I agree with Katie that the inclusion
of a new population complicates rhetoric rather than necessarily changing
it. Gates’ discussion of Signifyin(g)
addresses a way that African Americans use rhetoric in a differing manner. For Gates, “Signifyin(g) is the black trope
of tropes, the figure for black rhetorical figures” (1556). The indirection that Signifyin(g) relies upon
fascinated me. This trope takes great
wit and nuance to execute effectively—hence, Gates work in further complicating
and defining the concept appears to demonstrate the rhetorical aptitude
necessary to master this practice.
Reading Gates, I couldn’t help
contemplating how different geographic regions of the country appear to have
their own rhetoric(s) as well, albeit perhaps not as rich and nuanced as
Signifyin(g). Having grown-up in the
Northeast, I would almost identify sarcasm as our master trope. Deployment of sarcasm is valued and sarcastic
banter is actually, in many ways, a form of bonding. However, in my travels, I’ve realized that
this form of sarcasm is not always received well in other areas of the
country. A sarcastic insult that could
be seen as a form of bonding, of demonstrating friendship, in the Northeast is
oftentimes taken as purely an insult elsewhere.
Yet, directness is also valued where I grew up. It took me a little while living down South
to realize that “Bless your heart” is actually an indirect insult—once I
figured this out, I was quite upset that this expression had been used on me
without my knowledge of what it had meant.
Rhetoric, then, seems to be a less concise venture than one that is
intrinsically linked to the values and practices of particular groups—Gates theories
helped clarify this for me.
While I enjoyed Gates, Holmes’
article really caught my attention. His
discussion of the key tropes of “fire” and “vision” in apocalyptic rhetoric in
regard to civil rights was intriguing, especially since he demonstrated how it
was used by both sides. In our current
political culture, I couldn’t help but equate this to debates over gay marriage
and civil rights for homosexuals.
Various religious leaders have equated America’s “tolerance” of
homosexuality with catastrophic disasters—hurricanes, severe winter storms,
etc. are God’s punishment for our nation’s acceptance of homosexuals. The Westboro Baptist Church even protests
funerals of soldiers, proclaiming their deaths a punishment from God as a
result of America’s acceptance of homosexuality.
However, although apocalyptic
language has not been deployed in this manner to my knowledge, other Christian
leaders are calling for acceptance of homosexuality and love towards
everyone. These leaders see the persecution
of homosexuals as not Christian—they believe Christ taught us to love
everyone. My wife actually has a friend
who is a youth minister with extremely liberal values. The debates he has with more conservative
members of his church on Facebook are fascinating—he frequently uses scripture
and theology to contend against their views that homosexuality is a sin. In these debates, he tries to maintain a
polite tone; however, other postings indicate his frustration with some Christians
continued antagonistic nature against gay marriage and homosexuality in
general.
Holmes discussion still seems
applicable today. By studying the
rhetoric of the civil rights movement, we can apply it to today’s current civil
rights debates over gay marriage and equal rights for homosexuals. In both cases, religious rhetoric is being
deployed to support both positions. By
understanding the rhetoric of other populations and the ways in which rhetoric
has been used historically, it seems to enrich our understand of rhetoric as a
more complex endeavor that should be sensitive to how various populations use
rhetoric in different ways—even if they are drawing upon similar sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment