For this week's blog post, I am going to focus on the concept of invitational rhetoric. This form of rhetoric relies not on controlling others' views, but rather on asking them to open themselves up to other ideas. This concept comes largely from feminist theory, which focuses more on understanding and equality than other theories (Foss and Griffin, 1995). It may be argued that all forms of rhetoric are in some way persuasive, but with invitational theory the persuader is not doing so in a forward or harsh manner, but rather simply asking the other party to hear what they have to say. This can be a very useful strategy, as it makes people feel they they are not being pressured and can, therefore, made decisions on their own accord.
While Foss and Griffin (1995) make a good argument for why invitational rhetoric is a useful form of feminist persuasion, Lozano-Reich and Cloud (2009) make a fantastic argument as to why this may, in a way, be anti feminist. Historically, white men have not often "invited" people to see things their way. They often use force and control to ensure they get their way. By telling women and minorities that we must be "civil" in order to get things done, we are being controlled once again. Lozano-Reich and Cloud contend that "civility" is another way to discipline women and minorities while white men continue to get away with whatever they deem necessary in order to enact their own will (2009).
I think that we are able to see this all around us. When men get into an argument, they often time control the situation through anger or physical force. Women and minorities, on the other hand, cannot get away with such things. They are deemed "crazy" for such outbursts, while white men seem to be able to just shrug it off. Rather, women and minorities are expected to solve their problems without anger, but rather through conversation. While I do not think anything should be solved through anger, I do believe that the expectations of how things are handled by different people need to be equal, regardless or race or gender.
Catherine!!
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading this article too. When you mentioned how men try to control the argument, I felt nothing but a bit mad about how this concept can control so much. Not just in order to get things done, but in almost everything to do with what feminists stand for. I remember someone at my job called me 'crazy' after politely asking him to get something cleaned instead of sitting on their phone before and that I was being irrational and had an outburst. Very frustrating and annoying. I wonder what the best ways to combat things like that are without completely disrupting a situation or causing a problem with someone?
Hi Cat! I like that you were able to identify that the two readings showed both positive and negative uses of invitational rhetoric. I agree with your comment that women and minorities tend to be expected to be more docile and less opinionated. And when there is an issue or concern, men are allowed to show more aggression.
ReplyDeleteYour post made me think of a Nike campaign called "Dream Crazier." (If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it!) In this ad, Serena Williams is narrating, talking about how when women do certain things like showing emotion, standing up for themselves, or just getting angry, they are seen as "crazy." I think that this is a really good example of what you just described in your blogpost on the feminist aspect of invitational rhetoric. I agree with you that our society's double standard between men and women/minorities needs to change, but that brings the question of how? Where do you think we need to start in order to make these changes? How can we teach the next generations differently in order to control these unreasonable expectations?