. This pastiche, or mestiza if you will, is heteroglossia incarnate. Its very rare that we see so many cultures explicitly at play in a particular piece of writing, and I thought it was well done, albeit hard to follow.

Between pages 1592 and 1594, Anzaldua echoes a couple of different ideas we have read in other rhetoricians. Going back to Bahktin for a bit, I was reminded of the world of signs in this passage: “When invoked in rite, the object/event is 'present'; that is, 'enacted,' it is both a physical thing and the power that infuses it. It is metaphysical in that it 'spins its energies between gods and humans'” (1592). The idea that a physical object can both be present and imbued with a power sounds an awful lot like the material world being imbued with ideology. The notable difference here, of course, is that for Anzaldua, objects build bridges between humans and gods, whereas for Bahktin signs build bridges between humans. Without spilling over into the visual too much, Anzaldua reinforces this sentiment when she says “An image is a bridge between evoked emotion and conscious knowledge; words are the cables that hold up the bridge” (1594). Here, I think we may see an image as the “sign” and the evoked emotion as something akin to ideology, though not completely synonymous.

On 1593, Anzaldua raises contention with the idea of objects holding intrinsic meanings: “It [white western culture] bears the presences of qualities and internal meanings.” Anzaldua is raising contention not only with objects having internal, fixed meanings, but the oppresive nature of western culture itself, as her emphasis on issues of women, chicano, and queer rhetoric indicates. And while we have read some theorists on the margins, Anzaldua is the first to be antagonistic (possibly confused with agonistic) toward white western culture:

“Though in the conscious mind, black and dark may be associated with death, evil and destruction, in the subconscious mind...white is associated with disease, death, and hopelessness. Let us hope that the left hand, that of darkness, of femaleness...can divert the indifferent, right-handed, 'rational' suicide drive that, unchecked, could blow us into acid rain in a fraction of a millisecond.” (1593)

To my memory, this is the first instance of doom and gloom rhetoric we've read, with a possible exception being Burke's references to nuclear annihilation. But it establishes that Anzaldua is directly opposed to systems of white ethnocentrism and patriarchy, and intends to change them, rather than taking relationships of power matter-of-factly like Foucault. With an eye toward systemic change, this week's reading provide a contribution to rhetoric we haven't seen before.

Even though Anzaldua places those on the margins in direct opposition to their oppressors, she doesn't provide a mechanism by which they are to overcome their subordinate position. Campbell, on the other hand, provides somewhat of a framework for women's rhetoric and how it attempts to affect change. Amy P. brings up Astell in her post and makes a good point about Campbell and Anzaldua not being concerned with “Truth” in the way that Astell is. But I find it interesting that like Astell, Campbell begins with the private domain as the basis for her rhetoric, despite the different ends her and Astell have in mind. As Campbell notes, the basis of “consciousness raising” women's lib/rhetoric “...involves meetings of small, leaderless groups in which each person is encouraged to express her personal feelings and experiences” (128). By beginning in the personal and private, Campbell echoes Astell, but as those experiences are made public toward the goal of social change, there is notable divergence.