Signifyin(g), Identification, and Participation

Amy and Jacob both note that Black rhetoric is a way for marginalized people to find their voices and gain power. I would argue that Black rhetoric can be used for achieving power, amongst other uses. As several of Gates's examples illustrate, Signifyin(g) is not only used for power or to belittle another, but it can also be used to uplift others or as a form of self expression. According to Gates, "Signifying allowed you a choice--you could either make a cat feel good or bad. If you had just destroyed someone verbally or if they were just down already, Signifying could help them over" (1570). Also, Mitchell-Kernan's definition of Signifying echoes this idea: "Signifying...does not...always have negative valuations attached to it; it is clearly thought of as a kind of art--a clever way of conveying messages" (1577). By including Mitchell-Kernan's example of the one woman talking about the 300 pound woman wearing stretch pants (no race indicated), Holmes makes it clear that Signifying is not just about a game of black against white.  He places much importance on the third term, or "the third ear, an intraracial ear through which encoded vernacular language is deciphered" (1567). Gates states, "The third term both critiques the idea of the binary opposition and demonstrates that Signifying (g) itself encompasses a larger domain than merely the political. It is a game of language independent of reaction to white racism or even to collective black wish-fulfillment vis-a-vis white racism" (1567). Signifyin(g) instead is a way of representing and conveying meaning rooted in black cultural tropes. Rhetoric has changed in the sense that rhetors are drawing artistic tools from other cultures outside of white Western culture. 

In terms of what we have read about rhetoric, Gates's explanation of Black rhetoric does have similarities with what we know so far. Gate's interpretation of Black rhetoric, Signifyin(g) in particular, aligns to some extent with Burke and Richards in the sense of ambiguity, as the signified does not have inherent meaning. As Amy mentioned, conveying meaning in Black rhetoric does not lead audiences to the Truth. Instead,  Gates's concept of Signifyin(g) is an act of linguistic misdirection; it leads the audience to meaning while leading them away from meaning. Gates states, "Signifyin(g) is not engaged in the game of information giving...Signifyin(g) turns on the play and chain of signifiers and not on some supposedly transcendent signified" (1557). As mentioned in the text, this idea of misdirection is similar to Derrida's concept of "differance," which explains how meaning differs and defers. Yet, Derrida focuses on how true meaning is unobtainable  because of the ambiguities in language. The ambiguity in Signifyin(g), however, seems to be caused by the person doing the Signifyin(g): "it refers to the trickster's ability to talk with great innuendo, to carp, cajole, needle, and lie. It can mean in other instances the propensity to talk around a subject, never quite coming to the point" (1558). If context causes ambiguity in meaning for Richards, and dichotomies for Burke, it seems for Gates, the speaker or trickster causes the ambiguities in Black rhetoric.     

An area where I do see how rhetoric has changed from what we have read is in the participatory nature of Black rhetoric. Holmes's article illustrates how Shuttlesworth's rhetorical strategy (using a view of scripture that "paradoxically deconstructs, disrupts, and dismantles a canonized view perspectives on racial, religious, national, and international identities") was used to repudiate slavery (812). However, Holmes goes on to argue that Shuttlesworth also used rhetoric to "foreground broader discourses of progressive patriotism, religious activism, and racial egalitarianism" (812). Shuttlesworth's use of rhetoric went beyond active speaker and passive listener; it asked people to participate in a movement. Black rhetoric appears to involve action. The speaker calls for a response from his or her audience and asks them to participate in the rhetorical situation. In order for participation to occur, there must be a sense of solidarity, stemming from identification. This seems to align with Burke's idea of identification as a resource for rhetoric. As people can identify with the rhetor, they will be more likely to accept his or her words. By drawing on scripture, Shuttlesworth had a mass group of people willing to participate at church meetings since they identified with the scripture readings, prayers, and hymns. The mass meetings were a place where religious devotion and sociopolitical activism fused (817). By identifying with the religious audience, Shuttlesworth was able to use a sermonic styled rhetoric to not only convey his ideas, but to invite the audience to participate in the conversation. This participatory aspect of Black rhetoric is something I don't think we have seen in what we have covered so far. 

A New Way of Doing Rhetoric

     Like Amy states in her blog, the main differences between this rhetoric and what we have seen before are power, subversion, and the play of language. I see Gates and Holmes conceiving of rhetoric in a similar way to Burke in that they pay attention to the sign and the symbol and the ways in which signs and symbols participate in a larger language system that is both inclusive and exclusive. However, adding not just a new population, but one that has been historically, institutionally, and linguistically marginalized, nuances our attention to the entire system, to what Kress would call social semiotics. Signifyin(g), as a literate practice, reveals the way in which our relationship to the system is shaped by social factors and  a new way in which we might subvert that system. For Burke, the system is something one must become aware of and then understand the ways in which it acts on the individual for the individual to have agency. However, in the model offered by Gates and Holmes, AFAM rhetoricians who practice signifyin(g) are always already aware of the system and the ways in which it acts on those who use, misuse, and are used by it.

     I found Gates’ conclusion particularly interesting because it emphasizes intertextuality in the process of Signification. He states: “When one text Signifies upon another text, by tropological repetition and difference, the double-voiced utterance allows us to chart discrete formal relationships in Afro-American literary history. Signifyin(g), then, is a metaphor for textual revision” (1581). This offers, I think, a new way of doing rhetorical analyses of rhetorical performances. A text works to undo another (through language play and sign-doubling) and emphasizes the position of an utterance within a network of other utterances under an umbrella of a social-semiotic system. This, like other methodologies, changes the circumference of research in interesting and powerful ways.

     

     What I find most interesting and important in this theory of rhetoric is the understanding of the audience.   Instead, here is an audience that talks to and talks back to the rhetorical performance, that becomes a part of the performance itself. Indeed, Holmes pays particular attention to the embodied responses and reactions that the audience usually has to the rhetoric. This is a fundamentally different audience position than we have seen before. In the classical understanding of rhetoric, the body is merely the tool of delivery for the rhetor. Here, the body is both the vehicle of rhetoric and the vessel that receives it. The rhetorical process is in and of the body, instead of in and of the mind (like Ramus would suggest). That, I think, is what this addition/edition to the rhetorical tradition adds most to my personal theory of rhetoric: the importance of the body in the entire rhetorical practice. 

Rhetoric and Language Communities

Gates and Holmes discussed their subjects from very different angles that contribute to what we might come to understand as African American rhetoric. Gates explains in his opening that he’s setting out to “define a carefully structured system of rhetoric” (1551). His descriptions reminded me of Richards in that they were primarily concerned with how different language communities make meaning (and the role of rhetoric in that process).  A lot of what Gates wrote about resonated with my experiences, primarily as one of ten white kids in a predominately black high school, where I noticed various teachers encouraged Signifyin(g) in the classroom as a sort of pedagogical practice.  My English teacher in particular, who I had for my junior and senior years, often drew our attention to white and black English, devoting much of her class time to explaining how my classmates would have to learn to speak the former, which she jokingly called “The Queen’s English,” when they went off to college.  Meanwhile, she addressed us primarily through Signification, emphasizing the legitimacy of the latter.  All of this is to say that these colliding language communities that Gates describes make up a large part of how I came to understand the world and how language operated.  It was not, however, until I read Gates that I considered this understanding of how language operates in direct relationship to rhetoric.

Gates’s text reveals how language is rhetorical, and by that, specific decisions are made in order to distinguish one community from another.  He presents African American rhetoric as a rich example of this—of how speaking is an act of agency (to use our newfound classroom term).  In this way, he exposes us to a different level of rhetoric than the texts that we’ve read so far—a more profound level of agency in the creation of a culture, or, in other words, the evolution of a community’s language practices through rhetorical agency. Also, he shows us how rhetoric is born out of response (or in retaliation) of a society’s power structure.  On the other hand, as my showing the relationships between what’s been established already in our readings—with Burke’s identification, Richards’s making meaning, and Weaver’s consideration of rhetoric as “an art of emphasis” or the decisions made in order to impress an audience (1357). 

Holmes, meanwhile, shifts focus from the language practices (Signification) specific to the African American community, and concentrates more on the line of rhetors whose writings and speeches come from what he calls “the jeremiad” tradition in his abstract—speech derived from Biblical prophets (like Jeremiah) in their “forth-telling” to point out societal “woes” in order to instigate social change (816).  Holmes shows how Shuttlesworth incorporated the “precept hermeneutic,” derived from the church, into his speech (812).  I found it interesting that a “precept hermeneutic” was not distinctly African American—I’m pretty sure Astell uses the same tactics in different points of her Proposals in order to further her cause for women’s education.  In this way, Holmes’s text does less to distinguish a rhetoric but rather to show places where African American rhetorical practices intercept with other traditions, such as Communism and Christianity.

In answering the question to this week’s blog prompt, I agree with Katie and Bruce that introducing new language communities and rhetorical traditions complicates our understanding of rhetoric rather than changes it; I say that mostly because Gates, who offers us the biggest change, is more or less emphasizing, maybe to a larger extent, the principles of rhetoric already put in place by those we’ve read—particularly Burke and Richards (as I’ve already stated).  Even so, Gates’s text does more (for me, anyway) to highlight the relationship between language, social structure, and rhetoric than anything we’ve read so far. He’s left me with a lot of questions concerning how language communities develop, particularly—Do all languages develop with this strong of a connection to agency and response to power structure?    I’m also wondering if I will be able to spot how this rhetorical language development happens among communities with more overlap, i.e. the grad students in the English department versus Freshmen in our composition classes? 

Signifyin(g) and the Canons

I'd like to add a little different slant to the conversation thus far, and focus on the canons. It seems, at first glance, that the additions of black rhetorics to the canon (not the canons) adds much, but at a certain cost to the traditional understandings of rhetoric. For instance, Henry Gates sees rhetoric (especially Signifyin(g)) as a matter of tropes, which, if we take him at his word, effectively reduces rhetoric to the canon of style. We can see a progression here: whereas with Aristotle, we had five canons, by the time we got to Ramus, we only had two. With Gates in the 20^th century, we are down to one: black rhetoric is mainly about “certain rhetorical games” (1554).

But has Signifyin(g) really robbed us of invention, arrangement, memory, and delivery? Though Gates might not treat of these precisely, it seems unlikely. Invention, for instance, seems to be driven largely by avoidance of direct speech when Signifyin(g). A major constraint, in other words, is that when one speaks in this way, s/he must multiply interpretive possibilities. This can be an aid to invention, a via negativa, a strike at meaning through avoiding the direct route of signification. And arrangement is inevitably present as well, as when Gates discusses the careful way that lines are structured when telling stories or jokes, so maximum impact is present (1564).

Signifyin(g) is primarily about orality, so tropes are used, remixed, and re-used. It is known, for instance, that when a rapper “freestyles,” she is drawing, most often, on years of practice rhyming and inventing phrases, a kind of contemporary progymnasmata (1575). These elements get at the canons of memory and delivery, both.

So while Gates focuses on the indirect nature of Signifyin(g), and on the idea of the practice as a master trope, it seems clear by implication that the other canons are present as well. Indeed, Gates does not seem to want to distance Signifyin(g) from classical rhetoric, as much as to make the case that Signifyin(g) entails more than a simple black “colonization” of a white term (1553). Instead, Signifyin(g) turns on indirection: at multiplying interpretations. The “audience” of the loud talker is free to interpret a speech act as a direct address, or not. The audience of a tale or poem, like that of the monkey and the lion, is free to read himself into the story, or like the lion, to take it at face value.

And this is what Fred Shuttlesworth does with his repurposing of “KKK” to mean “Kennedy, King, and Kruschev.” On the surface, he appears to be joking, and therefore his terminology can be dismissed as clowning around, as working the crowd—he is Signifyin(g) upon a common enemy: the white racists. On the other hand, careful explication of the figures replacing the traditional meaning of KKK reveal that they are carefully-chosen counterparts to totems of Southern conservatism: Kennedy represents Catholicism; King represents civil rights; and Kruschev represents communism, which was attractive to some blacks but terrifying to many Southern conservatives (Holmes 820-821).

Language, for Gates and others, is thus multi-layered, contextual, and fluid, and the canon of style is enriched by this type of black vernacular speech. If we see Gates’s master trope of Signifyin(g) in this way, much can be added to our understanding of rhetoric.

Gates and Holmes - Expanding Rhetoric?

 My first reaction to Dr. Yancey’s question is to say that rhetoric is indeed changed as a result of including a new population.  Gates and Holmes are both discussing voices that have been marginalized.  In fact, Gates and Holmes themselves are voices that at one time would not have been heard at all.  Unlike the other rhetoricians we have studied, Gates and Holmes’s goal isn’t leading the audience to some transcendent Truth, the art of rhetoric as style is not their main focus, and their primary interest is not fixing misunderstandings.  They are interested in how socially marginalized people find their voice and power.  For Gates, rhetorical power is found in Signifyin(g) and being able to understand and participate in the verbal games that are part of it.  For Holmes, rhetorical power is found in revising and repurposing theological, apocalyptic language used to oppose civil rights to support the cause of civil rights.

My second thought was that while our scholarly conversation about rhetorical theory may change with the addition of Gates and Holmes, the rhetoric (or perhaps Rhetorics) they describe have been and continue to be used, whether they are officially recognized or not.  The Signifying(g) and Signifying Monkey that Gates describes find their roots all the way back in Yourba tradition.  Holmes describes how Shuttleworth went back to the Bible to support civil rights in his sermons.  Neither needs official sanction to reach their intended audiences.

Gates expands rhetoric by discussing Signifyin(g) and how it works.  Gates points out, “The Afro-American rhetorical strategy of Signifyin(g) is a rhetorical practice that is not engaged in the game of information giving…Signifyin(g) turns on the play and chain of signifiers, and not on some supposedly transcendent signified” (1557).  It is based on verbal word play, not on literal meaning.  In this game, to take literally what is meant figuratively is to lose.  Gates explains, “It is this relationship between the literal and the figurative, and the dire consequences of their confusion, which is the most striking repeated element of these tales” (1560).  Gates places Signifyin(g) in a theory of rhetoric that argues that standard English and African American Vernacular English intersect: “Ironically, rather than a proclamation of emancipation  from the white person’s standard English, the symbiotic relationship between the black and white, between the syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes, between black vernacular discourse and standard English discourse, is underscored here, and signified, by the vertiginous relationship between the terms signification and Signification, each of which is dependent on the other” (1555).  The use of the term “symbiotic” is important, as is the “vertiginous relationship” Gates describes.  AAVE is not separate from Standard English, but a discourse that is affected by, affects, and intersects with Standard English.

The examples Gates gives of Signifyin(g) reminded me of a Saturday Night Live sketch that Chris Rock used to do called “I’m Chillin.”  Here's a link to watch a clip:http://www.hulu.com/watch/289956
I think the rhyming at the beginning when Chris Rock’s character introduces his side kick and the “yo mamma” joke are most applicable to the Gates article.

Holmes expands rhetoric by describing how Shuttleworth used apocalyptic theology to advocate for civil rights.  Shuttleworth had a formalist, fundamentalist reading of the Bible, but “Shuttleworth ‘s canonized investment against personal sin did not diminish or dilute his prophetic convictions against larger, weightier injustices perpetuated in the public sphere” (816).  Holmes goes on to explain that “the microvirtues of piety and purity neither replaces nor overshadowed the macrovalues of social justice and inclusive democracy” (816).  Unlike other conservative theologians whose fundamentalism supports keeping in place discriminatory policies, Shuttleworth uses a literal reading of Scripture to support civil rights.  Shuttleworth takes apocalyptic language and revises it.  Instead of using theology to argue that great calamity would befall the nation if racist policies ended, he argues that great calamity would befall the nation if civil rights and social justice are denied.

Complicating Rhetoric or the More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

            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.      

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.