Caitlin’s Comments (group member since Oct 29, 2013)

Caitlin’s comments from the Composition and Rhetoric group.

I think your first two questions can be discussed together, at least a bit. It seems to me that their goal is to illuminate ways for us to re-evaluate the rhetorical practices around us, especially those that were historically deemed unsuccessful or not worth studying. Royster & Kirsch discuss scholarship that turns more toward valuing what wasn't traditionally valued, like Powell's research on the letters of women to the government trying to keep their homesteads from being turned into a national park. I feel like this metaphor is meant to get us thinking about what we define as "precious" rhetorical actions.

If we think about it in this way, I see elite, white men's rhetoric as the gold we might find--traditionally valued and what many people are out looking for when they think about rhetoric. But Royster, Kirsch, and the scholars they discuss would like to see us turn to valuing the less-polished rocks and fragments of other gems not traditionally seen as precious. These would be things like "ordinary writing," at least historically. So Royster and Kirsch are trying to help explain the tools that feminist rhetorical scholars use to analyze and therefore place value on traditionally ignored rhetorical practices (and especially those by women).

I'm not sure that we can escape the digging aspect, completely; however, I think this is probably important when thinking about archival work especially. There is a lot of "digging" required of working with texts written by other individuals. Does this relate to their idea of strategic contemplation in some way? As scholars, we have to be open to exploration and discovery. Digging seems to imply that we have a goal and are searching specifically for that item (like gold), but I think feminist rhetorical practices would ask us to be less goal-oriented in that way and to instead meditate more on the texts we do find and how we can find them. If we are "digging through the archives," we might pass over a woman's diary full of shopping lists, but if we are contemplating these texts strategically, we might see how it has more value than we initially perceived.

I do like this metaphor because of what it implies about feminist rhetorical practices, especially historical ones that require archival work. The process of digging around in a lot of "worthless" stuff (at least to you) to look for something precious (at least to you) puts a lot of value on historical feminist rhetoric and examples of it, as well as helps to think about the ways we present the kinds of information we do find. And, I think this approach relates to their desires to go simply from "uncovering" and making more present those rhetorical acts to moving beyond it. (Sorry, I'm responding without my book present right now!) I definitely would not have made this comparison, but I think it's very apt! Of course, I have been wondering about the abilities of non-women rhetors to employ feminist rhetorical practices. Maybe I'm just not far enough into the book yet, but this metaphor might also prevent us from seeing other valuable rhetorical practices if they are not precisely what we anticipate.

Hi, John! I'm about halfway through now and really enjoying the book. Who else is reading?