Gates & Holmes

Do new populations matter for rhetoric? How/Is rhetoric changed—or is it—as a consequence of including a new population?

Authentic persuasion is born out of antagonism (pg 821, Holmes), Holmes mentions, borrowing the iconic words of Burke. This, I feel, is the essence behind the question as it pertains to Gates and Holmes and the rhetoric and signifying of African Americans distinct from whites. New populations matter for rhetoric because they fill spaces that work both in tandem and in opposition to traditional, white male ideas of rhetoric. Rhetoric does change, but not necessarily in a linear fashion, but more of a cyclic nature that works off the initial definitions of rhetoric. I see the search for pinpointing what rhetoric is and what it means to us as a circular maze, where one may visit different ways of going through the maze, but essentially, you end in the same place.

   When referencing Gates in this argument of unchanging yet transforming rhetoric, signifying becomes a uniquely black rhetoric because of the historical racial segregation of whites and blacks. Because of this segregation, language because yet another way that whites and blacks attempt to separate themselves from each other; regardless of the cultural significance of the minority or the majority in this case (or, in other words, what would be viewed as the “traditional” versus the “alternative), it still boils down to an alternative rhetoric birth through the antagonism of racial tensions. Unlike many traditional rhetoricians, Gates and Holmes mention the idea of black rhetoric as more of an indirect communication as well as a more direct interaction of audience and speaker; unlike the sponge-absorption of the traditional rhetorical audience, Gates points out how black rhetoric and the signifying monkey focus on the interaction of audience and speaker in forming a persuasive argument. While vastly different from the traditional rhetoric and art of persuasion that, say, Plato and Aristotle initiate, the end result in these very different approaches is, after all, persuasion.

Holmes adds fire and vision as key tropes under signifying in black rhetoric, and focuses on Shuttlesworth as the figure to dissect the uses of precept religious rhetoric versus principle rhetoric as a distinguishing feature of the black rhetorician. Additionally, like Gates, he highlights the seriousness of linguistic play in black rhetoric. Again, these differing ideas on a specific racial rhetoric that distinguishes white traditional rhetoric from black rhetoric, while different, end with a similar goal and result; persuasion. While new populations do affect rhetoric, they only spin an additional web or maze on top of the traditional rhetoric as it once started with the ancients.