Choose any theory, method, or concept from Chapter 6 of the textbook (Rhetorical Ways of Knowing). In the first paragraph, elaborate and explain your chosen rhetorical concept.  Next, provide a quick explanation and summary of a current event or issue of your choosing. In the last two paragraphs, apply your chosen concept/theory/method to the event and rhetorically analyze the event. In other words, how does this concept help us explain what is going on in the case you’ve chosen? Possible concepts: Terministic Screens God/Devil Terms Identification Pluralistic Inclusion Intersectionality Universal Audience Narrative Fidelity 6:46 CS a III 87 + ? 000 R p. 87 Chapter 6: Critical and Rhetorical Ways of Knowing scholars seek to illuminate how humans are shaped by economic-driven agendas and biases in both implicit and explicit ways. male, property-owning household heads were able to participate in democracy in large part because of the unpaid labor of women, children, and slaves. Likewise, under feudalism (9th- to 15th-century Europe), the lord who ruled over a particular political territory was able to experience significant freedom only by heavily taxing the serfs who harvested agriculture and produced craft goods. Marx argues that under capitalism the situation becomes more complex because labor comes to be under- stood as a universal quality that all human beings have to control or sell if they so choose. He argues that the majority of the population in capitalist societies contin- ues to be exploited, however, due to a division between one class that owns the land and controls the instruments needed to produce commodities (the bourgeoisie), and another class that works for the bourgeoisie (the prole- tariat). In addition, Marx argued that the bourgeoisie maintain their power by subtly controlling how humans communicate in various civic and private spaces believed to external to the workplace (which, following Adam Smith, he characterized as civil society). From our partic- ipation in mainstream social institutions such as schools and spaces of religious worship, to our engagement in more particular cultural activities such as reading a favorite book, watching TV on Netflix, or hanging out with friends at a shopping mall, Marx maintained that a subtle rhetorical campaign is constantly being waged by the bourgeoisie to convince the working class that capitalism is the only option and that if they do not succeed or profit in society it is due to their own personal failings (see Cloud, 1998). Since the 1990s, a large body of Marxist-influenced analyses has emerged in rhetorical studies. These works range from more traditional Marxist approaches that emphasize the role of class power in shaping human con- sciousness (e.g., Aune, 1994; Cloud, 1994), to neo-Marxist approaches that attempt to rethink economic rhetoric in a postindustrial society where labor, class, and exploita- tion take on new and more expansive meanings (e.g., Bost & Greene, 2011; Chaput, 2010; Greene, 2004; Hanan, 2010; May, 2009). While the scholarship is diverse, what unifies the economic rhetoric conversation is a concern for how economic power shapes human meaning, as well as how humans instrumentalize nature for profit or other ethically dubious and unsustainable ends. Through a vast range of case studies from television shows to public speeches and cultural forms, Marxist-influenced Critical Race Rhetoric A central aim of critical race rhetoric conversations is to critique how Whiteness has become a privileged norm and cultural ideal in today’s increasingly cosmo- politan and globally interdependent world. As Thomas Nakayama and Robert Krizek (1995) argue, Whiteness has become a cultural norm today not so much in the form of overt racism and bigotry (although this still exists as well), but by subtly permeating nearly every facet of modern society. In many countries across the globe, Whiteness has come to be the default or neutral standard of human identity when, in fact, it is itself a particular racial construct with a particular history. Critical race scholars seek to expose this history in order to make explicit the nonconscious racial biases that serve to devalue people of color and maintain a White norm. Critical race scholars also seek to bring greater attention to the complex colonial history underlying modern racial discourses and how those discourses are deeply rooted in xenophobia that can be traced all the way back to ancient Greeks and their belief that they were culturally and intellectually superior to other civ- ilizations (see, e.g., Chávez, 2015; Nakayama & Krizek, 1995; Wanzer, 2012). In recent decades, rhetoric scholars have produced a large body of literature on the topic of race and critical rhetoric. This scholarship explores, for example, the sym- bolic negotiation of race among Asian American identities (e.g., Ono & Pham, 2009), Chicano/a identities (e.g., Flores, 2003), African American identities (e.g., McPhail, 1998; Wilson, 1999), and Native American identities (e.g., Kelly, 2011; Lake, 1991). Critical race scholars also increasingly incorporate an intersectional perspective that considers how race always intersects or interacts with other social dimensions, such as class and gender, to collectively and variably produce particular subjective experiences. This research, for example, explores how experiences of Black men in the United States differ in important ways from those of Black women, as well as how their experiences are impacted by social class, sexual orientation, or ability (hooks, 2004). Although a major focus of critical race scholarship is to expose the ways that racial norms are Next Page < Reader Available r 6:46 CS ? 1111 86 + R p. 86 86 | Part II: Knowing How We Know What We (Claim to) Know gender- and sex-based norms even further. For example, in seeking to counter the ways many White second-wave feminists tended to erase important differences among women, an important part of third-wave feminism has been an appreciation of how identity always involves multiple dimensions—such as race, class, sexuality, and ability-at once. In this way, third-wave feminists have again exposed disparities and injustices, in this case by privileging the lived experiences of particular rhetorical agents. And finally, from a critical, pragmatic perspec- tive, there is no doubt that this latest wave will also be critiqued and further developed as new feminist goals and movements emerge in the future. Feminist Rhetoric The primary aim of feminist rhetoric is to critique the field's longstanding male-centric biases in order to develop rhetorical theories and practices that are sex and gender equitable. The roots of such biases certainly run deep and, historically, women have often been excluded from practicing rhetoric altogether. Indeed, when it first emerged as a formal practice in the political sphere of ancient Greece, rhetoric was strictly reserved for adult male property-owning citizens. Barred from citizenship status, women could not participate in public delibera- tion and by law were even required to have a designated man speak on their behalf in court. It was also almost entirely men who theorized rhetoric well into the mid- 20th century when, for the first time, women entered universities and began studying rhetoric in significant numbers. In this section, we briefly examine three specific strategies feminist rhetoric scholars have employed, which roughly parallel feminism's three (overlapping) waves, to counter male biases: inclusion, pluralistic inclusion, and transformative approaches. Understandably, early feminist rhetorical schol- ars focused largely on fairly straightforward inclusion efforts. Those scholars, that is, closely examined histor- ical records to identify and introduce noteworthy but neglected women rhetors into the discipline's official history books. An exemplary product of such efforts is the two-volume collection, Man Cannot Speak for Her, in which Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (1989) examines rhetorical contributions of numerous public speeches and writings by leading female abolitionists, reformers, and suffrag- ists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Through such inclusion-driven work, rhetorical theory and history have been broadened and enriched with powerful, previously excluded examples of women acting as political agents of change through the use of rhetorical skill and eloquence rivaling those of any man. While affirming the necessity and value of inclu- sion-oriented work, feminist rhetoric scholars in the 1980s began to consider its limitations as well. The main problem, they found, is that early inclusion work tended to judge the rhetoric of women against criteria established by men, thereby either era sing women's own distinctive ways of communicating or casting them as deficient and inferior (for two important survey papers advancing such a critique, see Foss & Foss, 1983; Spitzack & Carter, 1987). In response, these scholars argue for a pluralistic inclu- sion approach that seeks to recognize and value the unique and varied communication strategies of women and other marginalized groups. More recently still, scholars have critiqued prevail- ing rhetorical norms even further. Whereas a pluralistic inclusion approach enabled greater appreciation of the distinctive ways women and other marginalized groups communicate, it also continued to reinforce more fun- damental assumptions about rhetoric and its role in society. From its Greek origins on, for example, rhetoric has overwhelmingly been defined as a practice enacted by individual citizens acting in the public domain in the service of their states. Drawing on poststructuralist work, some have critiqued rhetoric's privileging of individuals and argued for attention to “collective rhetoric" instead (Biesecker, 1992), whereas others have critiqued the priv- ileging of citizenship and argued for also affirming the rhetorical practices of noncitizens, non-Westerners, and indigenous communities (Chávez, 2015). In doing so, such scholars demonstrate a transformative approach that seeks to develop fundamentally new theories of rhetoric and identity that are truly sensitive to non-normative, alternative ways of communicating. Economic Rhetoric A key aim of economic rhetoric is to show how economic power influences human communication at both the micro and macro levels of society. According to Karl Marx (1867/1992), the founder of this tradition, econom- ics is a way of organizing society that privileges certain classes over others. In Ancient Greece, for example, the Next Page < ?? platform.virdocs.com r 6:46 CS a III 88 + R p. 88 88 | Part II: Knowing How We Know What We (Claim to) Know constructed through a systemic process that grants cer- tain bodies greater economic and cultural privileges than others, such scholars also explore how rhetoric can be used to resist and counter such processes through myriad everyday cultural practices and rhetorics (e.g., Ono & Sloop, 1995, 2002). A present-day example of critical race rhetoric can be appreciated in relation to the Black Lives Matter social movement. Black Lives Matter can be understood on a rhetorical level as a campaign that encourages the public to confront how, in the 21st century, Black lives often continue to be treated as less valuable than White lives. Against the postracial narrative in which racism, slavery, and discrimination are mere relics of the past, Black Lives Matter exposes the ways that Black lives continue to suffer from higher rates of police brutality and homicide, incar- ceration, and general economic hardship and exploitation. The public reception of the Black Lives Matter movement has clearly been deeply mixed and divided. Many activists on the political left have embraced the movement and see it as an heir to the Black Power tradition of the 1960s and 1970s. Many conservatives, on the other hand, widely dis- miss the need for such a movement in the first place, with some going so far as to propose modified slogans of their own such as, “All Lives Matter.” To critical race scholars, such a slogan reasserts a color-blind ideal by erasing the ongoing violence and injustices that Americans of color continue to experience (see Biesecker, 2017). determined, heteronormativity is an unstable and his- torically rooted construction that can always be changed through rhetoric. The recent federal legalization of same- sex marriage in the United States in 2015, for example, is, in large part, the result of many years of activism to counter heteronormativity and affirm a diverse range of sexual orientations and identities as equally normal and legitimate. Likewise, the mainstreaming of the acronym LGBTQI—for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex—is another example of the successfulness of queer activist movements to alter prevailing language in ways that challenge and disrupt heteronormativity. In the communication studies discipline, a significant body of queer rhetoric scholarship seeks to define rhetoric in queer terms. Paralleling the feminist and critical race scholarship on which this research builds, queer rheto- ricians contend that queer rhetorical perspectives and practices have always existed and that the conventional narrative of rhetoric violently limits how rhetoric can be conceptualized. Consequently, a queer rhetoric per- spective illuminates how dominant, normative notions of rhetoric are always entangled with the nonnormative rhetorical performances that they exclude. A good example of this approach to queer rhetoric is the “queer public address” perspective popularized by Charles Morris (2007). One of the most influential approaches to queer rhetoric in the discipline, this perspective takes up particular historical figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, in order to show how the success of their public rhetoric was in fact influenced by queer experiences that society has attempted to ignore or erase. There is much evidence, for example, that Lincoln was bisexual and that this sexual orientation influenced his style as a great American orator. Such evidence, however, has been largely excluded from official history and Lincoln biographies, which a queer public address perspective seeks to recognize and affirm (Morris, 2009). Queer rhetoric scholars also study and contribute to queer activist movements, which can be seen, for example, in the work of Daniel Brouwer (2001) and Erin Rand (2012) on the ACT UP movement that sought to bring an end to the AIDS pandemic. Queer Rhetoric An important task of the queer rhetoric conversation is to expose the symbolic forces that perpetuate heteronorma- tivity. Building on the highly influential work of Michel Foucault (1990a, 1990b) and Judith Butler (1990, 1993), this conversation promotes what has come to be known as a performative understanding of human identity. From a performative perspective (see also Chapter 8), human sexuality, for example, cannot be reduced to biological factors rooted in human genes or sex chromosomes but must be understood, instead, as an always unstable discursive process maintained through heteronorma- tive language, symbols, institutions, and other cultural practices. Conceived in this way, heteronormativity is a discursive construction that normalizes heterosexuality to the exclusion of all other sexual orientations. At the same time, because it is discursive and not genetically Disability Rhetoric A primary goal of disability rhetoric is to expose the cen- trality of ableism in Western society and culture. While there is increased discussion of inclusive excellence," Next Page < ?? platform.virdocs.com r 6:46 CS a III 89 + R p. 89 Chapter 6: Critical and Rhetorical Ways of Knowing "diversity," and "disability accommodation, this is a very recent development. Throughout the majority of Western history, society has strongly discriminated against and at times even killed people with disabil- ities. In the ancient world, for example, the Spartans practiced state-sanctioned infanticide that only allowed those babies to survive who were perceived to be free from disabilities. In similar ways, Plato and Aristotle portrayed women, slaves, and foreigners as mentally defi- cient versions of men, which, in turn, justified excluding them from politics or practicing rhetoric in the public sphere (Wilson & Lewiecki-Wilson, 2001). The modern Nazi Party combined the ableism of the ancient world with a modern practice known as eugenics. Rooted in sham scientific knowledge, eugenics is a racially moti- vated set of beliefs and practices, often overseen by state and/or nonstate institutions, that promotes the segre- gation or, in extreme cases, even the murder of human populations believed to be physically, biologically, and/or cognitively inferior, undesirable, or disabled. In the case of the Nazi Party, eugenics motivated the mass exter- mination of all Jewish people and the confinement of the state's disabled citizens to psychiatric wards or con- centration camps. While today eugenics does not exist in the socially acceptable form that it did for the Nazi Party, some argue that subtler expressions continue to be practiced against people with disabilities. In many countries, for example, procedures are available that enable pregnant women to screen for factors suggesting a risk of various genetic diseases, such as Down syndrome, which, when found, may even influence the decision to have an abortion. As the common thread in dominant Western discourse linking together the disparagement and marginalization of all human non normative groups, disability rhetoric scholars have also been able to seize on rhetoric as a particularly powerful means of developing and advancing an intersectional understanding of iden- tity in general. In his recent book, Disability Rhetoric, for example, Jay Dolmage (2014) argues that an understand- ing of knowledge as inherently rhetorical rather than philosophical enables an understanding of differences among humans as generative and valuable rather than treating differences as deficits measured against a single, dominant norm. Dolmage also develops his argument through critical analyses of prevailing disability tropes (i.e., common figurative or metaphorical expressions or representations of a group or other topic) in popular films and other media. Disability has become an increasingly widespread topic of conversation in the 21st century. With more disabil- ities diagnosed than ever before the question over what constitutes a disability has increasingly come to the fore. Consider, for example, attention deficit disorder and atten- tion deficit hyperactivity disorder, referred to, together, as AD(H)D. As a learning difference that is said to afflict more than 10% of the American population, AD(H)D has become a veritable pandemic in recent years (Schwarz, 2013). Yet whether AD(H)D is actually a disability or not has become the topic of heated debate and contestation. For example, some argue that AD(H)D is not a disability at all but rather the product of living in a hypermedi- ated environment that inundates people with a nonstop flow of information (Carr, 2011). Others have argued that AD(H)D is a rhetorical technology of selfhood that results from living in a capitalist society whose highest ideals are productivity and efficiency (Hanan, 2019). Still others have argued, from a very different angle, that AD(H) D gives an unfair advantage to diagnosed individuals because the medications that get prescribed for treatment are the cognitive equivalent of steroids (Hirneise, 2016). Thus, whether AD(H)D is a disability or not remains the subject of contestation and speaks to the historical, envi- ronmental, and social conditions that underpin disability diagnoses. Environmental Rhetoric A central aim of the environmental rhetoric conversation is to show how human interactions with the nonhuman environment are influenced by the symbols they use in the public sphere to communicate about the environ- ment (see Pezzullo & Cox, 2017). The historical roots of this conversation can be found in the conservation- ist movements of the 19th century that were pushed in new directions by later environmentalist movements that emerged in the second half of the 20th century. Many argue that the mainstreaming of words like "green," "organic,” and “sustainability provides compelling evidence of the environmental movement's successes and progress. Others, however, see the recent popularity of such terms merely as an example of savvy marketers coopting environmentalist language in the service of promoting the fundamentally unsustainable system of Next Page < ?? platform.virdocs.com r 6:46 ..11 CS a III 90 + ? 000 R p. 90 90 | Part II: Knowing How We Know What We (Claim to) Know capitalism (for a discussion of these tensions see Hanan, 2013; Kendall, 2008). In recent decades, environmental communication has grown into an established subdiscipline of communication studies. Whereas not all environmental communication scholars employ only rhetorical methods, they all analyze the important role played by symbols in shaping how humans interact with their environment and ecology. One of the most important developments of the environmental communication subdiscipline has been a discussion of the way nature is negotiated rhetorically. These scholars argue, for example, that nature is not a passive backdrop against which the saga of human history unfolds, but a dynamic and shifting web of ecological relations (see, for example, Stormer & McGreavy, 2017). Rhetoric schol- ars have also highlighted the centrality of rhetoric to the political framing of climate change. For example, Chris Russill (2008) argued for the rhetorical usefulness of the "tipping points" frame for conveying the severity and urgency of global warming (e.g., if enough Artic ice melts it will eventually expose so much sunlight-absorbing dark water that a “tipping point” will be crossed, resulting in rapid melting of the rest of the ice). Finally, environmental communication scholars have brought attention to the role of rhetoric in resisting organizations and corpora- tions that are bent on environmental exploitation. Kevin DeLuca (2012), for example, brings our attention to the importance of images, or visual rhetoric, for resisting environmentally harmful and inhumane practices such as whale harpooning. Rhetorical scholars have investigated many genres and contexts. The genres selected for review here have provided TABLE 6.2: Contrasting Critical Approaches to Modern Rhetorical Theory and Criticism Critical Approach Feminist rhetoric Critiques Patriarchy and sexism Affirms Function(s) of Rhetoric Differences in rhetorical Inclusion; pluralistic inclusion; practices across sex and gender promoting social transformation as equally valid and effective Economic freedom and equality Ideology critique; class for all mobilization Economic rhetoric Economic power and class exploitation Critical race rhetoric Colonialism; White supremacy; the pervasive ideology of Whiteness Heteronormativity Queer rhetoric Disability rhetoric Ableism; eugenics Decolonization; conceptualizing Transforming symbols that race as a historically mutable naturalize racial difference; social construct decentering Whiteness Gender nonconforming The means through which identities; equal dignity, rights, sexual identity is performed and and freedoms for LGBTQI negotiated; queer public address populations Equal dignity, rights, and Critically examining how tropes freedoms for people living with and the designs of physical physical and mental disabilities; places perpetuate ability and an understanding of disability disability norms; practices that (and ability) as historically, symbolically influence the role socially, and politically produced and image of disability in all human communication An active rather than passive Visual images; frames; other conception of nature and symbolic vehicles for resisting ecology; sustainable human- environmental exploitation nature relations Environmental rhetoric Human exceptionalism; environmental destruction Next Page < ?? platform.virdocs.com r Purchase answer to see full attachment Explanation & Answer: 3 Paragraphs Tags: intersectionality Race and Gender forms of discrimination User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.