Local and Public Work

What they add:

Anzaldua puts me in line with Gates in terms of viewing language as a construction of identity. She considers how language assists in defining a people, to either chastise or empower them. Language in this sense becomes a cultural device of belonging and difference. This belonging and difference in terms of access to language goes back to the ancients, but Gates and Anzaldua are speaking of contemporary constructions of identity.

Campbell adds in other ways, specifically citing other works we read thus far, such as Burke and Bitzer. I too envision Astell at the table of conversation. Campbell describes the space of liberation work, one that is mostly local and personal. Similar to Astell, Campbell describes how the political and personal work together.

How they complicate:

Anzaldua complicates language in terms of how we see language working (not only for the audience, but also the self). Others of course have tackled this same issue, but the means in which Anzaldua demonstrates this is unique: Language in one given text or genre is not always fixed or controlled, like one’s identity. Her choice in composing her essay informs her rhetoric by example. She offers that to be rhetorical doesn’t have to be confined by guidelines. Language is open, bendable, but still intentional.

Campbell challenges how rhetoric has been defined and argues that the genre of women’s liberation does not align with its previous definition of rhetoric. She cites Bitzer and others to show how the rhetorical situation is not grounded on a certain exigence, it may not result in action, and the space for its function is not always public.